NBSIR 79-1787

MIUS Feasibility

Studies

1

FEB 2 8 V,- Five Exploratory

by

David J. Mitchell

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

January 1980

MODULAR INTEGRATED O mius UTILITY SYSTEMS

improving community utility services by supplying

electricity, heating, cooling, and woter/ processing

liquid and solid wastes/ conserving energy and

rrotural resources/ minimizing environmental impoct

For Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

Office of Policy Development and Research

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410
J
NBSIR 79-1787

MIUS FEASIBILITY - FIVE EXPLORATORY

STUDIES

by

David J. Mitchell

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

January 1980

For Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

Office of Policy Development and Research

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

z

•>»

c

Q
S ^ ^ bfiB YO^onfioeT erublluS ,ygie<i3 to r»oirt!^»a ^ j rtoiBseftfl bns rn»mqolavoO k>

>. - momqoli^veQ nsdiU bn« ijniauoH to Jrto/nfH«|oCl t>HT

OfK)£ O.Q .noigoirte^W

LI ^

'l:

,A3i. ssJuUI .M qmiM 30n3MM00 30 TW3MT«A33a *2.0

.C

' >o»ir»wia iUwt*Q ..'l. sMfbofi .H

^o^ 'fymfwa^ iiwitiwlw .iloimQ .(• nmtowb

votMnkOk rMmS. ,aO^AQ14ATB

^ l|A3WU0 JAWOITAH

~ *-<r

- h
FOREWORD

HUD - MIUS Program

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducted the

Modular Integrated Utility System (MIUS) program devoted to development

and demonstration of the technical, economic, and institutional advantages of integrating the systems for providing all or several of the

utility services for a community. The utility services included electric

power, heating and cooling, potable water, liquid waste treatment, and

solid waste management. The objective of the MIUS concept was to provide

the desired utility services consistent with reduced use of critical

natural resources, protection of the environment, and minimized cost.

The program goal was to foster, by effective development and demonstration, early implementation of the integrated utility system concept by

the organization, private or public, selected by a given community to

provide its utilities.

Under HUD direction, several agencies participated in the HUD-MIUS

Program, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense,

the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The

National Academy of Engineering provided an independent assessment of

the program.

This publication is one in a series developed under the HUD-MIUS Program

and is intended to further a particular aspect of the program goal.

ill
CONTENTS

Page

Foreword iii

Units of Measure and S.I. Conversion Factors . . 1 v Abstract 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 Task Description 1 1.2 Presentation of Results “ 6

1.3 Conclusions 9

2. COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 14

2.1 Evaluation Methodology 14

2.1.1 Before Development 14

2.1.2 Site Engineering Suitability 15

2.1.3 Social and Economic Evaluations 16

2.1.4 Federal, State, and Local Regulations 19

2.1.5 Comparison of MIUS and Conventional

Utilities 19

2.2 Presentation of Results 20

2.2.1 Housing Project #1 20

2.2.2 Housing Project //2 28

2.2.3 Housing Project #3 34

2.2.4 Housing Project //4 40

2.2.5 Housing Project #5 .' 47

3. COMPARATIVE ENERGY ANALYSIS 54

3.1 Evaluation Methodology 54

3.1.1 NASA Methodology 54

3.1.2 Hittman/McClure Methodology 62

3.2 Presentation of Results 71

3.2.1 NASA Evaluation 71

3.2.2 NBS Evaluation 86

4. UTILITY SYSTEM DESIGN AND COST ANALYSIS 103

4.1 Evaluation Methodology 103

4.1.1 NASA Methodology 103

4.1.2 Hittman/McClure Methodology ..... Ill

4.2 Presentation of Results 116

4.2.1 NASA Evaluation 117

4.2.2 Hittman/McClure Evaluation 131

REFERENCES 142

APPENDIX A 143

APPENDIX B 150

iv
UNITS OF MEASURE AND S.I. CONVERSION FACTORS

In NBS Document LC 1056, revised August 1975, guidelines were established to reaffirm and stengthen the commitment of NBS to the greatest

practicable use of the International System of Units (S.I.) in all of its

publications and also in all of its dealings with the science and engineering communities and with the public. In this report the measurements are

those of the U.S. Customary units.

The following conversion factors are appropriate for the units of

measure that appear in this report:

Area

1 acre O

1 square foot (ft )

Energy

= 4046.873 square meter (m ) = .09290304 square meter (m )

1 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055.056 joule (J)

1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3600000.0 joule (J)

1 ton-hour = 12660672.0 joule (J)

Flow Rate

1 U.S. gallon per minute (gpm) = 0.0000630902 meters^/second

= 63.0902 centimeters^/second (cm /s) = 0.0630902 liters/second (L/s)

Length

1 inch (in.)

1 foot (ft.)

1 mile

Mass

1 pound-mass (1 lb)

Temperature

= 0.0254 meter (m) = 0.3048 meter (m)

= 1609.347 meter (m)

= .4535924 kilogram

1 degree Fahrenheit (“F) » (1.8)“^ kelvin (K) or (*K)

Temperature Fahrenheit (“F)= (459.67 + temp. ®F)/1.8 (*K)

Time

1 hour (h) = 60 minutes (min) = 3600 seconds (s)

Volume

1 U.S. liquid gallon (gal) = 0.003785412 meter^ (m^)

= 3.785412 liters (L)

V
* J5

ejTOT*’»A’s «otag|V>iQ3 oha to iiiftu

-d4Jt« >w wiX«t*Ju8

,*e0| 3J JflKrtW^oQ MW ql

^ >cr^l*Mto •ftJ n»rts^j* bifB oj£!lltfi*li

•31 II* al f.f.«! ejl/itf »43 >• •«« •lrf«an3»3<i

-hfWtWA ^la *oHaAi# u'liif /k^l 'io 'LU 'trt •k»rn^B9ct3^^muq

»»• •Wi(»'r¥vJ«« #.'T^ >^jqot -rlJr# 4#l-3 i|><«i*o»^nl

r^>- ^~ %Ki:

!?'

.'1/9 '•Htf Vi »io#f1 '.

^6 •iijfu.i *6^ 'rt- !* JJf^1f‘1^?'’^|<^^»* is4 4't<f33»l tUitwftsVnvs *%exymilxA »rfX |’^' " moKtoi 9i<tS »t ismixiu'TtutJi ^Tiy**#*

# .

. *

‘> '

;vi

(*iiV '*•:?£* ^i 4up«

i'

r

‘ ”^T3* I (*3J> J

' • * *. :

.

. w

11

..I.) ;iim3!t •'^ 0 .C?»:'^ *'''f'Ti^ Ifcor i

(t ' 4lu/f{ 0 /WWb^ ^ 3 «iiN» lU S (t) -licibt p.r^-waasf - i. l4‘.

(Of. lA ' '.‘^'t *• ...v’u**- - '«*. '• 5*1 wol’f'

, ti

/

' . ’ ,r 'TTJ*.. 1

* • 8 . 9 I

t*U)-l»/'r. 3 »tW93i^ .... * . *‘ ^

, J *

g

' . , « «

''(at W^O.t) -

>^' '» ' T»r .^«p 8 ^ o£ .o

l4l

«

W.Wdlt-

*• ' »* *<;nX) *rl?»:b i

. . • »(J 31 > 5^1 J

54!

r

' w » '« • V * #

• # 3' ^4t 1 ) *tsiur-bm;MQpq 1

t- v"n

jr |r' „;• ?.

' ^ 4 4

« % • 4 i • Iv)

W) (f? fflvt»i ^<|.I) * “(SM 31»4n83rt«^'d»'5»»i^ i' JUJ

) B )5

^^y. 9g>>. ) 3 l#4^ir«4 8ta3 ttlK|a«7

I"*. • ' «

•'' -.A

«? idi6« OW • ?nil») t#3MAi!« «d • w 3oo4

«nlt

X A'tm

JT«_.

^T9ism ^X^WC9<)i^ • (l»$) ooi|t« 41opll».e.9 I (d) iI 4W^.X -

'J

V . ' ' I *

f V . • aflulo^^!^

,(^'i
MIUS FEASIBILITY - FIVE EXPLORATORY STUDIES

by

David J. Mitchell

Abstract

This report highlights the collaborative efforts of the National Bureau

of Standards, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and their

contractors in the comparative analysis of a Modular Integrated Utility

System (MIUS) and conventional utilities for five separate housing projects. The collaborative efforts consist of three separate tasks:

1. Comparative Environmental Analysis

2. Comparative Energy Analysis

3. Utility System Design and Cost Analysis

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 TASK DESCRIPTION

This report describes a collaborative effort to determine how much energy

can be conserved for utilities by five housing projects serviced by a MIUS

in lieu of conventional means. This collaborative effort also quantified

relative MIUS cost in terms of initial costs, annual costs and environmental

impact. The residential utilities studied were: electricity, heating, air

conditioning, domestic hot water, potable water, wastewater treatment and

solid waste disposal. The collaborative effort was based on housing projects

selected at random. Both NASA and NBS completed separate energy and cost

analyses. These analyses investigated the impact on each utility and on

utility service to a housing project as a whole. This report also details

the methods utilized to design and to evaluate MIUS and conventional utility

systems for each housing project. It should be of interest to individuals

interested in MIUS design and the projected relative impacts of MIUS

on residential utility service.

The membership of the collaborative effort consisted of: Mr. Clinton W.

Phillips (NBS) - Chairman; Mr. Carey F. Lively (NASA) - Alternate Chairman; Mr. Harold E. Benson - NASA; Mr. William L. Carroll - NBS; Mr. John R.

Schaefgen - NBS; and Mr. Barry M. Wolfer - NASA. Hittman Associates Inc.

,

Charles J. R. McClure Associates, Inc. and Wapora, Inc. provided contract

support to NBS.

Section 1. is an overview of this report. It defines the tasks undertaken,

the issues addressed, approach adopted, the preliminary results obtained,

and how such results should be interpreted. Section 2. presents a comparative

environmental analysis of each of five housing projects. Wapora, Inc. developed

the environmental analyses for both MIUS and conventional utility service

under contract to NBS. Section 3 presents a. comparative energy analysis

of MIUS and conventional utility service for each of the five housing projects.

1
The Urban System Planning Office (USPO) developed the comparative energy

analyses for NASA; Hittman Associates and J.R. McClure Associates, for

NBS. Section 4 presents the comparative economic analyses. The same teams

developed the analyses in Section 4.

1.1.1 Ta sk 1 - Comparative Environmental Analysis

MIUS and conventional utility system design information, including plant

performance data (e.g., effluent quantity and quality), was received as input from Task 3 (1.1.3-Utility System Design and Cost Analysis). These

performance data, combined with site characteristic data supplied by the

developer and that determined by site visits, were used to determine

the environmental impact of both MIUS and conventional utility systems

on each housing project and on the region at large.

Under contract to NBS, Wapora has prepared an environmental evaluation

system and checklist (Table 1.1. 1.1) to be used for the five housing

projects. Wapora evaluated proposals for four cases: Site Before

Development; Development Only; Development With MIUS; and Development

With Conventional Utilities. The basic system utilized is an adaptation

and simplification of the Environmental Evaluation system as proposed by

Battelle - Columbus in July 1973. Wapora has altered the methodology to

reflect the terrestrial orientation of the housing projects and the modest

amount of environmental data which was available at the time of the field

survey. The field survey and environmental evaluation were performed by

the same three individuals to minimize orientation and subjective errors.

1.1.2 Task 2 - Comparative Energy Analysis

The developer's site plans, conceptual building plans, and preliminary

engineering reports were used to formulate input for' the site load

calculations. Supplemental Information was obtained where necessary.

A complete, detailed analysis of the housing project buildings was undertaken to generate the site loads, both occupancy and weather related,

at both average and "design" conditions. These data were used as an

input to initiate the utility system design activities under Task 3.

The calculated site loads were compared to the developer's predicted

site utility loads. Only the calculated site load data were used in

Task 3.

MIUS and conventional utility system design data input from Task 3 were

used along with the calculated loads data to calculate the comparative

energy consumption. The energy consumption data included both the secondary

(e.g., electricity, district heat at the point of conversion) and primary

(e.g., oil, gas, nuclear, and coal) energy demand and consumption necessary

to meet the calculated site loads.

2
Table 1.1. 1.1

Environmental Evaluation System

MIUS

Parameter List

ECOLOGY

Terrestrial Species and Populations

Vegetation

Large Animals

Small Animals

Pests

Aquatic Species and Populations

Vegetation

Fish

Waterfowl

Pests

Terrestrial Habitats and Communities

Rare and Endangered Species

Species Diversity

Aquatic Habitats and Communities

Rare and Endangered Species

Species Diversity

PHYSICAL /CHEMICAL

Biochemical Water Quality

Dissolved Oxygen

Nutrient Levels

Fecal Coliform

Chemical Water Quality

Hazardous Materials

pH

Physical Water Environment

Frequency of Extreme Flows

Temperature

Turbidity

Land Use

Development Suitability

Induced Secondary Development

Soil Erosion

Solid Waste Disposal

Noise Pollution

AESTHETICS

Land

Surface Configuration

Land Appearance

Geological Surface Material

Air

Odor

Visual

Sound

Water

Flow

Clarity

Floating Material

Biota

Terrestrial Animals

Aquatic Life

Vegetation

Man-Made Structures

Architectural Design Structures

Compatibility with Other

Structures and Natural Envir.

Planting and Site Design

Composition

Composite Effect

Unique Composition

SOCIAL

Environmental Interests

Recreational Activities

Educational /Scientific

Community

Regional Economic Impact

Community Housing Participation

Impact on Community Services

Relocation

3
1.1.3 Task 3 - Utility System Design and Cost Analysis

Based on the calculated site load data received as input from Task 2,

a conceptual design was generated for the conventional utilities system

described by the developer. This design utilized existing power generation, solid waste, potable water and sewage treatment facilities as available to the site. If any of these services did not exist (e.g., sewer moratorium was in effect), the design utilized alternative typical

systems

.

Again based on the input data from Task 2, a generic MIUS design was

tailored for the particular site. The generic MIUS design consisted of:

1. Engine-generators;

2. Exhaust and jacket heat recovery;

3. Auxiliary boiler;

4. Absorption and compression chillers;

5. Four-pipe hot and chilled water site distribution system

6. Solid waste incinerator with heat recovery (where beneficial);

7. Physical-chemical packaged liquid waste treatment

systems with effluent recycle for cooling tower

make-up, fire protection and lawn watering;

8. Potable water treatment (where beneficial);

9. Site electrical distribution system;

10. Plant control, monitoring and environmental control systems; and

11. Thermal storage (where beneficial).

The conventional and site-tailored MIUS conceptual design data were used

as output to three parallel analysis activities: first, to the Task 2

comparative energy conservation analysis; second, to the utility system

costing activity (another element of Task 3 analysis); third, to the

Task 1 comparative environmental analysis. The utility system costing

element of Task 3 consisted of; (1) initial capital cost estimating for

all components of both the MIUS and conventional systems; (2) operating

and maintenance (0 & M) cost estimating for purchased services, fuel,

labor, materials and applicable taxes; and (3) capital cost estimating for

capital replacement items. The 0 & M estimating utilized energy data

input from Task 2. Costs were developed using site or regional variations

as available for fuel, labor, purchased utility services, and taxes. The

0 & M items and capital replacement items were cost-estimated for the

first year of expected operation with appropriate cost escalation factors

applied. The capital and 0 & M data were then used to calculate the cost

on an annual basis, including debt service at 8% interest for 20 years.

1.1.4 HOUSING PROJECTS EVALUATED

In the course of the comparative analyses, many residential/commercial

projects were identified which were in various stages of construction.

This section will describe five such projects which were subjects of

the study. Table 1.1. 4.1 gives a brief comparative outline of the five

housing projects.

4
Table 1.1. 4.1

Housing Project Descriptors

Housing Project

H n in* y/5

Dwelling Units: 767 344 1264 1628 500

MH (%)

SFA (%) 69

58

29 34 100

SFD (%) 30 55 25

MFLR (%) 31 12 16 41

Building Number 76 151 773 515 94

Ace rage 102 210 327 625 100

Density (DU/A):

Gross 7.5 1.6 3.9 2.6 5.0

Net 4.2 6.3 6.1

Present Land Use Farm Farm Suburban Suburban Suburban

Legend:

MH - SFA - SFD - MFLR - MFHR - Gross - Net -

* _

Mobile Home

Single-family attached

Single -family detached

Multi-family low rise

Multi-family high rise

Total site

Immediate site occupied by DU's

Includes Village Center - 20,000 ft^

5
1.1.5 Author's Note

The report is a summary of previously unpublished initial MIUS feasibility

studies which were not originally intended for publication purposes. These

studies were not published because the energy, cost, and environmental

analyses were based on MIUS and conventional utility system conceptual

designs. The author did not participate in this effort. This report is an accurate condensation of the documentation which was developed by NASA

and NBS.

1.2 PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS

1.2.1 Comparative Environmental Analysis

The information available for each of the five housing project sites

evaluated did not permit a rigorous comparison of environmental considerations. This is principally due to the fact that only one of the

five projects had reached a stage of planning sufficiently advanced to

provide this necessary information except in conceptual terms.

A review of the findings indicates that, in terms of environmental consequences, the utilization of a MIUS is favored when considering the quality

of wastewater discharges and is relatively equal in comparison to conventional utility services when considering land use.

1.2. 1.1 Housing Project #1

MIUS is rated higher in regard to wastewater, since addition of a highquality effluent to the nearby creek would be more desirable than sending

the waste to the secondary treatment plant. MIUS also rates higher in

regard to solid waste because of the reduction in the volume which must

be sent to landfill. MIUS rated slightly higher than conventional in

terras of land which must be devoted to utility services.

1.2. 1.2 Housing Project #2

Solid waste disposal favors MIUS-, but to a lesser extent because of the

small size of the project and the probable ease of finding landfill sites.

MIUS is favored when wastewater disposal is considered because of the

problems which might be required in adapting a septic tank system to a community of this type, especially when the water table may reach to near the surface in times of flooding. Land use is considered to favor

the MIUS slightly, primarily because of the area which will have to be

devoted to the septic system.

1*2. 1.3 Housing Project #3

The rating for wastewater is about even. There is no advantage associated

with the high quality of the MIUS effluent if disposed of by spray irrigation.

Solid waste disposal is becoming a problem in the metropolitan area. There

is no advantage for either utility system in terms of land use.

6
1.2. 1.4 Housing Project #4

The use of MIUS would be favored based on wastewater as a high quality

effluent to the river rather than to discharge a secondary effluent to

the river. The reduction by MIUS in the amount of solid waste which must be

transported to landfill is an advantage. However, solid waste disposal

sites are not scarce. In terms of land use there would seem to be no advantage to either option.

1.2. 1.5 Housing Project #5

With spray irrigation of the wastewater effluent for both systems, there

is no advantage to either system. If permission could be obtained to

discharge into the river, MIUS would have a considerable advantage because

of the higher quality of its effluent. Because of the scarcity of suitable

sites for sanitary landfill, the smaller amount of solid waste from the

MIUS is a significant advantage. In terms of land use, MIUS is penalized

slightly because of increased requirements for the environmentally desirable

forest land.

1.2.2 Comparative Energy Analysis

Energy values were calculated for MIUS and conventional utility service by

both NASA and NBS teams for each housing project. In some cases, site

assumptions used by NASA and NBS were somewhat different. No effort has

been made to reconcile differences in site assumptions and systems designs

on which energy calculations are based.

The NASA MIUS and conventional systems designs were fairly standardized

for all sites. The MIUS system used diesel engines with heat recovery

from the exhaust, water jacket, and lube oil. Solid waste was incinerated

and the heat recovered. Heating was accomplished with recovered heat and

supplemented by boilers when required. Cooling was accomplished by a floating compression/absorption split. Thermal storage was used where

applicable. The NASA conventional design was a standard system not tailored

to individual sites, but providing a standardized comparison for different

MIUS installations. It assumed a power generation efficiency of 30% and

uses central heating and cooling systems for all buildings except singlefamily dwellings.

The NBS-MIUS design was similar to NASA’s with some exceptions. Heat was

not recovered from the lube oil and, in some cases, from the Incineration

process. The conventional systems were tailored to each site and, for

instance, used natural gas when available. Natural gas was also used in

the NBS-MIUS when it was available and more efficient.

The energy requirements resulting from these designs are presented in

Table 1.2. 2.1. First the NASA MIUS and NASA conventional (CONV) systems

are compared, then the NASA MIUS and NBS conventional systems, and finally

the NBS MIUS and NBS conventional systems. Although there are differences

in the numbers as derived by NASA and NBS due principally to the variations

7
I

Table 1.2. 2.1

Energy Comparisons

(All energy numbers in 10^ Btu's)

Housing NASA NASA

'roject // MIUS CONV %Savingi

1 115 168 32

2 52 60 13

3 417 514 19

4 327 460 29

5 81 121 33

Housing NASA NBS

Project if MIUS CONV %Savlngs

1 115 302 62

2 52 33 -58

3 417 496 16

4 327 485 33

5 81 217 63

Housing NBS NBS

Project if MIUS CONV %Savlngs

1 144 302 52

2 36 33 -9

3 398 496 20

4 461 485 5

5 106 217 51

8
in assumptions as described above, a trend for significant MIUS energy

savings relative to conventional utility service is clearly demonstrated.

1.2.3 Utility System Design and Cost Analysis

The analysis was based on the comparison of the differential costs

between MIUS and conventional including the 0 & M costs and debt service

on the capital. Cost data are summarized in Table 1.2. 3.1. The elements

Involved in the analysis are: the capital costs of MIUS and conventional

utility systems; the annual operating and maintenance costs for MIUS

and conventional utilities; and cost projections of fuel, capital goods,

labor and the cost of capital. The capital costs are for 1976; 0 & M costs for 1977. In general, there is good agreement between the basic

cost numbers determined by NASA and Hit tman/McClure.

1.3 CONCLUSIONS

1.3.1 Comparative Environmental Analysis

This study indicates that there is little or no difference in the magnitude of the environmental impact attributable to the installation and

operation of a MIUS in lieu of conventional utility services.

The treated wastewater discharged from the MIUS for each of the five housing

project sites will be of higher quality than that achieved by the off-site

waste treatment plant which will be used by the community if there is no MIUS. The specifications for water quality that the MIUS must meet assure

the validity of this conclusion. An evaluation of the receiving stream

when using a MIUS versus the municipal waste treatment plant was made for

each housing project. Three of the projects will discharge into the same receiving stream regardless of which of the alternative treatment

plants is employed. Housing Project #4, however, will discharge into

a river if the regional wastewater treatment plant is used, and to a second river if a MIUS is employed. The first is much larger; however,

the minimum flow of the second is approximately 1,000 gpm, which is three

times the volume of treated wastewater to be discharged by the MIUS.

The high quality of the discharge would therefore not be expected to

exceed the assimilative capacity of the river. Housing Project //3 would

in all probability employ spray irrigation for the discharge of the MIUS.

The site had not yet been selected for the regional treatment plant that

would be used as the eventual alternate to the MIUS. Summarized, in

terms of water discharges, the environmental quality for each project

would be improved rather than reduced if a MIUS is utilized for the

treatment of the wastewater generated by the proposed community.

It has been decided that the sanitary sludge generated by MIUS will not

be incinerated, due to potential problems associated with the performance

of Incineration equipment if sanitary sludge was Included with the solid

waste. This restraint dictated conventional landfill. The alternative

wastewater treatment facility available to each of the five housing project

sites apparently would have also employed landfill as the means of disposal of

the sanitary sludges. The information made available does not indicate

9
Table 1.2. 3.1

Cost Summary

Housing Project

#1 #2 #3 #4

Capita Cost ('75 $ x 10 ) MIUS (H/M)* 5532 2776 10171 11862

MIUS (NASA) 5058 1961 10373 13546

CONV (H/M) 1220 699 1461 2461

CONV (NASA) 4643 1672 10573 12665

Annual Cost ('77 $ x 10”^)

MIUS (H/M) 1011 399 2240 2648

MIUS (NASA) 548 240 1276 1343

CONV (H/M) 975 204 2330 2911

CONV (NASA) 545 193 1207 1425

Annual Savlngs('77 $ x 10”^)

(w/o plant amort.)

H/M -36 -195 90 263

NASA - 3 - 47 -69 83

Annual Savings ('77 $ x 10”^)

(w/plant amort.)

H/M -471 -405 -790 -686

NASA 45 -76 -49 -6

Legend:

H/M - Hittman Associates/Charles J.R. McClure Associates

NASA - Urban Systems Project Office, Johnson Space Flight

Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

#5

5029

5169

1444

4640

906

446

902

418

- 4

-28

-366

-81

10
that any of the nunicipal treatment oiants incinerate sludge. Therefore,

since the disposal technique and site employed as are the same for the

sanitary sludge generated by the proposed communities, the environmental

degradation attributable to this disposal method will be essentially equal

whether or not the community utilizes a MIUS.

The facilities planned for the five housing projects to accommodate and

control storm water drainage and run-off would have been installed regardless

of which alternative was employed to provide utilities. Three of five

housing projects planned to create two small ponds on the development site

to provide storage for run-off control which would have represented an improvement

in the environmental quality in carefully designed and maintained facilities.

Housing Projects #1 and #2 planned to provide storm water run-off drainage

out-falls to the streams that are on the site property lines. The detailed

information necessary to evaluate the environmental effects of these run-off

facilities was not available. However, due to the proximity of the receiving

streams, careful design and planning can produce effective results with

minimal undesirable environmental consequences.

Each project provided for potable water supply employing the same facilities regardless of the presence or absence of a MIDS. The water

supply was on-site or adjacent to the site for all projects except the one located at Housing Project #1. At this site a water supply appeared

to be available within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of the development property

line. The land area required to provide a right-of—way for a pipeline

would be approximately one acre, and would have probably paralleled existing

roads. The environmental effects would have therefore been minimal.

1.3.2 Comparative Environmental Analysis

The methods of providing heating and cooling had a significant effect

on energy consumption on both the MIUS and conventional utilities. In

particular, the use of strip heaters required considerably more energy

than heat pumps or gas heating. This factor can be as large as 20Z

of the energy savings.

The recovery of heat from incineration can provide approximately 15Z

of the total energy requirement of a housing project. The utilization

of this energy varied significantly with the heating and cooling requirements of the site which varies considerably with the season. Various

heat values and amounts of trash produced affected the availability of

recoverable incinerator heat. Better data on these variables are needed.

The recovery of lubrication oil thermal energy provided approximately

lOZ of the total energy requirement of a building site; the feasibility

of this concept required further demonstration. Thermal storage could

also benefit MIUS in several situations.

11
1.3.3 Utility System Design and Cost Analysis

The density of dwelling units served affected the MIUS cost in the distribution of services, particularly HVAC. Also, the percentage of single

family dwellings (SFD’s) affected the energy balance in chat it was not cost

effective to serve all SFD's with central hot and chilled water; therefore,

electricity produced for SFD's did not provide for the use of recovered

heat. Use of air-to-air heat pumps on a site powered by a MIUS was about

the same in energy usage and was, therefore, not energy conserving in

contrast to individual fuel-fired systems.

Fuel availability affected energy savings and costs. In general, natural

gas used in a conventional system was relatively cheap and constrained the

viability of a MIUS. Fuel oil prices and relative growth rate of fuel

prices was a strong influence on fuel use and its cost. The escalation

rates for oil and gas can change the relative order of energy savings

and costs for the housing projects.

Institutional factors such as sewage treatment plant installation constraints can be a strong influence on cost. The dis-economy of scale was

less favorable for the sewage treatment portion of MIUS than for the

total energy portion of MIUS.

1.3.4 Individual Housing Projects

Housing Project #1 presented a desirable site in terms of density, thermal

loads and number of dwelling units. Up to sixty-two percent of the raw energy

required to provide utilities to the site could have been saved by use of the

MIUS. This is due, in large part, to the fact that natural gas was unavailable to the site, resulting in an all-electric installation for the con- ventional case. Seventy percent of the the site was within a 100-year

flood plain with poor bearing soil, but the developer planned to develop

the site in a manner to eliminate these problems. The only serious

technical drawback of the site was the high (greater than 65 dBA) noise

level due to truck traffic on a nearby interstate highway.

Housing Project if2 presented an undesirable site in terms of density,

thermal loads and number of dwelling units. The least energy savings were

possible, since both MIUS and the conventional alternative used natural

gas for heating. The MIUS wastewater and solid waste treatment processes

were more energy intensive than conventional. Less efficient engines

intensified the already high site electrical/thermal load ratio. The

annual cost (excluding capital recovery) would be three times that of

the conventional alternative due to significant diseconomies of scale.

In addition, with the exception of Housing Project #4, a poor capacity

factor (again due to the purely residential load), small project scale,

and low density required a plant amortization cost more than twice as high as that of any other site. Projected housing demand and land use

plans for the area did not suggest any viable alternatives to the present

site. Housing Project #2 had the most favorable MIUS environmental impact.

12
Housing Project #3 was undesirable in terms of density, thermal loads,

and construction timing. Further commitment to all-electric homes was

not compatible with MIUS utility services. These factors resulted in a modest 20% energy savings (little use for recovered heat) and a small

annual operating deficit when compared to conventional dwelling unit utility

expenses.

Housing Project //4 suffered greatly from low density and the availability

of natural gas for small scale (residential) users. An energy savings

of only eleven percent could be shown against this most efficient conventional energy system. A moderate annual cost (excluding capital recovery)

for MIUS services resulted in a projected annual savings excluding the

overcost of the MIUS plant. Possible improvements in energy savings and

economics could result from a reduced service area. A reduced solid waste

load and improved wastewater treatment favored the MIUS approach to

utility services.

Housing Project #5 presented a desirable site in terms of density, but

the high thermal loads and modest project scale (500 townhouses) had

negative effects. Again, 57% of the raw energy required to serve the

project could have been saved due largely to the unavailability of

natural gas in the area. An annual cost saving (excluding capital

recovery) was projected using the MIUS. A poor capacity factor and high

peak demands explain why this annual savings was insufficient to capitalize

the second most expensive plant in terms of initial cost. The most

significant feature of this building site was that the conventional

alternatives are hypothetical. The developer cannot build without a MIUS

due to lack of a sewer connection. The developer's problems and Housing

Project #5 typify the market MIUS is likely to serve. The need for housing

was evident, but the means to provide water and sewer to new suburbs

is often not available.

13
2. CX)MPARATIVE ENVIROMENTAL EVALUATION

The objective is to provide information concerning the environmental

suitability of each housing project site in such a manner as to assist

the identification of typical land use parameters to be encountered in

MTUS replication and to determine how such parameters impact utility

design—MIUS and conventional. Special attention has been paid to those

items which were particularly outstanding in either a positive or a negative

sense

.

2.1

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Section 2. represents the efforts of Wapora Inc., under contract to NBS,

to evaluate the environmental suitability of each of the five housing

project sites.

2.1.1

Before Development

The environmental status of the housing project sites before development

is evaluated taking the following into account:. (1) terrestrial biota;

(2) aquatic biota; (3) water quality; and (4) noise.

2. 1.1.1 Terrestrial Biota

Vegetation is assessed on a quality and quantity basis. Quality of

vegetation, when viewed from the local perspective, is the degree to

which vegetation approaches conditions natural to that area. Quantity

of vegetation is again a function of local natural conditions. For

example, a desert landscape has considerably less vegetation than a densely wooded area, but if each is consonant with its natural condition

it is of highest environmental quality.

This assessment must account for both natural and domesticated animals.

Because of the growing scarcity of the former in the vicinity of urban

areas, their presence is taken as an indication of higher EQ (Environmental Quality). EQ is also related to area natural conditions. Small

animal presence is measured indirectly, using project area and sur- rounding habitat as a guide. Pest species are Indicators of the degree

of disturbance of system. They include large areas of weeds, plant

diseases, excessive insect populations, etc.

Rare and endangered species include an evaluation of species for both

local, regional and would-wide scarcity. Species diversity was estimated

in the field visit.

2. 1.1. 2 Aquatic Biota

Aquatic vegetation includes phytoplankton, rooted aquatic

wetland vegetation. Fish are estimated from on-site observations coupled

14
with stream data. Fish include resident and migratory species in wetlands

and aquatic areas. Pests are viewed as aquatic plants and species which

are harmful or annoying to man, fish, waterfowl and aquatic vegetation.

Rare and endangered species can be aquatic biota as well as waterfowl.

An estimate is made from available data and the field survey. Species

diversity is estimated from literature and direct observation, using

water pollution as an indicator.

2. 1.1. 3 Water Quality

In the absence of on-site monitoring, EQ of biochemical water quality

is estimated from past records. Nutrient level is estimated using the

symptoms of elevated nutrient levels as a guide such as enrichment and

eutrophication. Fecal coliforms are a direct indication of pollution by

human and animal wastes when the concentration exceeds normally low natural

levels, below 10^ MPN/100 mL.

Hazardous materials Include pesticides, heavy metals, and some organic com- pounds. Hazardous materials are toxic materials which produce acute effects

in biological systems. pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity of a stream and is commonly most affected by industrial discharges or mine

drainage. Because natural pH varies from location to location, this

parameter is measured in terms of deviations from the natural.

In urban areas, paving affects water run-off patterns. In extreme cases,

flooding may become common after a water shed is urbanized. Because the

direct land area involved is small, the evaluation of the physical water

environment required exercise of engineering judgment for the building

alternatives. For the no-build alternative, EQ is rated as a function

of the presence of development-induced flow variation on local streams.

Temperature is significant from the standpoint of its deviation from

natural condition in the water body. Turbidity measures the loss of transparence in a water body due to suspended solids. It is of major concern

to aquatic organisms.

2. 1 . 1 .4 Noise

Noise impact is a function of three parameters - the frequency, the intensity of disturbing noise, and the time of day. The parameter used will

be the L^q level (the noise level exceeded 10% of the time). Two tables

are to be used (each rated 30 minimum) - one for daytime levels and the

other for nighttime. If no nighttime data is available, the daytime

table should be used and the appropriate points described. The level

is in dBA.

2.1.2 Site Engineering Suitability

The objective is to present the principal areas of concern as to soil

suitability for land use application. The engineering features evaluated

are related to erosion, contour of the land, bearing capacity, and

15
permeability. The potential for erosion is related to the type of soil

and the slope of the area, and is estimated from information available

from various agencies. However, even with an erosive soil, various soil

conservati ion methods can often be applied to stabilize or reduce the

full impact.

The contour of the land is also of importance in other aspects of site

usage. The steeper slopes may increase construction costs and problems

of drainage, and hence lead to problems such as local flooding and erosion. Permeability is an important site factor because it is related

to surface drainage, and hence to problems such as local flooding and

erosion. The bearing capacity of a soil is considered in relation to

the type of structure which can be economically put on the site. The

sites are considered for frequency of devastating parameters, such as flooding, seismic risk, tornados, etc.

2.1.3 Social and Economic Evaluations

The objective is to evaluate each site socially and economically. Two

perspectives are assumed. First, the suitability of the site itself

for development is evaluated. The converse suitability of the development for the site is also evaluated.

2. 1.3.1 Site Suitability for Development

Specific criteria for judging site suitability for development are: land

use; social resources; proximity to present or planned developed areas;

and community attitudes. Present land use and planned future land use are taken as a measure of compatibility of potential site development

with institutional norms established to control and direct growth in conformance with societal goals. Nonconformance with a local land use plan

is not necessarily an absolute bar to development, since land use planning

is partially a political process, and classification of land for future

land use is subject to revision and change.

Certain sites, because of unusual terrain characteristics such as steep

slopes, may not be suitable for the construction of new projects. Conq)atibility asks the question "is the proposed new land i^se compatible with

existing land use on site and bordering the site?" For example, is this

a high density residential development adjoining an industrial area? Is

this development on previously undeveloped land? Undeveloped land is

felt to have a minimum impact on the environment and 'therefore has a high

environmental quality.

Soil erosion is a broad indicator of environmental impacts on land use

and varies with topography, rainfall, type of soil, etc. Consequently,

this parameter is evaluated subjectively. If no provisions are made for

the disposal of solid waste from a project, the impact of a project can be

significant. Due to the fact that these controls can vary significantly

16
according to local conditions, a subjective judgment is required again.

Controls could range from complete incineration with air pollution control

(extensive) to open burning (no control).

Social resources indicate in an approximate way the attributes in a region

that contribute to a varied and Interesting environment. Included under

this heading are recreational opportunities available to area residents,

in-door, out-door, participant or spectator. Impact will vary with the

degree of development in area. Undeveloped areas should be examined

to see if the potential exists for any or all of these. Developed areas should be examined to see whether any of them actually do take place

(within a reasonable traveling distance in both cases).

Natural features of scientific or educational interest in the local area

also are deemed to be social resources. Certain aspects of project sites

may be of certain educational and/or scientific value to people. This

can apply to people in the locality, to the region wh^re the project is

located, or to a national interest. For example, Niagara Falls would be

a site of national interest, while a stream may be of just local Interest.

The third component of social resources is historical or archeological

significance. Certain project sites also may have aspects which are

of historical and/or cultural value. These aspects will be rated as in the educational-scientific case.

Another site attribute that effects the social suitability for development

is the relative proximity of site to existing or planned developments.

A site that is more distant from present or future development is con- sidered to contribute more to "sprawl" type development than is one adjacent to development. Additionally, such a site may involve greater cost

in providing utilities and other social services. If the relative isolation of a development reduces the level of services provided to its residents, a social cost is Incurred both by the project residents and, to a leser extent, by society in general.

The last aspects of site suitability to be considered are community attitudes. These are defined and measured as the extent of public interest

in issues of local growth and development and the level of participation

by public officials or the general population in project planning.

2. 1.3. 2 Suitability of Development for a Particular Site

Project suitability is judged on the following criteria: aesthetics;

Impact on community services; induced secondary development; and regional

economic impact. While aesthetics tends to be a subjective assessment,

there are elements which can be used to make the assessment more objective.

Aesthetics

Surface configuraton measures the deviation of surface configuration

from natural conditins, caused by man’s activities. Land appearance

assesses the impact of man-caused changes and usage on the "tidiness" of

17
the land, as reflected in litter and degree of erosion. The geological

surface impact is related to the presence of unique out-croppings and

formations which add interest, color, and texture to the land area.

Odor conditions at a site, or due to human activity, affect aesthetic

values. Visual aesthetics measures EQ as impacted by visible air pollution. Sound measures the aesthetic impact of man’s activities as well

as those of nature.

Water courses derive considerable aesthetic impact from their flow

characteristics. Fast moving white water is normally considered more aesthetically interesting. Aesthetically, water bodies are considered

to be of greater value when they are clear. Clarity measures the

aesthetic assets of water clarity.

In general, with more animals present, the interest and aesthetic pleasure

will be higher. Aquatic life evaluates aesthetic pleasure derived from

aquatic life. A subjective rating is based on the amounts of game fish

and other forms of aquatic life.

Architectural style is evaluated in terms of its compatibility with the

area, of the degree to which it reflects regional of historical styles,

and of its funcitonalism. Site design refers to the arrangement of housing

units, to commercial and service areas, and to open space. Site design

considers the topography and vegetation of the site. Compatabllity refers

to arrangement of land uses within the development as well as those land

uses adjacent to the development. Architectural aesthetics are subjective.

Styles differ greatly and evoke diverse response from various observers.

Projects and community developments can be styled and located in

such a manner as to blend, rather than clash, with their surroundings

(compatibility). Planting and site design reflect the survey teams

assessment of the aesthetic assets of the proposed site plan.

Composition quantifies the overall effect upon the senses and emotions

of the interplay of land, air, water, biota, and man-made structures.

The criterion is like, dislike, or neutrality to the aesthetic impact

of the site. Unique composition identifies rare or unique physical

and biological elements in aesthetic composition of site. Uniqueness

is the principal criterion.

Impact on Community Services

The second criterion of suitability of the proposed project is its

expected impact on community services. Under this criterion the effect

of the development on such community srvices as transportation facilities,

fire and police protection, provision of educational, recreational and

health care facilities, and water and sewer must be estimated. The magnitude of the expected Impact is determined at least in part by project size

and the proximity and extent of development of existing services. In some

areas, for example, schools may be adequate to handle additional students

but sewers may be inadequate to handle additional new loads.

18
Induced Secondary Development

Induced secondary development is a third standard for evaluating development suitability. This criterion attempts to estimate the potential for

additional unplanned development in the area stemming from the project

development. This potential is again a function of project size, the

existing commercial Infrastructure, and planned commercial development

associated with the site development.

Virtually all construction projects cause some form of induced secondary

development. If this growth occurs in a planned manner, it is not necessarily bad. Serious problems can arise when such growth occurs in an unplanned manner. If a residential development occurs in an area where

there is a significant infrastructure of retail stores, food stores,

ovie theaters, etc., the amount of secondary development will be miniIzed. However, if the development occurs in an undeveloped or underdeveloped area there will be a significant degree of secondary development.

The percent of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within 1/2 mile of the

project site is used as a parameter to measure secondary development.

Regional Economic Impact

All projects will have some degree of economic inpact on the community

in which they are situated. This will vary with the extent to which the

region is developed. Regional economic impact is an approximation of

the positive or negative effect the project will have on the region's

economy. The scale of the project relative to the area's economy is one determinant of its impact. Also of importance is the relative timing

of the project, l.e., whether it is the opening wedge of future development

in the area or whether it is absorbing existing demand for housing in

a developed, relatively stable area.

2.1.4 Federal, State and Local Regulations

The objective is to analyze the compatibility of MIUS and conventional

utilities at each site with various local, regional, and state regxilations

.

This category Includes the compatibility of the MIUS installation and

site with various local, regional, and state regulations regarding

zoning, approvals and permits, licensing, planning, and water and air

pollution. Such considerations Include applicable regulations concerning

required construction and operating permits; instrumentation, testing,

and records; operator training and certification; compatibility with local

and regional zoning and planning; and applicable air and water regulations.

2.1.5 Comparison of MIUS and Conventional Utilities

The objective is to identify the environmental consideratons associated

with the utilization of a MIUS in lieu of conventional utilities to provide all the utility services to each of five housing project sites.

19
The five housing projects were carefully reviewed to determine the source and means by which each community would be provided with power,

heating, cooling, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal,

and storm water drainage facilities. In addition, an evaluation was made

of the relative quality of wastewaters discharged to the environment and

the quantity of sanitary sludge and solid waste generated by utilization

of conventional utility services or the MIUS.

2.2 PRESENTATON OF RESULTS

2.2.1 Housing Project ifl

2. 2. 1.1 Before Development

Refer to Figure 2. 2. 1.1. The plant and animal species diversities are

low on this site because most of the area is being used for agriculture.

The major portion of the site is flat land devoted to corn; the northeast corner is a rolling pasture. Plants other than agricultural

species were found in fence rows, along the edges of fields, or along

the deep eroded drainage ditch which appears to drain most of the site

into a creek. No natural or native stands of vegetation were present on

the site. The lack of natural vegatation and the simple structure

of the plant communities makes this site a potentially poor habitat for

birds and other terrestrial animals. The presence of the creek does

furnish a habitat for muskrats and migratory waterfowl. Deer and

raccoons appear to use the creek as a food or water source, but these

animals would have to be regarded as transients because the vegetation

simply does not provide adequate food and shelter or materials for home

construciton. Most of the plants present in the area are weedy species

that are characteristic of disturbed sites. The probability of the site

containing rare plants or animals is extremely low.

The creek is fast-flowing at the north portion of the site, becoming

slower and with more pools further to the south. It is obviously subject to wide fluctuations in level, being normally about 35 feet below

the level of the surrounding ground, but rising to near the surface

during floods. While not obviously polluted, the creek had a large algae

population, indicating good nutrient supply, which is not surprising in

this agricultural area.

There appeared to be considerable run-off entering the site from the

community to the north. This and the run-off from the site have eroded

a long, deep ditch near the center of the site, draining into the creek.

Further indication of erosion problems was supplied by several portions

of the fence which borders the field having fallen into the creek bed.

The run-off, entering the site and from the site itself, will have to

be conveyed by storm sewer to the creek. Consideration should be given

to the possibility that this will increase the already-present flooding

problems downstream. Local residents say it has not flooded within memory

(about 50 years), but that flooding does occur downstream. A smaller

creek, the southern boundary of the site, is similar to the larger creek.

20
1
I

I

I and somewhat higher in nutrient level. Neither appeared to be grossly | polluted, and neither would appear to have any special aesthetic or sporting , value; both were typical flatland drainage creeks.

^ The site is bordered on the west by the larger creek. The west bank of

this creek is occupied by railroad tracks. The eastern boundary is interj state highway. Onsite noise readings show the railroad trains producing

the highest readings (75-78 dBA) for three minutes. Trains were noted

to pass by three times a day. The interstate highway has a noise level

of 52-58 dBA with automobile traffic and 74 dBA with trucks passing. At ' approximately 600 feet into the site from the highway, readings on trucks ! passing by were 68 dBA. Aircraft were observed passing near the site. No

readings were obtained because they did not pass directly over the site.

An extensive noise study is recommended on this site as the noise levels

obtained show some conflict with HUD noise regulations outlined in HUD

Circular 1390.2.

2. 2. 1.2 After Development

This agricultural site is already completely altered from its natural

state, so the environmental impact of development will be minimal. The

field will be taken out of cultivation, but the Impact on the plant and

animal communities will be low because of their low diversity. Most of

the plants in the project area are weed species that have naturalized

in much of the United States. The animal populations are confined to

the creeks that border the site.

As discussed earlier, there are several site problems which must be

addressed in the development design:

“Locaton within the 100-year flood plain;

“Channelization of the runoff could increase downstream area flood

severity; and

“Susceptibility to erosion will require good erosion and siltation

control

2. 2. 1.3 Site Engineering Suitability

Several site engineering suitability parameters need special consideration

before the installation of the MIUS community in Housing Project #1.

The total area is approximately 102 acres. Presently half of the acreage

is being used for crops and the other half for cattle grazing. The majority

of the trees at this site are located on the western and southern boundaries

with up to 20 walnut and oak trees scattered throughout the interior.

The contour of the land is relatively flat on two-thirds of the site with

the remaining northeast third having slopes of 18 to 22%. This existing

contour marks the limits of potential flooding due to a 100 year storm.

The State Natural Resources Council clearly qualifies that two-thirds

of the site is a flood plain resulting from creek water overflows. In

22
the middle of the flood plain area on the southern half there appears

a drainage ditch approximately 1,650 feet long by 90 to 100 feet wide

and 35 to 40 feet deep.

The soil has the following properties as reported by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The soil throughout the site

is a dark silty loam. On the two-thirds which is in the flood plain area

the slope is 0% to 2%. The remaining third of the site slopes from 5%

to 20%. The soils permeability in general is qualified as being moderate.

The depth of the water table on the flatter land is 3 to 5 feet, while

on the rolling terrain depths of greater .than 5 feet are necessary to

reach the water table. The report indicates that the surface soil is

a good topsoil material but not suitable for other uses.

The flatland area is generally qualified as having severe limitation for

building, principally because of the poor bearing capacity and shear

strength. As for a septic tank disposal field, the same area is qualified

as having moderate to severe limitation due to the occasional high water

table, moderate permeability and vulnerability to flooding. For a sewage

lagoon or effluent pond, the area is severaly limited by flooding and

water table problems. The rolling terrain has the same qualities as discussed for the flatlands except that the septic tank disposal field conditions

improve.

2. 2. 1.4 Social and Economic Evaluations

Land use on this site is primarily agricultural. The area immediately to

the north is occupied by a College. The site is bounded on the west and

east by transportation corridors - a railroad to the west and an interstate

highway to the southwest. Farther west is a compact residential development.

Revised land use and zoning maps are currently being prepared so current

projections of land use of the site are not available. The previous land use plan showed the site as mostly "other Public and Semi-public" with

the remainder as "Open Space and Conservation" (the former presumably

referred to ownership to this site by the community college). In the

text, however, the report recommends that the area be maintained as a conservation area because of its position on the flood plain of the two

creeks

.

The recreational opportunities reflect the urban character of the SMSA

and the rural area surrounding it. Parks, golf courses, swimming pools

and other recreational facilities normally found in an urban area are found in Housing Project //I. There are 19 parks, three golf courses, and

two swimming pools, in addition to playing fields, playgrounds, and school

facilities. Fishing, hunting, and boating are available in the surrounding

rural areas. Opportunities for water-based recreation requiring large

bodies of water are limited somewhat, however, as are most winter sports.

There are no natural features of scientific or educational value on the

site. A small non-public wildlife refuge located a few miles north

of the site, is one point that may be of educational interest.

23
1

I The housing project site is within the corporate limits of a city. Although ; it is located in an area that is relatively undeveloped as yet, the site i is proximate to the residential areas. Additional development is occurring I adjacent to the community college campus north of the site.

The architectural design of the proposed development is a rather conven- \ tional two-story garden apartment complex. Exterior finish of stucco i and wood will creat an interesting effect. Lack of trees and shrubs ' initially will create a rather bleak appearance although the amount of

planting shown on the site plan will remedy this in time.

The compositional effect of the development, expecially in its early

years, will be hindered by the relatively flat terrain of most of the

site, and the lack of trees to soften building profiles and to create

an impression of cohesion. The existence of interstate highway along

the eastern edge of the site also is detrimental.

Transportation routes, expecially the interstate highway, are the major

difficulties with land use compatibility. Noise pollution may be a problem along the eastern portion of the site, along with potential

air quality problems.

The impact of this housing project on community services is expected to

be minor because of its relatively small projected population and its

location in an area where utilities and other services are already available.

Sewers would be the major exception at the present time if MIUS were not

used. A sewer line paralleling the Interstate highway has inadequate

capacity at peak periods to accommodate further development in the area. Several bond Issues which would have increased sewer capacity for this area have failed in recent years.

A new elementary school is scheduled for construction adjacent to the

project site. Also a declining school population has created capacity

to absorb an increase from the housing project.

Induced secondary development resulting from this housing project also

is expected to be negligible. A projected population of approximately

2,500 will not create much demand for additional commercial development.

The site also is located within city limits with its existing commercial

area. In addition, a major new commercial area is planned within a mile

of the site at the interchange of interstate highway and a state highway.

Regional economic impact of the project will be minimal. Its small

scale, its residential character and its location rule out major effects.

Short-term construction-related employment and its net effect on local

government finances are the only expected effects, and these should be

minor

.

24
2 . 2 . 1 . 5 Stat;e and Local Regulations

The State does not have any laws, rules, or regulations governing the integrated utility system, but it does regulate the components of the modular

integrated utility system. These components are: potable water treatment,

wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal and electric power generation

including heat dissipation from cooling towers.

Electric Power Generation

There is no State agency that deals with construction and operation of a power plant and of a cooling tower. Environmental concerns in utility

operation fall within the realm of the State Environmental Quality

Department.

The State Commerce Council has rate setting responsibilities and regulates

distribution systems as specified by the State Code. As far as it could

be determined, the State does not have any certification or operator

training programs.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

Since the blowdown from the cooling tower is treated by the wastewater

treatment plant of MIUS, the treatment requirements will be the same

as specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Discharge Permit which will be required.

Solid Waste Disposal

The Division of Solid Waste of the State Department of Environmental Quality

has jurisdiction over solid waste management in the State. The state

laws do not permit disposal of hazardous materials in a landfill. The

State has an annnual inspection program for landfills. Certification of

landfill operators is not required. Residues from incinerators will

have to be chemically analyzed prior to disposal in a landfill. Wastes

from a potable water treatment plant should be spread on agricultural

land, instead of landfill disposal. The State is requiring the general

area to have a landfill in operation by July 1, 1975. Hence, a new landfill for a MIUS project will not be required.

The State Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality

has control over permits to construct incinerators. Manufacturers information must be submitted for review prior to application for the permit.

There are no operator’s permit requirements at this time. For incinerators which burn under 1,000 Ibs/hr, particulate emissions must not exceed

0.35 grains per standard cubic foot dry corrected to 12% CO

2

; to burn over 1,000 Ibs/hr, 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot dry corrected to 12% C02 *

25
Wastewater Treatment

The Division of Water Quality has the responsibility over design, con- struction and operation of wastewater treatment plants. The Division issues

construction and operation permits after review of plans and specifications

of the proposed facility. The Division certifies wastewater treatment

operators and the type of certification is dependent on the size of the

treatment facility and population served. The degree of treatment required

will be high because the effluent from the treatment plant will be discharged

into a creek, which has definite water-quality requirements. Combination

of cooling tower blowdown and municipal wastewater may require adjustments

in treatment in order to meet applicable water quality standards. The

best practical treatment will have to be provided.

The rules and regulations for testing and records are being revised at present. In general, monthly operating reports are required by State. These

reports include data on: BOD, suspended solids, fecal coliform. The type

of certificate depends on the population served. The State conducts

operator training courses once a year.

Potable Water Treatment

The Division of Water Quality has the jurisdiction over issuing construction

and operation permits for potable water treatment plants. The Division

will review the application and supporting documents and then issue the

permits upon satisfactory review. It also certifies potable water treatment

plant operators.

The State Council of Natural Resources has legal jurisdication over water

withdrawal from any source and water use. Application to the Council

for the necessary permit must indicate amount of water withdrawn, water

use, legal ovnership of the land and a map showing water storage, point

of water withdrawal and point of water diversion, if from a surface source

of supply. The applicable standards are those specified in 1962 U.S.

Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. The Division reviews plans

and specifications for treatment if the source of water supply is surface.

The Division recommended connecting to the existing water supply system.

However, plans for connection and distribution system, will have to be

submitted for approval prior to construction.

The State requires two samples for bacteriological analysis per month for

populations up to 2,000 people and three samples per month for popxxlations

up to 2,500 people. The State certifies potable water treatment plant

operators for water supply from a surface source. A Grade III Plant

Operator will be required for the project if a surface source of water

supply is used. The operator training courses are conducted by the State

on a once-per-year basis.

26
Planning and Zoning

In general, there are no conflicts with any plans for future development

of the area. The site is zoned as "open-space" area, which means that

the area is being held open for a systematic development. According to

the County Zoning and Planning Office, the area is primarily classified

as suburban and industrial area. If a shopping center is built, as a part of the project, then the area will have to be rezoned to Include

commercial claslflcation. The City has jurisdiction over areas up to

two miles from the city limits and city approvals will be needed for any

development within this area. The County requirements include approval

of subdivision, streets, water, and sewer lines. As far as the City is

concerned, it will rule on the application for rezoning. This application

will have to include all supporting documentation regarding plans for

development of the area and the reasons for the development. As far as environmental standards are concerned, both the City and County require

that the appropriate State and Federal standards be met.

The State Council of Natural Resources has legal jurisdiction over any

construction in a flood plain area. The development has to be protected

from a 100-year flood of creek or river. The construction has to be

carried out in a manner that will not increase the flood stage by one foot or more. The Council has to give consideration to equal and opposite

encroachment in reference to any future construction. The development

has to be located landward or out of the floodway. The floodway of

the creek has not yet been delineated, but will have to be developed

prior to any construction. The developer must apply to the Council of

Natural Resources to issue permits for building and construction in the

flood plains of the Creek. The application for the permits must be

accompanied by the engineering plans for the development (to include

locations of buildings, streets and utilities and to show the extent

of flood plain obstructed) and by data on cut and fill involved.

2. 2. 1.6 MIUS /Conventional Utilities Comparison

The land occupied by the MIUS Plant will be approximately two and a half acres located at the northwest corner of the development. The physical

plant will occupy slightly less than one acre. The excess land will be

used to promote the use of architectural landscaping techniques to create

a plant site that is aesthetically compatible with the architecture

utilized throughout the site area. The land acreage required for installation of a MIUS equates reasonably well to the land required to provide

the utility services needed if a MIUS is not utilized. The environmental

trade-offs in terms of land-use appear to be equal or to favor the utilization of a MIUS.

Electrical Generation

The source of electrical power to supply the needs of Housing Project //I has not been described in available information. However, the college

located on the adjacent property north of the site has an electric power

27

1
source which may be of adequate capacity. Based on this probability it

would be necessary to install and maintain approximately fifteen hundred

to two thousand feet of power supply line. The necessary right-of-way

required would Involve two or three acres of land that would be subject

to environmental degradaton. The impact might well be minimal since the

right-of-way would, in all probability, coincide with the right-of-way of

existing roads. Thus the major environmental assault has already taken

place and, following construction, the restoration of the land to its

present state would be a relatively rapid process. If a MIUS were employed

for this project, the need for this power supply line, the right-of-way,

and the environmental consequences associated with it would be avoided.

Solid Waste Disposal

The City provides for solid waste collection and disppsal by landfill.

The housing project will add approximately six'tons/day of solid waste

to that presently generated by the area, a relatively small part to the

total waste load. Thus, in the immediate future, little or no additional

land would be subject to environmental degradation attributable to this

activity. However, over the long term, there is a land-i^se loss that

is due to the solid waste generated by the housing project representing

an environmental Impact. The utilization of incineration by MIUS will

achieve a reduction in the ultimate volume of solid waste by 80 to 90

percent. The land requirements and the attendant environmental impact

attributable to the disposal of solid waste will be reduced proportionately.

Wastewater Treatment

A new 30-inch sewage pipeline is presently under construction along the

west bank of creek which is the west property line of Housing Project iH.

This line serves the college to the north and will terminate at a new

13 Mgd waste treatment plant. A sewage transport pipe from Housing Project

//I to this 30-inch line will be three to five hundred feet long. It will

span the creek and probably be supported on one of the two existing bridges.

The amount of land required for the right of way for this pipeline will

be less than one acre, and would probably coincide with the existing right

of way for the bridge and the 30-inch sewage pipeline. This would tend

to minimize the envoronmental impact attributable to the sewage transport

line required. The utilization of a MIUS for this project would eliminate

this environmental consequence since the treated wastewater would be

discharged directly to the creek.

2.2.2 Housing Project #2

2. 2. 2.1 Before Development

Refer to Figure 2. 2. 2.1. Most of the area that would be occupied by the

housing project is used for some form of agriculture. A Bayou-like old

river bed on the north side of the project area supports a natural plant

community. Bald cypress and sourgum grow in the shallow water. Elms,

pecan, oaks, and sweet gums were growing on the banks. Deer and beaver

28
Legend:

1 - Mobile Homes - 200 units

2 - Single Family Detached Dwellings - 104 units

3 - Multi-Family Low Rise Dwellings - 40 units

Figure 2. 2. 2.1 - Housing Project #2

29
signs were observed and several wood ducks were sighted in the waters.

It was concluded that the site supports a relatively large bird population

based on numerous sightings and information from a nearby wildlife

refuge with similar habitats. The probability of Housing Project

//2 containing rare plants and animals is not considered high because

of the small size and the uniformity of the habitat.

The river is good-sized, fast-flowing, fairly turbid and saturated with

oxygen. The site is partially within the floodplain of the river. A

local resident stated that the pasture forming the southern portion of

the site was covered by a shallow sheet of water in the floods of the

spring of 1973. This was the only time water had reached the site in

memory (about five years). The passage through east of the site was

passible to trucks, but not cars.

The water in the bayou is typical of swamp water. It is covered with duckweed, and has a dissolved oxygen content of only 1.9 ppm. Phosphate and

conform levels are also high. Both the bayou and the river are typical of

their type, and do not appear to be of outstanding aesthetic or other value.

There appears to be no problem with noise. All on-site measurements were

below 55 dBAj^Q.

2. 2. 2. 2 After Development

Much of the site has been used for agricultural purposes, so that impact

of development will be minimized. The bayou area is by far the most

interesting ecological feature of the site and little ecological Impact

is expected since it is planned to leave this undlstrubed. The noise

from construction may disturb waterfowl but this disturbance should be

temporary. The plants and animals of this area should not be greatly

affected. Care should be taken not to disturb the bayou area by run-off

patterns and sedimentation. The floodplain problem will have to be addressed

with this in mind.

2. 2. 2. 3 Site Engineering Suitability

Housing Project //2 is located directly west of a city on the east side of

a river. The contour of the land is relatively flat with fair to poor

drainage qualities. Drainage is into a river. The site is at an elevation

of about 130* MSL (mean sea level), while the river is at elevation 100*

MSL. Part of the site is in a flood plain near the banks of the river,

which can be expected to reach levels of 131* MSL.

The depth to the water table from the surface is 125 feet for a shallow

strata and 800 feet for a deeper strata. The soil permeability is generally moderate to rapid. The soil is a silty sandy material. Referring

to the Unified Soil Classification System, the soil bearing capacity would

generally be limited to 0.5 to 1.5 tons/sq. ft.

30
2. 2. 2. 4 Social and Economic Evaluations

The existing land use is approximately 60 percent agricultural, with the

rest being mostly wooded. Row crops - cotton and soybeans - are the

dominant agricultural activities. The area surrounding the site also

shows the same land use patterns. A city is located east of the site

with some lighr industry. Future land use of the site was projected

to remain the same (Planning and Development District). The State has

selected this site for the development of a state park, so the use will

change somewhat.

Recreational opportunities in the area are somewhat limited both in variety

and number. Several small lakes to the north provide major recreational

sites. A number of county parks provide playing fields and courts, picnic

and other facilities.

The state park being developed adjacent to the site will probably be the

major educational or scientific resource in this area. As a re-creation

of a mid-nineteenth century plantation, this park will provide some understanding of plantation farming and domestic life of this period. A

Wildlife Laboratory, another educational asset, is used as a nature center

and outdoor study area by the County schools. It is located adjacent to

the site to the west. There are a number of historic houses and other

sites in the County area including two Civil War forts - one located

downstream from the site, the other upstream.

Housing Project is a development that is sponsored by a public agency,

in this case the local city government. No Information is available

describing the architectural design. Site design segregates land uses

(i.e., single family, multi-family, or commercial dwellings) but provides

for a conventional extended system of dwelling units rather than cluster

development or some other arrangement.

Composition suffers for several reasons in this housing project. The

floor-plain type of terrain and the agricultural character of the area impose

limits by restricting the potential for variety in topography or in utilizing

mature wooded areas. Moreover, in the preliminary plot of the area, much of

the existing wooded area will be lost, especially in the single-family residence

area. The sub-division arrangement of houses also lends monotony to the

expected area which is compounded by houses arranged in rows along straight

streets.

Adjacent land use presents few problems at the site. It is bounded on the

west and south by areas of agricultural and wooded land, and the state park

is a low intensity use whose major impact would be possibly high levels of

auto traffic at certain times. The commercial area to the north will presumably be separated from the residential areas and the state park by the

wooded bayou area.

Community services in the country area will not be impacted appreciably by

this housing project. With an expected year-round population of approximately

31
1,000 and a peak population of less than 2,300, the expected demands on the

various community services should not be appreciable. The rather small

populaiton projected for the housing project will in itself have little

Impact on potential commercial development, expecially in view of the proximity of a city and the commercial services located there. A commercial

area located along a nearby Interstate highway should be adequate for the

peak population projected for the site.

Induced secondary development may be more significant. Housing Project #2

could easily serve as an opening wedge of development to the south and west

of the state park. Such development depends in large part on the growth in

the area and the resulting demand for housing. Given sufficient demand, the

development of this housing project, especially with a four-lane highway

extending from the nearby interstate highway to the southern edge of the

site, may well serve as an initiating force for future development of the area. The terminus of this thoroughfare and an access street at the southern edge of the site strongly suggests future development in this direction.

While this further development is not necessarily a determinant, it will

have an additional environmental Impact, and the appropriateness of

extensive development on this flood plain should be questioned.

The anticipated regional economic impact of the housing project should be

minor in itself. A relatively small year-round population and the mostly

residential character of the housing project are the principal reasons for

this. Short-term employment effects, longer-term employment in the commercial

area and the effect on local government finances are the major regional Impacts

that are expected.

2. 2. 2. 5 State and Local Regulations

The State has no regulations or guidelines specifically designed to accommodate an integrated utility system. It does, however, have regulations

affecting the components of the MIUS system. There are no operator certificatin requirements at the present time. Instrumentation, testing and

records would be defined once the plans were reviewed by the agencies.

Electric Power Generation

The State Public Service Commission has granted franchised service areas to

privately owned electrical generating companies. 'They do not have authority

over municipally owned systems. Municipally owned systems, such as local

utilities which are owned and operated by the city by agreement with the Public

Service Commision, can serve an area including the municipality and one mile

out from the corporate limits. The area covered by the housing project is

not in the city utilities' service area. The majority of the area is in a private electric power company's franchised area and a small portion is in

another. These companies would normally plan to serve this housing project.

Any plan by the city utilities to serve the area would have to be legally

agreed upon. One of the two private electric power companies had suggested

that they would resist giving up their franchised portion. Emisions from

the prime movers are exempt under the Commissions "Permit Exclusion List."

32
Space Heating and Air Conditioning

Since the blowdown from the cooling tower is treated by the wastewater treatment portion of MIUS, no additional discharge permits are required.

Solid Waste Disposal

The State Environmental Health Department has authority over solid waste

disposal. There are no permit requirements other than for incineration.

The submission of plans for comment and approval are the only requirements.

The State Air & Water Pollution Control Commission has control over con- struction permits for incinerators. A permit to construct must be applied

for. The Incinerator must meet State emlsssion standards. For an incinerator to be located in a "developer" area, the particulate emsission limit

is .01 grains per standard cubic foot dry, corrected to 12% C02* Visible

emissions must be no greater than on the Ringleman Scale.

Wastewater Treatinent

The State Air and Water Pollution Control Commission has regulatory powers

over the construction and operation of a sewage treatment facility. The

general Requirement is a NPDES discharge permit which can be obtained

through the Commission. The proposed discharge will enter a river, which

is classified as "Fish and Wildlife," and required a minimum of secondary

treatment of sewage prior to discharge. Testing requirements would be

determined by the Commission.

Potable Water Treatment

The accepted potable water source in the area is deep wells. Chlorine

Injection is the only form of treatment. The State Environmental Health

Department has authority over potable water treatment facilities although

there are no regulations or permit requirements. The submission of plans

to the Regional Engineer in the city for comment and approval is the only

requirement for construction. The County Sanitary Engineer examines samples

monthly for bacteria counts. The only other testing requirement may be

residual chlorine analysis. ' '

Planning and Zoning

The area for MIUS and the surrounding development is planned for a State

Park to be known as the "Living Historical Plantation." This will encompass

approximately 104 acres.

2. 2. 2.

6

MlUS/Conventional Utilities Comparison

The land to be occupied by the MIUS plant and landscaping will be approximately two acres of which the physical plant will occupy slightly less

than half an acre.

33
The land acreage required for Installation of a MIDS is much less than that

required if a MIUS is not utilized for the project. Therefore, the environmental trade-offs in terms of land-use weigh heavily in favor of the utilization

of a MIUS.

Electric Power Generation

There is a power line that runs along the northern boundary of the site which

makes it unnecesary to install offsite power supply lines if MIUS is not utilized.

Thus the environmental considerations are the same regardless of whether or not

a MIUS is used to provide electrical power.

Solid Waste Disposal

A solid waste disposal area (located 2-1/2 miles to the west of the site)

would be utilized by the housing project. The housing project will add

approximately two ton/day of solid waste to that presently generated by

the town, a relatively small contribution to the total waste load. However,

any environmental impact associated with landfill disposal will be reduced

considerably if MIUS incinerates project refuse.

Wastewater Treatment

The municipal sanitary water treatment plant is located approximately five

miles west on the far side of the nearby town. The cost of installing a sewage transport line from the site to the treatment plant appears to be

prohibitive and therefore Housing Project #2 would not be undertaken if a MIUS were not utilized. The use of a MIUS would eliminate the need for

sewage transport pipeline and the attendant environmental degradation that

would be associated with its Installation and maintenance. The treated

effluent generated by a MIUS would be discharged to the river located on

the eastern boundary. Therefore, without a MIUS approximately fifteen acres

of land along the banks of the river would be subject to environmental impact

attributable to the installation of a sewage pipeline, which would be com- pletely eliminated with the installation of a MIUS or some form of septic

tank system.

2.2.3 Housing Project #3

2. 2. 3.1 Before Development

Refer to Figure 2. 2. 3.1. The forests have a relatively high plant species

diversity. The most important tree species are white oak, black gum, red

maple, and pin oak. The dense understory is dominated by cucumber trees,

American holly, and blueberries. The site is a relatively mature forest

with a large number of mature trees. Other parts of the forest had been

logged in recent years and the trees were in the sapling stage with white

oak being the dominant species. Birds were seen in the forest as were

numerous squirrel, raccoon, and deer signs. The forest could serve as a home for many mammals and birds.

34
3 - Community center 6 - Apartments

35
There is no natural aquatic habitat on the site; only intermittent drainage

streams cross the site. A portion of the site appears to drain to the northeast, eventually draining into a swamp. This is an area of unique ecological

value. Tt is protected by regulations which prohibit point-source discharges

which would drain into the site. The balance of the site drains to the south

into another small swamp across the road from the site, which in turn drains

into the first swamp.

This site is well screened with trees and the only sounds were from vehicular traffic in the area. The present site plan states that the site would

be surrounded by a thick belt of trees to effectively block noise.

2. 2. 3. 2 After Development

There will be an environmental impact due to development since this area was

wooded before development. The relative magnitude of such an environmental

impact is unknown.

The developer is creating a settling pond, which will later be used as a permanent small lake. This is desirable; however, maintenance will be re- quired to prevent eutrophication. The following values show the water quality

in the area during the site visits in October 1974.

Sampling Location Nitrate Phosphate Clorophylla

Creek, Southwest (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/m)

Settling Pond, South .61 .04 .32

Protected Swamp 2.92 .02 23.2

.22 .02 2.3

None of the samples indicated coliform contamination and all had nearsaturated dissolved oxygen. It can be seen that the south settling pond is

high in nitrate and in algae, indicating dangers in this type of pond.

2. 2. 3. 3 Site Engineering Suitability

The contour of the land is generally flat and occurs in the highest and most

level area of the county. Mean sea level (MSL) elevation ranges between 190

to 215 feet. The soil is composed largely of sands and gravels with minor

amounts of clay-like and silty materials. Sixty percent of the soils are well

drained while the remaining 40% are poorly drained. This runoff is collected

in the swamp drainage basin. The permeability of the area soils is very high

due to the substrate of sand and gravel. The water table generally ranges

from 4 to 10 feet below the surface. However, due to seasonal rains, the

water table can rise to 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 feet below the surface.

The structural stability for the contemplated design loads will be ample as the soil has a bearing capacity ranging from 1 to 2.5 tons/sq. ft. Presently

there exists an elevated 2.5 million gallon water storage facility. The site

is not in a flood plain.

36
Devastating parameters which should be considered are tropical storms and

hurricanes, which occur about once per year, and have caused minor damage in

the past. Winds from these storms may reach 50 mph or higher. Thunderstorms

and winter storms will occasionally have comparable wind velocities.

2. 2. 3. 4 Social and Economic Evaluations

Land use on this site is primarily wooded. This has changed recently with

the construction of garden apartments as part of the planned growth of Housing

Project #3. The site is currently under development to medium density residential with single family dwellings predominant throughout the site and several

townhouses and triplexs, either completed or under construction. The site

will have a neighborhood center, service station, and elementary school.

The proposed land use for the area is for the area is for medium density

residential with emphasis on cluster development and new towns according to

the latest available edition of the County Comprehensive Plan.

The recreational opportunities are complete in concept and some areas devoted

to recreation are already developed. Since the housing project is part of a HUD-sponsored planned community, recreation was planned and ought to meet the

projected needs of the inhabitants. Open space planning is a key factor in

recreational activities. The planned community has approximately 1,516 acres

of recreational and open space land providing a variety of opportunities.

The educational and scientific resource of importance is the swamp. The

swamp is quite close to the housing project and was recently rated the most

ecologically significant tract of land in the general area by the Smithsonian

Institution’s Center for Natural Resources. It has diverse forms of life

inhabiting the area including beaver, mink, osprey, wood ducks and heron. It

is also home for some rare and endangered species such as bald eagles, redbellied, woodpeckers, Maryland diamondback terrapin and the stonefly. There

are no historical or archeological sites knoyn.

The architectural design of the garden apartments is generaly pleasing. Very

standard building designs are used. The site is essentially a conventional

subdivision with curved streets and rows of houses. While compositional effect

of the development is not particularly stimulating, it does have gently rolling

topography and much of the site will remain wooded. During construction,

drainage ditches and retention ponds will be utilized and will be somewhat of an eyesore, although this will eventually recover due to vegetation regrowth.

The planned community atmosphere is not uncommon in the general Metropolitan

area and needs to be examined very closely for social implications.

The impact of this development on community services is expected to be minimal

as the development is planned to include all necessary services. The sewage

system may present some problems, though the area is to be tied in with regional

plant when it is constructed. An elementary school is planned for the

neighborhood and will be constructed within five years.

37
Induced secondary development is expected to be small, again due to the total

planning of the community. The surrounding commercial areas will absorb the

needs of the community. In addition, the provisions of neighborhood centers

and village centers should satisfy immediate residential needs. Additional

residential development due to MIUS is not expected.

Regional economic impact of the project will be minimal. The small scale,

the character of the garden apartments in comparison with community, and

its location close to a large metropolitan area rule out any major effects.

Short-term construction-related employment and its net effect on local

government finances are the only expected effects, and these will be a positive net change, although minor.

2. 2. 3. 5 State, and Local Regulations

There are no guidelines, rules, or regulations to accommodate the MIUS

concept in its whole form at this time. The components of the MIUS

system do, however, fall under authority of several jurisdictions of

the state and counties. It has been indicated by the State regulatory

agencies that consideration will be given to the MIUS concept as a complete system. Due to the uncertainty of its status with the agencies

involved, it is not clear what will be needed in terms of operators'

training and certification. The state does have requirements for operators and operation of utilities which comprise MIUS, but individual

utility systems best fit these requirements.

Electric Power Generation

The State Public Service Commission (P.S.C.) has regulatory powers over

any electrical generating utility (either public or private) operating

within the state. Since service areas within the State are franchised,

any application of MIUS which generates electricity must be incorporated

with an existing utility, or apply to the P.S.C. to operate as a separate

utility and develop an agreement with the existing utility serving that

area. The locally franchised utility has indicated interest in the

project and that it is likely they would have responsibility over the

generation and distribution of electricity from the MIUS unit.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

There are no State regulations governing airborne pollutants originating

from cooling towers, but there are regulations concerning a blowdown from

the cooling tower. If the blowdown waste is treated by a wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to the receiving stream, the discharge

permit for the treatment plant satisfies the requirement.

38
Solid Waste Disposal

The Division of Air Quality Control of the State Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene has authority over issuance of permits for construction

of incinerators. In general, any brand of incinerator will be approved

if it has a venturi scrubber an dhas a minimum pressure drop equivalent

to 20" of water across the scrubber. Particulates from an incinerator

should not exceed .03 grains per standard cubic foot of dry exhaust gas

adjusted to 12% CO2

• A general requirement states that no person shall

cause, suffer, allow, or permit the use of any flue-fed or chute-fed

single chamber incinerator unless it has a burning capacity greater than

two tons per hour and is used to burn at least five tons of refuse per day.

Wastewater Treatment

The State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (D.H.M.H.) has authority

over the construction of wastewater treatment plants. There is a chain

of events which must take place prior to construction of any facility

which is to operate in the State. First, the plan for a treatment plant

must be incorporated in the county water and sewer plan. The amendment

must be sent to the Environmental Health Administration of the D.H.M.H.

for study, and to the State Planning and Zoning Office for their approval.

Next, application must be made for a discharge permit, and to the State

Water Resources Council for a study of the effluent. Finally, application

can be made for a construction permit. Regulations surrounding a wastewater

treatment plant include the fact that any facility-built unit is termed

an "Interim plant" and within five years from the date of operation must

be included In the regional treatment system. In addition, an agency

of the State or County must operate the plant, excluding any piping. The

State or County provides manpower while the developer pays the cost of

such manpower.

A State Discharge Permit is required for disposal of sanitary effluents

on land, as in a spray irrigation system. The housing project has plans

to discharge the liquid effluent in this manner. Should this method change

for disposal to water (i.e., stream, pond, etc.) a NPDES permit will be

required.

Planning and Zoning

The area designated for site is zoned for residential use.

2. 2. 3.

6

MIPS /Conventional Utilities Comparison

The land occupied by the MIUS Plant and associated landscaping will be

approximately four acres of which the physical plant will occupy about

one and a half acres. The existence of power and waste treatment facilities eliminates the need of acquiring right-of-way land in order to

provide these facilities. However, the four acres allocated to the MIUS

represents an environmental impact not encountered if a MIUS is not utilized. The magnitude of the impact will be minimized if the landscaping

39
I design is successful. However, the environmental trade-offs in terms of i land use appear to slightly favor the use of conventional utilities for

| this proposed project.

j Electric Power Generation ;

Housing Project //3 is only a part of a larger development program which

j is already partially built and occupied. A power substation is located onsite i providing service to the developed portion of the development. The proximity i of this substation eliminates the need for providing power supply lines | or a right-of-way as a result of their installation. Thus, the environmental

j Impact associated with the installation and maintenance of power supply

j lines for this housing project is equivalent to that experienced when the | electric power is supplied by an on-site MIUS.

I Solid Waste Disposal

I A 200-ton-per-day landfill operation for solid waste disposal is planned

to serve the entire region in which the housing project is to be located.

The housing project will add approximately 13 tons per day of solid waste

to that projected for the entire region, a relatively small contribution j to the total waste load. Whatever land use impact is attributable to the

landfill operation will be much smaller if MIUS incinerates solid waste.

I Wastewater Treatment

A wastewater treatment system is already in operation at this site with

a capacity of 1.2 Mgd utilizing settling and storage lagoons followed by

spray irrigation. This system may have the capacity to accept the sewage

generated by the housing project and, if so, there would be minimal

piping required to transport this sewage to the existing wastewater treatment plant. The presence of this on-site treatment system eliminates

any significant difference in the amount of land area required for sewage

transport, whether or not a MIUS is utilized. If a MIUS is employed,

the relative high quality effluent will probably continue to be discharged

to the spray irrigation .facility due to the absence of an acceptable

receiving stream in the area. The alternative of discharging this treated

effluent to an existing natural drainage system should be avoided since

the area drains into swamp. The environmental implications attending

this alternative are sufficient to indicate that a permit for such a discharge would not be granted. Based on design Information available

and present plans for the development, it appears that no additional

land for sewage transport will be required whether a MIUS or existing

wastewater treatment facilities are utilized for this project.

2.2.4 Housing Project #4

2. 2. 4.1 Before Development

Refer to Figure 2. 2. 4.1. Three different vegetatlonal zones exist within

the boundaries of Housing Project //4. These are a marsh, an evergreen

40
Figure 2. 2. 4.1 - Housing Project #4

z:^

NORTH

ONE -HALF MILE

Legend ;

1. Single Family Attached Housing - 55 Units

2. Single Family Detached Housing - 407 Units

3. Multi-family Low Rise Housing - 667 Units

41
forest, and a deciduous hardwood forest. The dominant tree species in

the marsh are red maple, paper birch, and quaking aspen. White pine is

the dominant tree in the coniferous forest while the deciduous forest

is dominated by several oak species. Evidence indicates that the area

supports a fairly large animal population. Several bird species were

sighted including approximately 40 ducks on the marsh near the sanitary

landfill. Deer signs were observed and wildlife lists from a nearby

swamp and neighboring areas indicate that the area has the potential for

supporting a large animal population.

The most interesting aquatic feature is the marsh-pond located in a depression south of the landfill area. It appears that the depth of this

pond fluctuates about one to two feet with the water table. The pond

which has a good dissolved oxygen content and a good algae crop, appears

to be a favored site for birds and animals. The swamp, a protected area,

lies near the the site to the south, but drainage from the site appears

to be to the north and west into a river. This river, which lies off

the site, is a typical small river with neither any gross pollution or outstanding aesthetic value. A small swampy area lies along the west

boundary of the site by railroad tracks. This woul(J receive run-off from

adjacent wooded areas scheduled for development. The soil is sandy and

several natural run-off channels showed signs of erosion.

Noise level measurements taken for one hour showed readings up to 65 dBA.

The site is near a sanitary landfill and some vehicular noise is expected

from there, although the housing development is screened from that by

trees. The site is bordered on one side by a railroad, which is in

infrequent use.

2. 2. 4. 2 After Development

The location of MIUS to the north of the landfill will preserve the marsh

and its waterfowl populations. Several wood ducks use the marsh for nesting.

Construction would probably cause them to leave the site, as well as the deer and other animals. It is hoped that the pond area will be

preserved in the development plans.

The balance of the site is divided between forest and field, with development causing considerably less impact in the latter. The portions of the

development completed to date show a considerable interest in maintaining

the wooded character of the site after development, which is desirable

from both an aesthetic and ecological view.

2. 2. 4. 3 Site Engineering Suitability

The general slope of the site is 15%, commonly represented by short steep

slopes. The soil is sandy with coarser gravelly layers occurring within

30 inches of the surface. Complete gravel layers begin at depths of

greater than 42 inches. The permeability of the site is rapid. The depth

at which ground water is available at 20 feet or less. This general soil

area is suited for most uses: recreational, high density residential.

42
industrial, and commercial. The latter use was favorable because of the

well drained soil which would provide good drain fields for septic tanks,

plus the access to two large-volume ground water supplies. The bearing

capacity of the site is adequate for the structures that may be placed

there. The report indicates capacities ranging from 1-5 tons/sq. ft.

Flooding at the site is a concern only at the extreme northern boundaries

where the river crosses. The flooded area would be expected to occur at

elevation of 160 MSL and lower. Consideration of devastating parameters

must include forest fires. The species of trees present, combined with

the type of soil that is well drained, create woodlands that are particularly susceptible to forest fires.

2. 2.4.4 Social and Economic Evaluations

Land use in the area adjacent to the site is largely agricultural, vacant

and wooded with scattered residences. Development of a medium density

residential area across the road, which is on the east side has occurred

within the recent past. In addition, development surrounding the site

has begun with a number of units completed. According to the land use

plan published by the regional planning agency, this area was classified

as "prime agricultural" and undeveloped land was projected to remain in

this use. The area immediately to the north-west between the site and

a nearby town has been classified as a major Industrial site.

Recreational opportunities for most outdoor activities exists through

the different seasons of the year. Playing fields and other Indoor

facilities are present at the local colleges. Access to these facilities

is somewhat restricted. A publication by the Corps of Engineers discusses

the relative need for additional development of water resources and adjacent

land areas. It also mentions the need for increased public access to

these resources throughout the basin.

The housing project also contains a swamp and a pond. The pond is a natural kettle hole (a glacially formed pond) which is progressing naturally

to a bog-like condition, and, although not unique, it is of interest.

The swamp, located roughly one mile south of the development, is held

as a conservation area by the nearby town. The area contains many

sites of historical significance. Among the more well-known sites is

that of an Indian massacre which occurred in 1704. No sites of historical

or archeological significance are recorded within the housing project.

The aesthetics are very good to excellent. Architectural design is a modern interpretation of traditional New England styles. Colors have been

selected that blend into the trees and other vegetation, much of which

has been retained in the residential areas. Cluster development is utilized,

creating small local areas of human activity, thus allowing the retention

of more of the existing vegetation and a feeling of a rural area.

43
Compositional aspects of this development are good also. Several small

streams and ponds are interspersed among the trees and residential areas,

creating a varied and pleasing effect. A caveat is that the evaluation

of site aesthetics applied primarily to the initial development in a wooded

area. Part of the site is vacant land and future development in this area may not create so pleasing an effect.

Land use contiguous to the development is varied, with wooded, agricultural, vacant, and residential areas found adjacent to the site. An old

sand and gravel quarry is partially surrounded by the development area. This quarry is currently being used as a sanitary landfill site. A commercial

development of about 35 acres is proposed for the northeast corner of

the site along the road on the site's east perimeter. In addition, a parcel of approximately 20 acres immediately to the west of the development

is zoned for industrial use.

The Impact on community services in the adjacent area is expected to

differ with the type of service. Potable water is being supplied by

the nearby town and will continue to be. While the demand for water

in the service area is approaching the safe yield of the supply source

(4.54 Mgd), the incremental demand from the site will have little impact

at present. Futher, the projected water demand of 0.53 Mgd will not

be realized presumably before new sources of supply have been found.

The wastewater flow of 0.42 Mgd is projected from the housing project.

When the new sewage treatment plant for the nearby town is completed,

this wastewater flow will be pumped into that system, utilizing roughly

five percent of the expanded capacity of 8.0 Mgd.

A new fire station had already been planned for the south side of the

nearby town, thereby reducing the response time in this area and Increasing

the overall fire-fighting capacity within the town and surrounding service

area. The ultimate addition of over 1,600 dwelling units with an approximate

population of 4,800 people and 35 acres of commercial land will have

some impact on the provision of fire and police services, and on educational

and health care facilities. This increment will require up to 20 years

to reach its full size, however, so whatever Impacts do occur will be

spread over a number of years.

Induced secondary development is expected to be minimal because of its

relatively small size, because of a fairly high degree of commercial and

other development in the general area, and because of the planned com- mercial development associated with the housing project. With a total

population of less than 5,000 people to be attained over a 30 year span,

there will be little pressure for additional commercial development. This

is reinforced by an expected slowing of growth in the general area because

of stabilization of college enrollment and employment, and the prospect

of little Industrial growth. In addition, there are two regional shopping

centers nearby and the planned commercial area adjacent to the housing

project

.

44
The regional economic impact will be relatively minor. The moderate

population and long time span Involved minlmze the expected impact. Employment and income effects will be limited to construction-related jobs

in the short-run and to employment related to the commercial center after

it is constructed. There may also be additional employment related to

the industrial site, but the small size of this area limits the regional

impact. There probably will be a favorable Impact on the local tax

base and local government tax yield. The projected selling price and

the size of the cluster development relative to existing single family

housing, commercial, and Industrial development are the factors indicating

the probable greater increment to local government revenues than to their

costs

2. 2.4.5 State, and Local Regulations

The State has no rules, regulations, or guidelines at the present time to

accommodate MIUS. Various state and local agencies would be involved

in permits and operation of the components and sub-systems of MIUS.

Electric Power Generation

The electrical generating portion of the MIUS is discussed by the private

utility in Appendix A in terms of being sold or leased to them for operation. The site falls in the franchised distribution area of a whollyowned subsidiary of this utility. The MIUS would be interconnected with

the electric utility system for back-up purposes and thus would not have

to apply for permission to operate as a separate public utility to generate and distribute electricity.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

The delivery of space heating and/or cooling would be treated as another

municipal utility and would be subject to the construction standards

for utilities within public ways.

Solid Waste Disposal

The State Department of Public Health has jurisdiction over Incineration

of solid waste. There are no minimum operation requirements at this time.

There are no operator training or certification requirements at present.

Plans and specifications would be reviewed by the public health board,

the Air Pollution Control District and the State Department of Public

Health. The site must be approved by the local public health board.

Wastewater Treatment

The State Department of Public Health has jurisdiction over the construction and operation of sewage treatment facilities. Evidence of performance

is required prior to permits and operation. T^he developer would operate

the plant with a certified operator. Effluent discharge falls under the

45
lurlsdiction of the Water Pollution Division of the Public Health Department. The existing wastewater treatment plant is not large enough to

handle the entire housing project

The State has a law which is very similar to the Federal law requiring

environmental Impact statements, and although there are some exemptions.

This may prove to be an additional requirement.

Potable Water Treatment

The Public Utilities Department requires the Incorporation as a private

water company and licensing for treatment and delivery of potable water.

The Division of Environmental Health of the State Health Department examines

applications from a health standpoint.

Planning and Zoning

The Town Planning Board has zoned the area of the housing project as Low

Density Residential, and in granting development put certain constraints

on the builder to meet environmental quality levels which are described

in the site plan.

2. 2.4.6 MIUS /Conventional Utilities Comparison

The land to be occupied by the MIUS plant and associated landscaping will

occupy five acres; the physical plant, slightly less than two acres. The five acres of land allocated to the installation of a MIUS equates

reasonably well to the net land subject to environmental assault in order

to provide power and sewage transport facilities if a MIUS is not used.

The environmental trade-offs in terms of land-use appear to be equal

or to favor the utilization of a MIUS.

Electric Power Generation

Available information Indicates that a substation located approximately

two miles northwest of site will be used to serve this housing project if a MIUS is not utilized. The power supply cable would be installed from

the onsite distribution point adjacent to an existing Interior secondary

road located in the middle of site out to the east perimeter road. The

cable would then follow this road northwest to the substation. The total

distance involved is 10,000 to 12,000 feet. The principal environmental

impact associated with this action will be the installation and maintenance of the cable. The action will fall within the right of way of

existing roads; therefore, the environmental degradation can be expected

to be minimal, affecting perhaps 8 to 9 acres of land. This conclusion

seems valid since the major environmental assault took place when the

roads were constructed, and the restoration of land to its present state

would be relatively rapid process.

The utilization of a MIUS will completely eliminate the impact associated

with the installation of a power cable along the east perimeter road.

46
Howp^'er, it will be necessary to Install distribution cable that will

carry the power generated at a MIUS, located on the north side to the

distribution point. This will involve a few hundred feet of land to

provide a right of way that will be subject to environmental degradation.

Therefore, the net environmental consequence if a MIUS is not employed

is the 10,000 feet of right of way along existing road which would be

avoided if a MIUS were Installed.

Solid Waste Disposal

The town nearby provides for solid waste collection and disposal by landfill which is located adjacent to the site. Housing Project //4 will add

approximately 16 tons/day of solid waste to that presently generated by

the region. This is a relatively small contribution to the total waste

load, and will be smaller if a MIUS incinerates refuse.

Wastewater Treatment

If a MIUS is utilized, the treated effluent will have to be transported

for discharge to the river at the road crossing to the east. This

pipeline would be approximately 6000 feet long of which 4000 feet would

be within the right of way for the road. The environmental consequences

of this activity would be similar to that encountered by the installation

of a power supply cable along the same road. In this instance, the length

of the right of way would be about half that required for the power supply

cable. If a MIUS is not used, the sanitary waste will be transported

to an existing pumping station on a street to the south. This will require

the installation of perhaps 1200 feet of force main from the end of an existing 12-lnch force main now discharging to the river to the east.

The right of way required for the new sewage pipeline will require perhaps

one acre of undeveloped land. The loss of trees and the destruction

of shrubs and vegetation will attend the construction phase. The long

term environmental impact will be the loss of this land to natural growth.

2.2.5 Housing Project

2.2. 5.1 Before Construction

Refer to Figure 2. 2. 5.1. This location is a very well developed forest.

The forest has a high plant species diversity and little evidence of

recent disturbance. The dominant trees are beech, white oak, black gum,

and tulip tree. The important understory shrilbs are mountain laurel,

magnolias, and rhododendrons. A large number of small, woody plants and

herbaceous species were also observed.

One rare plant was observed on the site. This plant is the cranefly

orchid (Tipularia discolor) known in the eastern half of the United States.

It is highly likely that other rare plants or animals could be found due

to the natural state of the forest.

47
Legend ; | 1. Quadruplexes - 300 Units*^

2, Townhouses - 200 Units* I

*A11 Electric Individual Unit
There are no aquatic features of interest. There are only intermittent

drainage streams present. The site is bordered by a nearby river. This

is a quite scenic river, and is the subject of considerable interest

in terms of improving its quality. It receives the discharge of several

municipal wastewater treatment plants, both upstream and downstream of

the development.

Approximately one hour of noise level measurements were taken and at no time did the readings exceed 65 dBA. The site is wooded and effectively

screened from the nearby railroad and highway.

2. 2. 5. 2 After Development

The major environmental effect would be the destruction of high-quality

natural forest by the housing project. In addition, a settling pond and

a MIUS pond would also remove some forest. Careful erosion and sedimentation

control practices will be required.

The plans to dispose of the wastewater treatment plant effluent on a wooded area along the river will result in the loss of a considerable

land area for other uses, but may be necessary when the only receiving

stream is already enriched. The problem can be seen in the nitrate content of the area waters:

*STP - sewage treatment plant

The proposed location for the spray disposal area is in the flood plain

of the nearby river, and hence would be unsatisfactory.

2. 2. 5. 3 Site Engineering Suitability

The contour of the land, as interpreted from the soil survey, is moderately

steep. Slopes have grades of 5% to 15%. The soil, sand and gravel, with

the given slopes is severely erodable. The soils permeability is generally

moderate to rapid. The depth of the water table varies with seasonal

change. At its seasonal high, it is approximately 4 feet.

The soil survey makes no direct reference to soil bearing capacity. The

engineering properties refer to AASHO rating of A-2 to A-4 which have two

individual qualities. A-2 soil classification is generally a granular

material which can be compacted and provides good drainage. The A-4 soil

classification is moderately plastic silty soil which is difficult to

compact properly.

Sampling Location Nitrate, mg/1

Stream on Site

Stream by railroad

STP* at development

River, above STP

0.10

0.85

3.26

2.70

49
!

The soil survey does give an indication of the degree and kind of limitations for community development. The area is considered to have slight

to moderate limitation for onsite disposal of sewage effluent (septic

tank). The moderate limitation is principally due to the sloping terrain.

For the use for a sewage lagoon, moderate to severe limitations are specified, due to the permeability and slopes. The report indicates that

homes in this area would have but slight limitations.

2. 2. 5.4 Social and Economic Evaluations

Site is completely wooded. The larger area surrounding the site is wooded

with some area in agricultural use and with scattered residences. Projected

land use for the area of the housing project is medium to high density

residential

.

Recreational opportunities in the area are somewhat limited. The county

tends to be water oriented, but facilities to realize this orientation do

not exist in proportion to the demand. Opportunities for other recreational activities exist, but need development. There are no significant features of educational or scientific interest in this immediate

area. There are no historical and archeological sites of importantance.

Architectural styles chosen for the development seem confined to conventional garden apartment buildings. Information on exterior appearance

is somewhat limited, but the buildings could blend into the existing

trees to create a pleasing effect. The housing project has been organized

in large scale clusters by housing type. Sufficient information is not

available concerning building location within the subdivisions to evaluate

the design in more detail. Similarly, composition can only be examined

in a broad context. Retaining mature trees and the suitable location of

buildings could create a good compositional effect, the more so if the

pond is utilized properly. Failure on one or more of these points will

detract from the overall effect.

Land use adjacent to the site is compatible. Areas adjacent to the

project are agricultural or wooded while there is development of singlefamily residential areas north of the site. Future development adjacent

to the housing project would transform wooded and vacant areas to residential. A light industrial site is proposed adjacent to the railroad

tracks. This will be somewhat separated from the residential neighborhoods by a highway when it is extended.

Impact on community services should not be significant. A relatively

small population of less than 1,800 people will not exert sufficient

incremental demand for services. Population growth is expected in this area and expansion of services is planned. Extension of the highway

south from its intersection with other state highway will provide access

and minimize Impact on the existing transportation system. There will

be little Induced secondary development associated with the site because

of its small population. Further future development of the housing project

will absorb the housing demand. The area will continue to grow because

f
of its location in a major growth center. The regional economic impact

will be extremely small. The only expected impacts, which this relatively

small housing project will have on the regional economy, are short-run

employment effects and a minor increase in local government revenues

from real property taxes.

2. 2. 5. 5 State, and Local Regulations

There are no guidelines, rules, or regulations to accommodate the MIUS.

The components of the MIUS system do, however, fall under authority of

several jurisdictions of the state and counties. It has been indicated

by the State regulatory agencies that consideration will be given to

the MIUS concept as a complete system. Due to its status with the agencies

involved, it is not clear what will be needed in terms of operators’

training and certification. The state does have requirements for operators

and operation of utilities which comprise MIUS. Individual utility systems

best fit these requirements.

Electric Power Generation

The State Public Service Commission (P.S.C.) has regulatory powers over any electrical generating utilityj either public or private, operating

within the state. Since service areas within the State are franchised,

any MIUS generating electricity must be incorporated within an existing

utility, or apply to the P.S.C. to operate as a separate utility and

develop an agreement with the existing utility serving the housing project.

The utility company, which serves the area of housing project, is acting

as the developers’ electric utility advisor. At the present, no position

has been taken by the private utility concerning MIUS.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

There are no State regulations governing airborne pollutants originating

from cooling towers, but there are State regulations concerning blowdown

from the cooling tower. If the blowdown waste is treated by a wastewater

treatment plant prior to discharge to the receiving stream, the discharge

permit for the treatment plant satisfies the requirement.

Solid Waste Disposal

The Division of Air Quality Control of the State Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene has authority over issuance of permits for construction

of incinerators. In general, any brand of incinerator will be approved

if it has a venturi scrubber and has a minimum pressure drop equivalent

to 20 inches of water across the scrubber. Particulates from an Incinerator

should not exceed 0.03 grains per standard cubic foot of dry exhaust

gas adjusted to 12 percent C02 *

51
Wastewater Treatment

The State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (D.H.M.H.) has authority

over in the construction of wastewater treatment plants. There is a chain

of events which must take place prior to construction of any facility.

The treatment plant must be Incorporated in the county water and sewer

plan. This amendment must be sent to the Environmental Health Administration

of the D.H.M.H. for study and sent to the State Planning and Zoning

Office for their approval. Application must be made for a discharge permit

and to the State Water Resources Council for a study of the effluent.

Application must be made for a construction permit. Regulations surrounding

a wastewater treatment plant include the fact that any facility built

is termed an "interim plant" and within five years from the date of

operation must be included in the regional treatment system. An agency

of the State or County must operate the plant, excluding any piping.

The developer of the treatment plant is responsible for the construction,

and maintenance of the facility. The operating agency provides manpower

while the developer pays the cost of such manpower.

A State Discharge Permit is required for disposal of sanitary effluents

on land, as in a spray irrigation system. Should the method change for

disposal in water (i.e., stream, pond, etc.) a NPDES permit will be

required

.

Planning and Zoning

The housing project site is zoned R-5. The site is planned for high

density residential development.

2. 2. 5.

6

MlUS/Conventional Utilities Comparison

The land to be occupied by the MIUS Plant and its attendant landscaping

will be approximately two acres; the physical plant, two-thirds of an

acre. The environmental consequences associated with the provision of

power supply and sewage transport facilities are equivalent for this project

whether or not a MIUS is utilized. Therefore, the four acres to be

allocated for a MIUS plant facility represents an environmental impact

not encountered if a MIUS is not employed. The magnitude of the impact

will be minimized if the landscaping design is successful. The environmental

trade-offs in terms of land-use may favor the use of conventional utilities.

Electric Power Generation

Housing Project #5 would have obtained its electric power supply from an existing power line installed along its west property line. The proximity

of this power supply line eliminates the need for providing additional

power supply lines or the right of way attending their installation.

Therefore, the environmental impact associated with the installation and

maintenance of power supply lines for this project is equivalent to that

experienced when the electric power is supplied by an onsite MIUS.

52
Solid Waste Disposal

The nearby town provides for solid waste collection and disposal by landfill. It is planned to expand this service to include the housing project

which will add approximately five ton/day of solid waste, a relatively

small contribution to the total total waste load. Little or no additional

land would be subject to environmental degradation.

Wastewater Treatment

If a MIUS is not utilized, the housing project will require the use of an existing wastewater treatment plant for treatment of the sanitary wastes

generated by the community. There is an existing gravity sewer off site.

Therefore, in order to transport the sanitary wastewater generated to the

waste treatment plant, it will be necessary to use 3 to 40 acres of land

to provide the right of way for the transport line from the site to the sewer trunk line. The environmental degradation associated with the

Installation of this pipeline will be minimal since it will, in all likelihood, be placed in the right of way of an existing secondary road

(western perimeter). The long term environmental degradation is similarly

reduced since the existing road precludes the use of the land for other

purposes whether or not the pipeline is installed.

If a MIUS is employed, the treated effluent will very likely require the

installation of 6000 feet of transport pipe to carry it to the nearby

river to avoid discharging the treated effluent to a natural storm drainage

ditch. This ditch would also carry the effluent to the river, as it

does the storm run-off for the entire site area. However, during dry

weather, the effluent would be the only flow in the ditch and the quality

of the resultant stream may not be in compliance with state regulations.

The right of way for this pipeline would also involve four acres of

land; therefore, the environmental degradation associated with the installation of this pipeline equates to that experienced by the installation

of the transport pipeline required if a MIUS is not used. In the former

case the impact may be more severe since the MIUS effluent pipeline will

be installed in undeveloped woodlands, and trees and shrubs would be

removed during construction. However, it appears that the path to be

followed for the pipeline would be the same as that required for a proposed

road extension that would run north and south along the western border.

If this road were constructed before the effluent pipeline to the river, the

environmental degradation attributable to the pipeline would equate to that

experienced if a MIUS were not utilized.

53
3. COMPARATIVE ENERGY ANALYSIS

The purpose of Section 3. is to present the methodologies and results

of a comparative energy analysis of MIUS and conventional utilities

for each of five housing projects described in Sections 1. and 2. The

methodologies and results are those developed for NBS by NASA-USPO, and

by Hlttman Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates.

3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Section 3.1.1 is a description of subroutines in the Energy Systems

Optimization Program utilized by NASA-USPO to complete the comparative

energy analyses. Section 3.1.2 describes the comparative energy analysis

methodology utilized by the collaborative efforts of Hittman Associates

and Charles J. R. McClure Associates. These NBS technical consultants

utilized the ENVIRON and MEDSI software programs to perform the comparative energy analyses. ENVIRON and MEDSI are two proprietary software

programs of Mechanical Engineering Data Services, Inc.

3.1.1 NASA Methodology

Section 3.1.1 represents the efforts of NASA-USPO as documented in NASA

Technical Memorandum 4084 - "Energy Systems Optimization Program (ESOP)

Users Guide - Update IV (Volume I)”. The ESOP software program was developed for NASA - USPO by Lockheed Electronics Company. Mr. A. E.

Brandli of Systems Engineering was the project manager.

3. 1.1.1 Energy Systems Optimization Program (ESOP)

The ESOP was written for the purpose of calculating facility load requirements and then evaluating the yearly operational characteristics of MIUS

designed to satisfy these loads. Based on these average hourly, dally,

monthly, seasonal and yearly loads, the energy analysis predicts the

fuel requirements for a MIUS and a conventional system to satisfy these

loads

.

Figure 3. 1.1.1 presents a generalized schematic of a typical ESOP energy

analysis. Building utility loads are computed as a function of outside

ambient, desired inside conditions, building construction and geometry,

building power usage, occupancy rate, and occupant metabolic rate. Each

parameter is updated each hour of a twenty-four hour day. The load

calculations are performed for each building type. These results

are summed for all the buildings of the same generic type. The loads

for each generic building type are again aggregated to obtain the total

load profile for a twenty-four hour day. From the calculations, the

housing project energy requirements are obtained. This total energy

requirement can be aggregated on hourly, daily, seasonal, and yearly

bases

.

54
SOLID

WASTE FUEL FUEL

11 X

^CINERATOR ENGINE/

GENERA.TOR ELECTRICITY

DOMESTIC ! ELECTRIC " 1 j

1

1

LOAD 1

i t

SOLID WASTE

WASTE HEAT

WASTE

HEAT

RECOVERED

HEAT

I T

COMPRESS IO^;

AIR COND.

CHILLED

WATER

h

WASTE

WATER

1 ! . ABSORPTION

, AIR COND.

1

r

r WATER

TREAT.MENT

POTABLE

WATER

REQUIREMENTS

BOILER

1 HEAT 4

SPACE

KEATING & TKEPJ^AL

STORAGE

FUEL

CHILLED

.WATER _

SPACE COOLING AND

TKER-'IAL

STORAGE

HEAT

SLUDGE WASTE

WATER

TREATMENT

COOLING

TOWER

IRRIGATION,

FIRE FIGHTING

ECT. ,

TTREATED

WASTE

WATER

TREATED

WASTE

WATER

TREATED

WASTE

WATER

Figure 3. 1.1.1 Generalized ESOP energy analysis schematic

55
The power generation section of ESOP calculates the energy required hy

specific, user-selected prime movers to deliver the electrical energy.

The amount of usable waste heat which can be recovered from the prime

movers is also calculated. The solid waste disposal section of ESOP

predicts the daily solid waste load and the energy required to operate

a specific user-selected solid waste disposal system. The daily quantity

of usable waste heat energy which can be recovered’ from the solid waste

disposal system is determined. The wastewater treatment section computes

the wastewater load and tracks the changes in wastewater quality as it

passes through each wastewater treatment process. The sludge is recovered

and is transferred to the solid waste disposal system. The conventional

utility system section calculates the energy requirements of a commercial

utility system that meets the same heating/cooling, hot water and domestic/

auxiliary power demands as MIUS.

ESOP energy data output, in general, consists of; the operating characteristics and recoverable heat energy of the solid waste disposal system;

all components of the heating and cooling loads; the load demands, operating

characteristics, and energy requirements of the specific prime mover being

analyzed; an indication of degree of utilization of waste heat energy;

and a summary of daily, seasonal, and yearly energy requirements of the

specific MIUS configurations (twenty-four in the case of diesel/turbine

prime movers and twelve in the case of the steam power plant prime mover).

Program Input

All input data to the ESOP is in namelist format. The data consists of

six namelists: INPUT, ENVRHR, BLDGD, WWT, WASTE and CONST. Each run of

ESOP requires one WWT, WASTE and CONST namelist. In addition, each type

of building being served requires its individual INPUT, ENVRHR and BLDGD

namelists. Generally, a case study consists of four separate runs, each

run representing a typical 24 hour day of winter, spring, summer or

fall. All input parameters will remain unchanged from one run to the

next unless changed by new input.

Namelist INPUT contains variables which define; the number of buildings;

number of dwellings in each building; hot water heating demand per

building (if not residential-type building); all-electric option flag;

and basement option parameters

.

Namelist ENVRHR contains input variables which define twenty-four hour

profiles of: inside and outside dry bulb temperatures and air enthalpies;

domestic and auxiliary electric demands; occupancy rate profile; metabolic

rate profile; hot water fraction profile (if not residential-type building);

ventilation rates; number of different types of buildings; temperature

variation and corresponding coefficient of performance for both heat pump

and compression air conditioning (for the all-electric option); total

number of occupants in each building; and residential-type.

56
Namelist BLDGD provides the definition of the building exterior surfaces,

the building surroundings and the building location. The surfaces are defined by areas, tilt angles, azimuth angles, transmission coefficients,

and solar absorptance of the surfaces. The surroundings and location

are defined by the solar reflectance of the ground, cloud cover, atmospheric

clearness number, longitude, latitude and time zone.

Namelist WWT contains the parameters which defines the various wastewater treatment processes and the order in which these processes are to

be used. There are two categories of input variables, general and specific. General input variables are relevant to all processes. Specific

input variables are relevant only to the indicated processes. SERIES,

TOTAL, WFLOW, and WTEMP are general input variables. SERIES sequences

the processes and identifies the specific process manufacturer. TOTAL

identifies the number of processes chosen. WFLOW is the influent wastewater flow in gallons per day. WTEMP is the temperature of the Influent

wastewater in degrees Fahrenheit. Other general variables are influent

wastewater quality in miligrams per liter, sludge flow in gallons per

day, and sludge quality in miligrams per liter. The specific variables

specify the maximum influent particle size, the maximum loading factor,

and minimum detention times of the influent wastewater in the individual

wastewater treatment processes identified by the general variables.

Namelist WASTE contains input variables which define: the amount of solid

waste to be disposed of; its heating value; the cost of the required

fuel; capacity of the incinerator unit; the total quantity of recovered

waste heat; the waste heat usage profile; the operating characteristics

of the pyrolysis process (if used); and heat recovery efficiencies of

both the incineration and pyrolysis processes (if used).

Namelist CONST contains variables which define: diesel/generator or turbine/

generator rated loads; boiler efficiencies; heating value of fuel; coefficients of performance for air conditioning systems; percentage absorption/

compression for the fixed ratio mode; boiler operating characteristics

(for the steam power plant - if used); program logic flags for season;

prime mover system low-grade heat utilization selection; lowgrade heat

recovery and usage characteristics; water cooling tower operating characteristics; and thermal storage parameters.

Subroutine SWDP

Subroutine SWDP calculates operating parameters and dally total energy

input required for three types of solid waste disposal systems: incineration, pyrolysis, and combination incineration/ pyrolysis. Process byproducts

and recoverable waste energy are also calculated. The Incineration process

is utilized for this study.

The total daily waste (lbs) generated is a function of input values of

the waste generation rate per person (Ibs/day), the total number of

occupants and the sludge input from the wastewater. The total moisture

57
1

I (lbs) and non-organics (lbs) are calculated from percent (of total waste) ! values of moisture and non-organics. The total weight (lbs) of organic : trash material (combustibles) is then calculated

j Organics (lbs) = Total Trash (lbs) - (Moisture + Non-Organics) (lbs)

The daily fuel energy requirement (BTU's) for the incineration process

^

is composed of start-up fuel energy and supplementary fuel energy ' (required to sustain combustion). The total fuel energy requirement is i calculated by ^

I

1 Total Energy Reqd. (BTU’s) = Start-up (BTU’s) + Supp. Energy I Rate (BTU’s/HR) x Operating Time (HRs) | where start-up and supplementary energy requirements are input values.

j The heat generated by combustion of the trash is a function of the input ; trash heating value (BTU/lb). The total amount of heat (BTU’s) generated

j by the incineration process is the sum of the fuel energy requirements,

^ the trash combustion heat generation, and the energy available from sludge

material. The heat recovered from the incineration process is a function ! of an input "recovery efficiency" factor.

Subroutine HEAIR

I Subroutine HEAIR calculates the heating or cooling loads on a specific

building with given internal and external environmental conditions for

each hour of a 24 hour day. Input variables define the location, geometry and construction of the building and the Internal and external j environments. '

The total heat gain or loss of the building is calculated as the sum ; of the six distinct sources. The total building heat gain or loss is:

j • •••••• j ^GAIN "" ^ELEC ^MET ^VENT ^COND ^RAD ‘‘‘ ^HW |

The building domestic electricity usage is totally dissipated within the

building. Auxiliary electricity usage is not considered to be a heat | load source.

A , KW-HR

Qelec " domestic usage (—jj^) * 3414 BTU/KW-HR = BTU/HR I

The sensible and latent heat loads are calculated by empirical equations ! with metabolic rate per occupant and inside dry bulb temperature as independent variables. When the building is being cooled, both the sensible

and latent gain are considered. In the heating mode only sensible is

considered. i

58
^MET ~ ^^SENS. ^LAT^ * occupants

Sensible and latent heat loads from ventilation air are calculated

the following manner for the heating and cooling modes.

Cooling Mode:

Where:

0) = mass flow

H = specific enthalpy

T = dry bulb temperature

Cp = specific heat

Conduction heat transfer load from the walls, roof, and windows is

^VENT " “ ^^OUTSIDE " ^INSIDE

Heating Mode:

^VENT “ ^p “ OUTSIDE

“

"^inside)

^COND QrOOF ^WALLS ''' ^WINDOW

COND COND COND

^ROOF

“ COND

%IND " UAAT

COND

U = heat transfer coefficient

A = area

AT = temperature differential

59
Radiation heat transfer load from the building window glass is:

QrAd ^ ^WINDOW DIFSOL) where

A = window area

DIRSOL = direct solar radiation flux passing through the glass

DIFSOL = diffuse solar radiation flux passing through the glass

Provision is made for calculation of the heat gain from the use of hot

water in the building. The heat gain due to domestic hot water is:

*^HW Heat gain from the use of hot water in the building

HWF Fraction of hot water demand that becomes a heat source

^HWD

~ water demand

The above process is repeated for each building type. The calculated

total heating/cooling demand profiles, the hot water demand profiles,

and the input domestic and auxiliary electrical demand profiles are then summed to comprise the total 24-hour load demand profile.

Subroutine AIRHT

Subroutine AIRHT calculates, on an hourly basis, the required energy

output of the MIUS energy systems (thermal storage, boiler, diesel/

generator, and/or turbine/generator). For this study diesel/generators

are utilized.

The hot water heating demands are initially met by low-grade waste

heat energy recovered from the lubrication oil cooling system and water

jacket cooling system (if not ebullient cooling) of the diesel/turbine

prime mover. If there is low-grade heat left over after meeting the

hot water demand, it is used for the space heating demand. If there is

enough low grade heat to satisfy both of the above demands, none of

the high grade heat recovered from the prime mover (exhaust and water

jacket - if ebulliently cooled) and the incineration process will be

used for these demands. If there is not enough low-grade heat to meet

both the domestic hot water and space heating demands, the high grade

recovered heat will be used. If there is not enough high-grade (plus

low-grade) heat to satisfy these demands, the boiler is fired to meet

the necessary remaining demands. The absorption chillers use the

60
high-grade heat until it is all used or until the total air conditioning

demand is met. The compression air conditioning system is used, if

the absorption chiller can not meet the total air conditioning demand.

The air conditioning load demands are met by an air conditioning system

that has four modes of operation: compression refrigeration; absorption

refrigeration; fixed ratio - compression/absorption; and floating ratio - compression/absorption. The "Floating Ratio” system operation is determined by an iterative method that maximizes usage of available waste

heat by the absorption system and minimizes electrical consumption by

the compression system for each hourly period. Thus, the ratio between

compression/absorption air conditioning varies hourly. The Iterative

method for the "floating ratio" system uses a technique involving up to

25 iterations to ensure that the sum of the absorption A/C load plus the

compression A/C load comes within 2 tons of the total air conditioning

demand for the particular hour being considered.

The coolant water flow from the MIUS system to the cooling tower is

determined by the heat rejection rate of the A/C condenser system,

miscellaneous heat rejection requirements, and the cooling capacity

of the cooling tower. Coolant water is lost through drift, evaporation,

and blow-down processes. This loss is made up with wastewater effluent

flow. Requirement for the waste heat and wastewater effluent flow

are input to the program. Recovery, utilization, and disposal of the

heat and water are summarized in the program output. The total MIUS

electric power load demand is comprised of the domestic and auxiliary

demands (program input) and the calculated electric power required to

drive the compression-type air conditioning system.

Subroutine GENRAT

f Subroutine GENRAT calculates the hourly energy requirements for prime

mover/generator units as a function of electrical load demands imposed

by subroutine AIRHT. The program user may specify the engine/generator

to be used or the program will select the engine/generator which will

require the minimum fuel during a mean year. GENRAT also calculates

the hourly rate of waste heat energy that is recovered from prime mover

heat exchanger systems. The operating characteristics as a function

of percent full rated load operation of ten diesel and two turbine

generator units are currently programmed into GENRAT. Among these

operating characteristics are the specific fuel consumption in Btu/kWh

and the recovered waste heat from the engine exhaust, water jacket,

and lubricating oil, all in Btu/h.

When a Thermal Storage System is not included in MIUS the number of

specified prime mover/generator units required to meet the electrical

load demand is determined by the criteria that a unit can only be

loaded to a maximum of 90% of its rated full load capacity. Thus,

when one unit is loaded to 90% capacity, another unit is brought into

operation and the two units operate at 45% load.

61
When a thermal storage system is Included in MIUS, the number of generators will be the minimum number required to meet the day's maximum

auxiliary and domestic electric demand without exceeding 110% of generator

rated output. Each hour's total electric demand (auxiliary, domestic and

compression air conditioning) is evenly distributed among the generators.

Conventional Utility System

ESOP also calculates the energy required by a conventional utility system

to provide the same services provided by MIUS. The conventional system

modeled in the program consists of a central power generation facility,

all compression air conditioning, and a gas-fired boiler for space heating

and hot water heating. The program does provide sufficient information

such that the energy requirements of other types of conventional systems

(e.g., heat pumps for single family dwelling units) can be calculated.

3.1.2 Hlttman/McClure Methodology

ENVIRON was utilized to compute individual building heating and cooling

loads. Section 3. 1.2.1 describes the ENVIRON software program. Information

concerning ENVIRON can be found in "Heating and Cooling Loads Calculations"

by National Computer Service, Inc. NCS is a service organization providing

computer services to architectural and engineering firms. MEDSI was utilized

to size individual building HVAC and utility equipment and to compute

energy balances for both MIUS and conventional utilities. Section 3. 1.2.

2

describes the MEDSI software program. Information concerning MEDSI can

be found in "Shared Time System Computer Programs for Heating and Cooling

Energy Analysis of Building Air Conditioning Systems" by C. J. R. McClure

and J. C. Vorbeck.

3. 1.2.1 ENVIRON

The ENVIRON Heating and Cooling Load Program calculates heating and

cooling loads for structures. There are 3 input forms. Form Ol, DESIGN

CONDITIONS FOR ENTIRE BUILDING, consists of master design data (such as design indoor dry bulb temperature and number of cooling months) and is

fllled-in only once for each job. Form 02, MASTER LOADS FOR ENTIRE

BUILDING, consists of construction data (such as typical wall, roof, and

floor sections) and is also filled in only once for each job. Form 03,

INDIVIDUAL SPACE CONSTRUCTION DATA, is used for each space for which

loads are desired. A space may be an Individual room, group of rooms,

a zone or a whole building. A job may be a building or a whole development with the same HVAC design constraints and same wall, roof and floor

construction.

Design Conditions For Entire Building (Form 01)

The program automatically creates an outside temperature profile which

correctly adjusts the outside temperature for each hour being considered

(Summer Outdoor Design, Winter Outdoor Design). This is accomplished by

taking the outside design temperature and the daily range specified and

62
fitting these values to a 10-year average weather distribution curve. Then when the load calculations require the outside air temperature, as in ventilation loads, the program goes to the temperature profile and uses the correct outside temperature for each hour as it makes it's

hourly calculations. The user need never refer to the psychrometric

chart because this has been fully programmed and stored. The outdoor

load and indoor humidity ratios for every hour (needed for ventilation

load calculations) are determined automatically from the design entries

for dry bulbs, wet bulb, relative humidity, and from the temperature

profile

.

The user may, at his option, have the instantaneous thermal loads averaged

over a specified number of hours in order to consider the thermal storage

effect of the building. Some engineers wish to base the maximum cooling

load on the peak instantaneous heat gain for a given building. On other

jobs, they may wish to account for a difference between instantaneous

heat gain and instantaneous cooling load caused by thermal storage

effects of the building. When thermal load averaging is used, the program averages the following loads in accordance with recommendations of

the ASHRAE Guide: window solar, walls, roofs, lights and the sensible

portion of the occupancy loads.

Master Loads For Entire Building (Form 02)

The description of walls, windows, roofs and floors is entered only one

time, using Input Form 02. For example, a building may have three different types of wall construction. Each type is described on a separate

line on Form 02. These are then described as Wall Type 1, Wall Type 2,

Wall Type 3 etc. Later, when individual room data is being input,

outside walls for a room are simply described as a Type 1 or 2 or 3

etc. This eliminates much repetitive input which is customary in load

calculations and results in a great saving in time.

Eight general types of wall construction are described in Table I in

the instructions. It is recognized that many walls which will not fit

exactly into one of these types, but the user selects the closest to

his actual condition, paying particular attention to the time-lag hours

shown on Table I. Each set of published equivalent wall temperature

differentials is intended to cover a range of construction. Within each

of the eight brackets, ENVIRON will correctly select the equivalent temperature differential for any hour and orientation. In addition,

the wall load calculation is made even more precise, because the program

will accept any U-value entered by the user. The program will calculate

loads for systems with return air plenums under roofs or between floors,

by providing entries for percentage of loads to return air. Also, provision is made to consider heat-of-light systems where part of the lighting

load goes directly to return air. These entries affect the psychrometric

s

of the space and building loads.

Shading coefficients are pre-stored and need not be entered if the user

does not wish to do so. These coefficients are given in Table III of

63
the instructions. The user may enter any optional shading coefficient

if he elects to do so. Any window U-value may be entered for use by

the program in calculation of conduction loads.

Internal loads for the number of people, heat gain per person, and lighting,

in addition to ventilation loads, may be input one time as master entry.

These loads will then apply to all spaces in the building unless the user overrides the master Internal loads or master ventilation loads;

the user need only make an entry on the appropriate line on Form 03 for

the room involved. Outside air ventilation may be input in any one of

three ways (a master entry or for any individual space): CFM per person,

percent of supply air, or air changes per hour. Infiltration is input

as air changes per hour.

Individual Space Construction Data (Form 03)

The user need not make any area, volume or air change calculations. The

program automatically makes all calculations for floor area, roof area,

net wall areas (windows automatically deducted), air changes etc., using

the space dimensions input by the user on each Form 03. The program

recognizes the difference between room units and central systems.

The program calculates loads for any orientation and construction type.

The program first determines the equivalent temperature differentials

for the wall by deriving the correct solar heat gain factors, solar

temperatures, decrement factor, and time lag for any construction type,

for any hour, and for any orientation. The program calculates both

solar and conduction loads for windows. Correct solar heat gain factors

are determined for any hour, for any month, for any latitude, and for

any orientation. Since straight-line interpolation of tabular solar data

is not correct, all calculations are made from basic formulae.

3. 1.2. 2 MEDSI

MEDSI heating and cooling energy calculations were made by time-share

computer programs using Weather Data taken from Air Force Manual 88-8

and U.S. Weather Bureau Climates of the States covering 218 areas in

the United States. Charles J. R. McClure and Associates, Inc. was the

developer of the computer program system. Reheat, Heat-Cool-Off, and

Multizone (or Double-Duct) are three basic routines which produce net

requirements of ton-hours and Btu x 10^. In addition to the weather

file, these routines require 91 data to describe building heat gains and

losses, the heating and air conditioning system, and building use. HC

ENERGY converts the output file of these routines to the total fuel

and electrical energy of equipment selected to satisfy Reheat, HeatCool-Off or Multizone Loads. HCENERGY requires an additional 32 data

such as efficiencies and auxiliary plant loads.

The basic procedure common to all programs is illustrated in the logic

diagram (Figure 3. 1.2.1). As indicated in the diagram, each of the 36

time periods that make up the weather year are printed after the Influence

64
ID

(/> Eo

k.O)oaDocoEEouEow

O)o

*0) _owo

GD

CN

CO«3

o> 0

65
of each weather incident is calculated with the input data. The programs

determine solar heat gains, external heat losses and gains, and internal

gains and losses, process the raw building load in the unique features

of the selected system program, calculate part load hours and accumulate

the totals of the various output information.

Programs HCEIRH, HCE2HC0, and HCE3MZ model the performance of reheat,

heat-cool-off, and multizone or double duct systems, respectively.

The weather files have been created from Mr Force Manual 88-8, Chapter

6, Engineering Weather Data. In this manual, the number of hours of

occurrence of dry bulb temperatures in 5° F ranges for night, day and

evening periods of all months are recorded for many locations. Each weather

file contains this information for its location, along with monthly mean

coincident wet bulb temperatures for each range, and with monthly factors

which relate average solar gains to July peaks and monthly cloud cover

factors. Using the information in the data and weather files, each system

program calculates the building thermal loads for each weather and occupancy

occurrence and then simulates the performance of the specific HVAC system

which is to meet these loads. All three system programs recognize such

features as economizer, with or without enthalpy control, night setback,

system specified on or off during unoccupied cooling periods, and different summer and winter room temperatures.

Reheat

The logic diagram of the reheat program (*HCE1RH) in Figure 3. 1.2. 2 illustrates the analysis used to reflect the performance of this system in

meeting the building loads. When the outdoor temperature is lower than room dry bulb, the program accounts for the effect of economizer cycle.

A determination of the mix air temperature is made, based on input data

concerning reset range of mix air if used, and, if the outdoor air temperature is lower than the adjusted mix air temperature then the cooling

effect of the outdoor air is calculated. The quantity of reheat is calculated for conditions when the space needs additional heat and added to

the heat required to preheat outdoor air and to humidify. This program

allows for a 3 degree shift in room temperature before the reheat load

is figured to account for thermostat throttling range. These calculations

are done for each different weather condition.

If there is no economizer cycle, the program calculates required reheat

for the mix air temperature resulting from the Introduction of the

minimum quantity of ventilation air. The refrigeration load required

to cool the supply air down to the design supply temperature is adjusted

to reflect the cooling effect of minimum outdoor air. If the space does

not require the full available cooling effect, then the program calculates

the necessary reheat and determines required heat for humidification.

A separate loop is provided to account for a special control cycle that

will use 100% outdoor air when the outdoor wet bulb temperature is below

return wet bulb. When the outdoor temperature is above room dry bulb,

the program calculates the reheat needed in the same manner as with the

economizer cycle. However, the refrigeration requirement is determined

66
67

Figure

3.

1.2. 2

Logic

diagram

for

reheat

program
as the sum of the minimum outdoor air sensible cooling, return air heat

gain, supply fan heat, space heat gains and the heat added as reheat plus

the latent heat load from internal loads and outdoor air dehumidification.

The same loop as above is available to reflect 100% outdoor air when

outdoor wet bulb is below return wet bulb. The program also accounts

for the scheduled mode of operation during occupied hours.

Heat-Cool-Off

The logic diagram of the heat-cool-off program (*HCE2HC0) in Figure 3. 1.2.

3

illustrates the calculation procedure for this system. When the outdoor

air is below dry bulb temperature, and the building internal gains exceed

the heat losses, the program accounts for the cooling, heating and humidification required for minimum outdoor air and then determines if the

system is in occupied mode and if there is an economizer cycle. The

heating needs for humidification and building refrigeration loads are calculated. When the outdoor temperature is below room temperature and

the building Internal gains are less than the heat losses, the program

calculates the heat required for treating the minimum fresh air and supplying

heat to offset the losses. When the outdoor dry bulb is not lower than

room dry bulb, the computer determines the cooling required to offset

sensible and latent gains, including minimum outdoor air and then adjusts

this value to reflect a reduction in latent load proportional to the

ratio of total load to the size of the cooling system. A loop of computer

operations will take account of a special control cycle that provides

100% outdoor air when the outdoor wet bulb is below return wet bulb.

Multizone

The logic diagram or the multizone program (or Double Duct System - HCE3MZ)

in Figure 3. 1.2. 4 shows the analysis employed to account for special

considerations inherent with this system. Separate modes of calculation

are used to reflect the system performance when the relationship of outdoor

air temperature to room temperature changes as in *HCE1RH and *HCE2HC0.

Bypass factor is the percentage of supply air that goes through the

heating coil and this value is determined for each weather condition.

The influence of the economizer cycle on cooling and heating energy use

is calculated. Heat required for humidification is determined for each

new condition of outdoor air quantity, enthalpy and internal latent gain.

The influence of 100% outdoor air when outdoor wet bulb is lower than

return wet bulb is calculated. The refrigeration requirement is calculated using the adjusted bypass factors and including the latent heat

load of outdoor air. Use of the recalculated bypass factor reflects the

changing conditions of face and bypass control and is valid when the

bypass is merely untreated mix air, as when no heat is added to a hot

deck in the summer cycle, and when there is heat added to the bypassed

air

.

68
a,03«

i»3H I

0Nnoo3>

—

«

wnooo

69
h-i

i

70
HCENERGY

*HCENERGY produces the total fuel and electrical energy input required

for the apparatus selected for the project. Output of this supplementary

program facilitates comparative analysis of several alternatives of equipment

and fuel source. Additional input information describing the characteristics

of the apparatus to be used in serving the building loads must he entered.

The reduced load performance characteristics, capacity and quantity of

boilers, of chillers, towers, and of pumps are related to the part load

hour calculations made in the program to account for variable energy

conversion efficiency.

3.2 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Section 3.2 presents the detailed results of the NASA and NBS comparative energy analyses summarized in Section 1.2.2. Section 3.2.1 details

the results developed by NASA; Section 3.2.2, those by Hittman Associates

and McClure Associates in behalf of NBS.

3.2.1 NASA Evaluation

The purpose of Section 3.2.1 is to present detailed background data developed

by NASA-USPO which is the basis for data presented in Section 1.2.2.

The more significant aspects of ESOP input information, the generic MIUS

and conventional utilities models, and energy computation procedures are identified

.

Section 3.2. 1.1 describes the manner in which utility load profiles were

developed for the five housing projects. Section 3. 2. 1.1 describes the

individual building simulations and site specific assumptions used in

conjunction with ESOP. Information for Section 3. 2. 1.1 is fovind in

"Preliminary Design Study of a Baseline MIDS System"^, a community study^,

and additional work by a NASA-USPO technical group headed by Mr. H. E.

Benson. Section 3. 2. 1.2 presents the MIUS and conventional utility systems

developed by NASA-USPO. Tables have been added which summarize the major

aspects of these designs for the five housing projects. Information for

Section 3. 2. 1.2 is found in the community study and a MIUS design study .

3. 2. 1.1 Utility Loads

The loads (electrical power, HVAC, potable water, sewage and solid waste)

were defined by determining the utility requirements of each building

and the housing project. Refer to Table 3. 2. 1.1.

Analysis of the energy utilization and other consumables was accomplished

primarily with the ESOP. The ESOP was first used to determine peak

2 This and other similar superscripts represent individual citations of

REFERENCES located at the end of this document.

71
Table 3. 2. 1.1

NASA Utility Load Data

(Plant + Site)

Housing Project

n n n H //5 Electric Power Generation:

Peak, MIUS (kW) 1912 1828 8617 9848 1434

Peak, CONV (kW) 2679 1828 9554 9848 1959

Average, MIUS (kW) 1099 554 3567 3612 792

Average, CONV (kW) 1168 582 3695 3776 855

Annual, MIUS (kWh x 10"^) 9.63 4.86 31.16 31.64 6.94

Annual, CONV (kWh x 10 °) 10.23 5.10 32.37 33.07 7.49

Load Factor, MIUS (%) 57.5 30.3 41.3 36.7 55.2

Load Factor, CONV (%) 43.6 31.8 38.7 38.3 43.6

Space Heating:

MIUS (Btu/h X 10 ° CONV (Btu/h X

10~°

15.08 5.30 40.18 43.16 10.54

15.08 5.30 40.18 43.16 10.54

Air Conditioning:

MIUS (tons) 1357 604 4015 3580 1166

CONV (tons) 1357 604 4015 3580 1166

Solid Waste Disposal (av):

MIUS Refuse (Ib/d) 12340 4460 26000 32855 10000

CONV Refuse (Ib/d) 12340 4460 26000 32855 10000

MIUS Sludge (Ib/d) 8630 1900 17100 20550 7000

CONV Sludge (Ib/d) 8630 1900 17100 20550 7000

Wastewater Treatment (av):

MIUS (kgpd) 168 36 316 385 130

CONV (kgpd) 168 36 316 385 130

Potable Water Treatment (av):

MIUS (kgpd) 169 36 322 392 130

CONV (kgpd) 198 55 381 467 154

72
equipment loads for equipment sizing. This was done by performing analyses

for the summer and winter seasons with hourly weather data which was

two standard deviations above and below the mean, respectively. Data

for January are used for the winter season and July data for the summer

season. Mean data for January, April, July, and October are used, respectively, for winter, spring, summer and fall seasonal analyses.

Electric Power Generation

Each building and individual dwelling unit was analyzed, and a 24-hour

profile of the domestic load was developed. The domestic load is defined

as lights, electric oven (where applicable), other appliances, and all

other electrical loads except environmental conditioning loads. Where

necessary, MlUS-peculiar loads were added. To develop the electrical

profiles for the dwelling units, the diversity among units was considered.

Some electrical loads within the community were not associated with a particular building. Houston Lighting and Power Company standards were

used for the streetlighting loads of the various sections of the community.

The electrical loads for the lighting in the parking areas of the community

were based on parking-area lighting levels from McGuiness and Stein.

The environmental conditioning of the site used excess heat from electrical power generation equipment and from incineration for absorption

air conditioning in the summer. However, it was necessary to provide

additional compression air conditioning at various times in the summer. The absorption/compression split of the total cooling load varies so that the amount of absorption air conditioning is maximized to use all

available heat energy. The electrical power load is a function of the

amount of compression air conditioning required.

The MIUS does not directly supply environmental conditioning to the

single-family detached houses. Each house had standard electric central

air conditioning unit. The total electrical power load was a result of

the amount of compressive air conditioning required by the MIUS itself

and the additional electrical load to cool the single-family houses.

Additionally, the HVAC auxiliary loads, pump motors, etc. were included.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

HVAC requirements were derived as a function of HVAC loads developed over

a 24-hour period. For air conditioning, the loads were based on a 2-sigma

(two standard deviations above and below the mean) hot summer design

day; for winter, the heating loads are based on a 2-sigma cold winter

design day.

The calculation of the community heating and air conditioning loads used

basic HVAC load determination techniques from the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) supplemented by design manuals from commercial environmental conditioning firms.

The actual calculation of the loads on the various building types within

73
the community was performed by a computer program, the Energy Systems

Optimization Program (ESOP). The design is required to maintain an inside

temperature of 74“F dry bulb with a 50-percent relative humidity. Material

”U" factors, solar factors, and other constraints that were used are obtained from ASHRAE.

Solid Waste Disposal

The generation of solid waste was estimated for each building based

on published reports, generally in terms of pounds per day per capita.

Potable Water/Wastewater Treatment

Potable water demands were determined from published surveys. For a residential unit, water uses included kitchen, laundry, bath and toilet

demands, as well as exterior demands such as recreation (e.g., pools)

and car washing. Average dally demands and hour-by-hour profiles were

developed for both hot and cold water. The outdoor demand varied with

season and averages were determined for each of the four seasons.

The loads on the wastewater system were the same as the potable water

loads with the exception of that used for exterior demands. Blowdown

loads of the MIUS processes, particularly from the heat rejection system

were treated. The MIUS treated wastewater was reused for irrigation,

MIUS process water makeup (especially for heat rejection), and could be

used for fire protection. This reuse thus reduces the potable water

requirements. Irrigation requirements were based on area and climatic

conditions and varied per season. Fire protection storage requirements

were based on the National Board of Fire Underwriters Handbook.

Site Specific Assumptions

The purpose of this section is to Identify some additional NASA assumptions

used in the energy evaluation of housing projects, #1 through 5. Refer

to Table 3. 2. 1.2 and to Table 1.1. 4.1.

Housing Project #1 consisted of 240 apartment units and 527 townhouse

units. After analyzing the square footage, NASA concluded that the LOWRISE SINGLES would be the appropriate model for the apartment units.

NASA adjusted the unit count to allow for any differences in floor area. NASA utilized their TOWNHOUSE model for the remaining units. The unit

count was adjusted as for the apartment units. This adjustment reduced

the wall area by a small percentage. The incinerator supplementary fuel

rate was 0*825 x 10 Btu/h. The incinerator start-up fuel requirement

was 0.4 X 10 Btu/day.

For Housing Project #2, the single-family detached and apartment unit

numbers were based on percentages given in the developer's descriptive

text. The motel, maintenance area, historical buildings, and trailer

park annual energy utilization and consumables were not calculated.

The total commercial space utilized for the energy analysis has 35,000

74
Table 3. 2. 1.2

Housing Project

Model

Low Rise Family:

Bldg

Units

Sq Ft

Low Rise Singles:

Bldg

Units

Sq Ft

Townhouse:

Bldg

Units

Sq Ft

Single Family

House:

Bldg

Units

Sq Ft

Commercial

Bldg

Units

Sq Ft

#1 n #3 #4 #5

40

111

208 667.5

44,689 231,495 744,810

1 240

174,960

407

1 1500

1 527

685,100

1 362

459,148

1 553.5

719,550

1 500

791,120

105 700

1 1 1,500 1,500

1 1 1 3.53 3.25 8

35,000 32,787 79,200

75

i
square feet. The incinerator supplementary fuel rate was 1.2 x 10^

Btu/hr. The Incinerator start-up fuel requirement was 0.6 x 10° Btu/day.

For Housing Project #3, NASA considered the Village Center as a whole.

The school was modeled as a COMMERCIAL AREA of 10,000 square feet for

a total of 32,000 square feet. NASA utilized their SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE

model. Seven hundred units were assumed. SINGLE FAMILY HVAC is all

electric. NASA used the LOW-RISE FAMILY model for the 208 apartments.

The triplexes were modeled as TOWNHOUSES. Triplexes were to have pitched

roofs; the TOWNHOUSES were flat. Triplexes were to have an 8 foot floor to

celling dimension; TOWNHOUSES were nine. The TOWNHOUSES were served by

district HVAC. Furnaces were shown for triplexes in some developer drawings.

The incinerator supplementary fuel rate was 1.5 x 10° Btu/h. The Incinerator

start-up fuel requirement was 0.6 x 10° Btu/day.

For Housing Project //4, the developer did not supply any building con- struction detail other than the percent of each building type and the

total number of buildings. The LOW-RISE FAMILY model was utilized to

simulate the apartment units. The model unit count was adjusted to

667.5. The TOWNHOUSE model was utilized and the number count was adjusted

to 553.5. NASA also used LOW RISE SINGLES to simulate 407 single-family

detached units. No consideration was given to the light industrial space.

It was decided that the commercial area is representative of a typical

villge center. Based on NASA’s previous work in community design, NASA

assumed 60,000 square foot of commercial space. The developer indicated

a recreational complex. NASA assumed 20,000 square feet of floor area

and modeled this space as commercial. The recreational complex was not

included in the solid waste loads. The Incinerator supplementary fuel

rate was 1*91 x 10° Btu/h. The incinerator start-up fuel requirement

was 0.8 X 10 Btu/day.

For Housing Project #5, there are three generic TOWNHOUSE models - 8

unit, 7 unit, and 4 unit. To make 300 total units (as stated by the

developer) NASA assumed 19 each of the 8 unit model, 16 each of the 7 unit model and 9 each of the 4 unit model. NASA calculated the wall,

roof, and glass areas for each unit type. The number of NASA 8-unit

Townhouse models were determined. Only a small decrease in wall area

occurs. The developer's townhouse roofs were pitched. Flat roofs were

assumed for the study. The four-plexes were modeled as 4 unit TOWNHOUSES.

The incinerator supplementary fuel rate was 0.64 x 10° Btu/hr. The incinerator

start-up fuel requirement was 0.4 x 10° Btu/day.

The SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE model was selected to characterize the low-density

housing. The dwelling design conformed to the uniform building code (UBC)

classification I standards (dwellings and lodgings). The TOWNHOUSE model

was selected to represent this dwelling type in the medium-density housing

areas. The SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE and TOWNHOUSE models were developed

from a statistical survey of multi-family housing in the BaltlmoreWashlngton, and DC area. The TOWNHOUSE had the same UBC classification

as the SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE model.

76
The size of the COMMERCIAL AREA was based on a combined regional and local

marketing approach. It was designed on a 5 foot planning module or grid in a 30 by 30 foot structural bay format to allow for structural

efficiency and compatibility. This area was typical of the lease space

for many national chain supermarkets. The adjacent 30 x 60 foot lease

spaces are typical small-shop spaces and professional offices. The model

design complied with UBC classification 1-2 standards.

Each HIGH RISE APARTMENT had 22 floors, 21 of which contain apartment

units, 10 units on each floor, for a total of 210 units/building. The

HIGH-RISE APARTMENT model building design was based on the center corridor

concept, which was well suited to such a structure. The plan for the

building reflected a high-density ratio common to high-rise apartments.

Structural efficiency, privacy, elevator core location, and the parking

ratio were important design and arrangement considerations. The structural design complied with UBC classification H standards (high rise

residential)

.

There were two LOW RISE APARTMENT models; singles and families. Both

LOW-RISE apartment models had three floors. LOW-RISE SINGLES had twelve

dwelling units per floor. There were four each of efficiency, one and

two bedroom apartments. LOW-RISE FAMILY had six dwelling units per floor.

There were two each of one, two, and three bedroom apartments.

3. 2. 1.2 Utility Resource Consumption

Table 3. 2. 1.3 is the resource consumption of MIUS and conventional utility

systems determined by NASA serving the same five housing projects as Hittman/

McClure. The MIUS alternative included energy flows for the water and

wastewater utilities. These were not incorporated in the conventional

utility computation. Table 3. 2. 1.3 demonstrates the energy conservation

possible through MIUS implementation. Further a significant amount of

potable water can also be conserved as shown by these tables if treated

wastewater' is recycled as cooling tower make-up.

Modular Integrated Utility System

An overview of the MIUS system is illustrated by the schematic in Figure

3. 2. 1.1. The power generation subsystem consisted of diesel generators,

with heat recovery and one stand-by generator without heat recovery.

The generators were ebulliently cooled with recovery of water jacket and

exhaust heat in the form of 15 psi, 250°F steam and lube oil heat recovery

in the form of 180“F water. Solid waste management was incinerated with

heat recovery from the exhaust gas in the form of 15 psi, 250®F steam

which was tied to the steam header from the prime movers.

The steam was used in three ways. First, it was routed to a heat exchanger

which was used to heat a 200‘*F hot water loop that had been preheated by

another heat exchanger using the heat recovered from the engine lube oil.

This 200® hot water provided heating of the domestic hot water and space

77
Table 3. 2. 1.3

Utility Resource Consumption (NASA)

Potable Wastewater

Housing Utility Fuel Water Effluent TRASH Sludge

Project Typ.g_

.

(10^1 Btu) (10^ Gal) (10° Gal) (Tons

)

(Tons)

n CONV 16.8 72 61 2250 1575

MIUS 1.5 62 51 450 1575

n CONV 60 20 13 810 347

MIUS 52 13 6 160 347

CONV 405 139 115 4750 3121

MIUS 321 117 94 950 3121

CONV 460 170 140 5910 3750

MIUS 327 143 113 1182 3750

#5 CONV 121 56 47 1830 1278

MIUS 81 47 38 366 1278

78
Incineration I

Ash

in

'>w>O

CO2

t.

CNCOo3

79

Process

water

makeup
heating. Second, the steam was routed to the absorption chillers which

were supplemented by compression chillers to provide chilled water for

space cooling. Third, the unused steam was rejected through a heat exchanger

to a cooling tower which also provided heat rejection for the chillers.

Provision was made to store thermal energy from both the chilled water

and hot water loops by a water tank. The principal effect of such storage

was that it allows reduction of the peak electrical load required for

compression cooling and thus reduced the required electrical generating

capacity that needs to be Installed.

The prime movers for the jxjwer generation subsystem were selected based

on the peak electrical energy requirement calculated through the ESOP

computer program. The inputs to the program were the domestic electrical

loads, auxiliary electrical loads (excluding chiller power) and cooling

loads. The program considered all of the electrical and heat energy

required by all subsystems and iterated to an electrical demand profile

to be produced by the power generation subsystem. The electrical demand

profile was calculated for a 2 sigma summer day and its demand peak

represented the maximxam electrical demand anticipated for the power

generation subsystem.

The number and size of prime movers were chosen such that the part-load

electrical conversion efficiency decreased no more than three percent

from that achieved at full load. The prime movers selected offered the

best energy savings possible over a conen ional system, while being

consistent with good reliability and commercial availability. Electrical

power was generated at 460 volts (rms), 3-phase 60 Hz.

The configuration for the electrical power subsystem is given in Figure

3. 2. 1.2. The subsystem consisted of two or more diesel generators with

heat recovery units on the exhaust and the lube oil circuits. The backup

diesel/generator was included as a standby to provide additional redundancy

for the generation of electricity only. Heat recovery equipment was not

used with this prime mover. For the units with heat recovery, the wat

jackets and exhaust boilers were integrated into a pressure forcedcirculated hot water cooling system, with hot water leaving the water

jackets at 230°F feeding into the exhaust boiler. This pressurized water

was flashed to steam in the exhaust boiler. The steam was regulated at

15 psig, 250°F and, mixing with steam from the incinerator, provided

steam to the HVAC subsystem. When there was more steam than required,

the excess was reduced to cndensate through a heat exchanger and held

in a tank for recirculation through both the prime movers and the incinerator. Makeup water for the entire heat recovery system was provided

through this holding tank using treated wastewater.

The lube oil was circulated through an oil to water heat-exchanger which

exited hot water at about 180“F. This water loop provided space heating

and also through a water to water heat exchanger provided heat for the

domestic hot water. When there was no demand for this heat, the oil was routed through an air-blast heat exchanger for heat rejection.

80
Steam

from!

Condensate

to

15

psi 2

50”

steam

incinerator 4

incinerator

81

Figure

3.

2.

1,2

Electrical

power

subsystem
An economic tradeoff was conducted between tne Fairbanks-Morse and the

Caterpillar prime movers. The total subsystems cost using the FairbanksMorse diesels increased the capital cost of the MIUS by approximately

five percent over what the Caterpillar engine would cost. At the same

time, fuel consumption was decreased by ten percent annually with an undetermined reduction in maintenance. It was decided that the ten

percent annual energy savings over the life of the system offset the

penalty of increased initial costs.

The HVAC subsystem is illustrated in Figure 3. 2. 1.3. Shown are the

major components of the HVAC system and interfaces with other MIUS

systems and typical building equipment. The #1 designated heat exchanger

allowed steam supplied from the Incinerator and each prime mover's stack

and jacket to supplement the lube oil heat for the hot water distribution

loop. The #2 heat exchanger was used to transfer excess heat from the

hot water distribution loop during moderate seasons to the cooling tower

loop. Similarly, the #3 heat exchanger delivered excess heat to the

tower loop. Thermal storage was used for heating and cooling. Connection

to either hot or cold water distribution loops was accomplished by valving.

Energy for domestic hot water and space heating was supplied by the hot

water distribution loop which delivered water to each building at about

200°F and returned it for reheating at about 140®F. This energy came

primarily from prime mover lube oil heat and was supplemented from the

higher energy steam loop and from the pre-stored thermal storage system.

The absorption chillers were supplied 15 psig steam from the prime movers

and from the incinerator after domestic hot water requirements were met.

Distribution losses were added to the chiller requirements to determine

equipment selected on the peak requirement during the design day.

HVAC equipment selection was based on the following assumptions. Most

HVAC systems would use total compression air conditioning. The moderate

increase in initial costs necessary to incorporate an absorption chiller

was compensated for by significant energy savings achieved by using highgrade heat from the prime movers and incinerator. The addition of the

thermal storage system for storing heat minimized the need for boilers

or fuel firing provisions on the incinerator. The use of the thermal

storage system for supplementing cooling reduced the number of prime

mover generator sets. The generators were sized to satsify the peak

non-air conditioning electrical demands. The excess generator capacity

during off-peak periods was used to produce chilled water for use during

peak periods. In the case of hot storage, all unused heat was stored

up to the volume of the storage facility which was sized for the cooling

load

.

The solid waste management subsystem included storage, collection and

transportation, processing and disposal of solid wastes generated within

the complex and disposal of wastewater treatment subsystem sludge. Each

low-rise, medium-rise and high-rise building was equipped with gravity

chutes. There was one solid waste charging station per floor per gravity

82
MAKEUP

WATER

FROM

WASTE

WATER

TREATMENT

83

Figure

3.2.1.3

HVAC

Subtyitem
chute. Solid waste was directly deposited into 37.5 cubic ft. capacity

wheeled cart located at the base of each chute. Collection was made

every other day. Each cart collected was replaced by an empty cart.

Carts were transported to the Incinerator by a tractor capable of pulling

up to six carts simultaneously. Spare carts were available to provide

replacement for full carts, and to provide total storage capacity for

three days solid waste generation. Three days storage was chosen to

allow for 5-day operation if seven days were not desirable and to com- pensate for system failures. The storage carts were compatible with the

incinerator loader. The capability was provided to mechanically transfer

the solid waste from the storage container to the incinerator loader.

The choice of a starved air incinerator with a stack heat recovery boiler

was made because it was the lowest price off-the-shelf system available

to both dispose of solid waste and recover the energy from the waste.

The incinerator was operated 12 hours per day (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. , seven

days per week). Ash was stored in a 10 cubic yard container to be picked

up once per week by truck and hauled to a remote landfill. Bulk waste

was collected on as-required basis and was transported with the ashes to

remote landfill. The heat produced by the incineration of the solid

waste was recovered at 15 psi as 250°F steam in a boiler. The recovery

efficiency was 60 percent of the input fuel and solid waste heating value.

Wastewater treatment subsystem sludge was fed to a holding tank with a 3-day capacity and then auger-fed into the incinerator. A mixture of

60 percent solid waste and 40 percent sludge was maintained.

Sewerage treatment capacity was accomplished using a biological system

supplemented by a tertiary physical/chemical system. The treated wastewater

was stored in a retention tank and used in cooling tower makeup, fire

protection, and irrigation. Disposal of the unused wastewater was to

a stream. Water treatment systems were designed with capacities of 130

percent of the average annual demand.

Conventional Utility System

A conventional utility services network was defined for comparison with the

MIUS (Figure 3. 2. 1.4). Conventional utilities serviced a housing project

through independent networks. Conventional utility systems provided services

in a manner similar to those of the "MIUS Community Conceptual Design Study'^".

The conventional power generation and distribution system for the community

study was a 1300-megawatt, diesel-fuel-oll-f ired steam powerplant with

an average plant thermal efficiency of 32.7 percent. The plan was grid

connected. Condenser cooling was accomplished by a combination of reservoir

water and natural-draft cooling towers. The power transmission system

was a conventional 700 kilovolt system (grid) with stepdown to 230 kilovolts

at a main substation in the vicinity of the housing project. The transmission conductors were composed of noninsulated aluminum. Within the

community, there were satellite substations serviced by overhead transmission

lines. The average power transmission efficiency was 95 percent. Power

was distributed through 13.2-kilovolt primary feeders (insulated copper

84
85

Figure

3.2.1. 4

Conventional

utility

services
conductors) installed underground. Local transformers (50 to 80 kilovoltamperes) were used to step down voltage to 120/240 Vac for domestic

use. The average distribution efficiency was 97 percent.

All structures except SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES were served by a district

HVAC system. Hot and chilled water were transported through the site

by a four-pipe system. Heating and cooling in SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES

were by electric heat pump. Air distribution was provided by a single

air duct with single zone control. There was no return air duct. Electric

hot water heaters were utilized.

For both conventional and MIUS alternatives, water for potable water use

and firefighting comes from surface source water 24 kilometers (15 miles)

from the community. The water was piped to a central treatment plant,

treated, and then distributed to the community users. Water for firefighting

was distributed in the same manner, with elevated water towers used to

meet storage requirements.

The wastewater treatment for the community was accomplished in a central

plant. The wastewater was fed to the central plant by trunk and Interceptor

sewers. Solid waste was collected and transported 24 kilometers (15 miles)

to a central Incinerator facility and landfill.

3.2.2 NBS Evaluation

The purpose of Sectln 3.2.2 is to present detailed background for data

presented in Section 1.2.2 and to document how this data was determined by

Hittman Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates under contract

to NBS. Section 3.2.2 presents the general method utilized to compute

utility loads, the more significant assumptions and the manner in which

the ENVIRON and MEDSI software programs were Implemented.

Section 3. 2. 2.1 presents how individual building hot water, electrical

power, and potable water loads were determined. Section 3. 2. 2. 2 presents

how MEDSI forecasted the energy consumed by MIUS and conventional utilities to satisfy utility loads. Information for Section 3.2.2 is found

in two contract deliverables: "MIUS Review Site Four" by Charles J. R.

McClure Associates, January 29, 1976, and "Draft MIUS Case Study Report

(Rough Draft) by Hittman Associates, February 1976.

3. 2.2.1 Utility Loads

A detailed cooling and heating design load calculation was conducted for

each building of each housing project. These calculations were based upon

the information provided by the developer, the needed assumptions generated,

and the weather and indoor design conditions established. The loads for

other energy requirements were determined for each building, such as domestic

hot water, lighting, appliances, and miscellaneous machinery. Energy calculations were conducted to determine the profile of energy need for the

categories space heating, space cooling, lighting, and other. Table

3. 2. 2.1 presents the design loads for each housing project.

86
Electric Power Generation

The design electrical load was the maximum kilowatt demand which was likely to be experienced under normal operation. This load was composed

of lighting, air handling, electric refrigeration, space heating and domestic

hot water heating (where applicable), refrigeration and heating auxiliaries,

appliances, cooking, and outdoor lighting. Analysis of refrigeration,

space heating, domestic hot water heating, and air handling needs was made in a manner indicated for MEDSI. Determination of the lighting

and other electrical loads was made by interfacing the connected residential

loads with a use profile. The connected lighting and other demand loads

were determined by selecting lighting fixtures, washers, dryers, television

sets, and kitchen appliances in sizes consistent with standard practices

for commercial and residential applications. A use profile was then developed

using hours of specific types of occupancy each having a related maximum

kilowatt demand. By Interfacing this data with applicable demand and

diversity factors existing between the mix of buildings on the site, the

anticipated maximum kW demand was determined. This maximum kW demand

profile, when integrated with demand profiles for space heating, domestic

hot water heating, refrigeration, and air handling yielded the maximum

anticipated kilowattt demand.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

The design heating and cooling loads were calculated for each structure

in the building site. The design space heating load was the rate of

heat loss from the building when that loss was at the maximum anticipated

level under the temperature differentials selected, with given construction

materials and selected ventilation rates. The design heating load did

not account for credits due to heat gains from the sun, lights, appliances

and people. The design space cooling load was the rate of heat gain to

the building from the surroundings and internal generation. That gain was

at the maximum anticipated level under temperature and moisture differentials

selected, with no cloud cover, with given construction materials, selected

ventilation rates, and selected building use.

With the data established, the loads were calculated in accordance with

the procedures of ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals, 1972. To perform

the calculations, a computer program based upon these procedures, ENVIRON,

developed by National Computer Service, St. Louis and available on the

timesharing network of United Computing Systems, Inc. was utilized. Indoor

design dry bulb temperature was selected at 75“F summer and winter, during

occupied hours for all buildings. No control of humidity was assumed for

winter operation, and summer indoor design relative humidity is selected

at 50%.

For the calculation of cooling loads and heating loads, the gains to

the space resulting from the use of domestic hot water were assumed

to be negligible. This assumption was justified by the reasoning that

available load calculation techniques do not adequately quantify building thermal storage, and any sensible load resulting from the use of hot

87
Table 3. 2. 2.1

H/M Utility Load Data

(Plant + Site)

Housing Project

#1 n //3 H //5

Electric Power Generation:

Peak, MIUS (kW) 2330 599 11137 7908 1704

Peak, CON (kW) 7257 753 12451 9438 5444

Average, MIUS (kW) 1891 535 8776 6084 1518

Average, CONV (kW) 5074 530 9318 6835 3493

Annual, MIUS (kW x 10"^) 3.66 0.74 33.0 14.6 2.32

Annual, CONV (kW x 10"^) 25.16 1.36 41.1 16.06 18.04

Load Factor, MIUS (%) 81.2 89.3 78.8 76.9 89.2

Load Factor, CONV (%) 69.9 77.0 74.8 72,

U

64.2

Space Heating:

MIUS (Btu/h X 10"p 29.28 5.00 36.90 72.79 15.70

CONV (Btu/h X 10 °) 29.28 5.00 36.90 72.79 15.70

Air Conditioning:

MIUS (tons) 1494 391 2752 4400 1226

CONV (tons) 1494 391 2752 4400 1226

Solid Waste Disposal (av):

MIUS Refuse (Ib/d) 1200 10800 13800 4200

CONV Refuse (Ib/d) 1200 10800 13800 4200

MIUS Sludge (Ib/d) 2700 '651 4838 6350 1747

CONV Sludge (Ib/d) 2700 357 4838 6350 1747

Wastewater Treatment (av):

MIUS (kgpd) 195 34 350 493 141

CONV (kgpd) 195 34 350 493 141

Potable Water Treatment (av):

MIUS (kgpd) 257 46 507 633 238

CONV (kgpd) 257 46 507 633 238

88
water would be absorbed by building mass, imposing no measurable load on the apparatus. The latent load, although possibly instantaneously

significant, was of such short duration and was assumed negligible.

The load from cooking was developed by constructing a typical meal

requirement, with burner requirement and duration to prepare the meal.

This resulted in a gross heat contribution to the space (Instantaneous)

of 7,271 Btu over a duration of four hours. The contribution of this

gain to the space load was reduced by a factor of 2 and divided evenly

over a four hour overall. The resulting load contribution was thus

910 Btu/h. This gain was then applied to the load calculation for

each dwelling unit.

Residential buildings were grouped for the load analysis. Diversification resulting from any noncoincident loads was accounted for in the

logic (weather and solar) inherent in the programs. Heat-Cool-Off

control mode was selected because this mode is generally accepted stateof-the-art in domestic systems. Although the residential systems do not

employ a classic economizer cycle, the homeowner will generally not

operate mechanical cooling systems when the outdoor air temperature is

below the normal "economizer" deck temperatures. Thus, an open window

is similar to that with economizer and Heat-Cool-Off control. For this

reason, the simulation employed the "economizer" feature. The occupancy

schedule had three basic functions in the program logic. Occupancy provides data on load (gains) values due to occupant heat dissipation.

Occupancy assisted the simulation of consumer-dependent loads such as lights and appliances. Occupancy also facilitated the cycling of systems

components such as fans when the building was occupied.

Since residential systems do not cycle off during unoccupied times and

siqce the gains due to occupants are minimal as an instantaneous contributor, the occupancy schedule was set up to more accurately reflect the

profile of energy consuming devices other than space heating and cooling.

The occupancy schedule established was: 0.25 for night (0-8 hours); 1.00

for day (8-16 hours); and 0.75 for evening (16-24 hours). Since all individual residences, with the conventional systems, were to have electric

space heat, the boiler efficiency input was set at 100%. The program

converted the electric space heat load energy requirements directly to

kWh. The supply fan power demands and refrigeration kW/ton were obtained

by the actual selection of good quality residential equipment for each

dwelling unit. The fan power inputs were then summed for the dwellings

included, and the average kW/ton input for the specific machinery selected was used.

Lighting, appliance, and cooling energy requirements for residential

buildings were developed from the developer data and assumptions of

coincident demand and diversity factors applicable to each housing

project. For each attached and detached residence, a maximum demand

load of 8 kW was used, this representing the maximum coincident demand

for kitchen appliances, washer and dryer, lighting, television, air

handling, and other miscellaneous appliances. The lighting coincident

89
demand was computed to be 298 watts per dwelling unit. The validity

of the diversity and demand factors used are quantitively substantiated

from various literature sources* and from experience on similar total

energy system applications.

Since a school inherently has a different ule and occupancy from either

the residential spaces or the commercial facilities, a separate analysis

was made. Assumptions were made to facilitate input data for the analysis.

A Heat-Cool-Off system was assumed for two reasons. The Heat-Cool-Off

system, regardless of energy source, uses less primary and control energy

than either multizone or reheat. Secondly, current design trends have

leaned heavily to individual space systems employing Heat-Cool-Off or variable volume systems. The variable volume systems, in turn, have

primary energy characteristics similar to Heat-Cool-Off. An economizer

system was assumed, as it is commonly used in school systems, and when

coupled with a Heat-Cool-Off system minimizes primary energy requirements.

The occupancy schedule of a school varies with the calendar months, and

adjustments were necessary to facilitate holidays, weekends, and vacations.

The schedule employed with 100% occupancy as unity was:

Month Night Day Evening

January .089 .714 0

February .089 .714 0

March .089 .714 0

April .071 .576 0

May .089 .714 0

June .043 .345 0

July 0 .535 0

August 0 .535 0

September .071 .576 0

October .089 .714 0

November .089 .714 0

December .046 .368 0

For the purposes of the energy calculations, the boiler efficiency of

both full load and reduced load was assumed to be unity. This assumption

was made to provide an output relating to the energy to the building

system rather than to the conversion systems. The input energy is then

the direct requirement to the building from the MIUS Plant, and the subsequent conventional analysis applies the appropriate conversion losses.

* EHA Case Histories , Electric Heating Association, Inc., 750 Third

Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017.

All Electric Homes in the United States Annual Bills - January 1,

1973, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.

90
For a school, the cooling energy rate was 1.6 kW per ton based upon an approximate average kW/ton rating of package equipment Including compressor

and condenser fans from the ARI Directory of Certified Unitary Air Conditioners, July 31, 1971. Since part load information was not available,

the same value was used for the reduced load operation. It was recognized

that this assumption could cause minor errors in the results. The supply

fan kW requirement was based upon 1 cfm/ft^ for 40,000 usable square

feet, 80% building efficiency & 2.25 in total pressure, 70% fan efficiency

and 90% motor efficiency. The lighting load assumption was based on an average of 3 watts per gross square foot. This was an average value

based upon experience with well lighted but, conservatively designed school

buildings. Other electrical loads were also based upon experience with

school buildings. These loads included constant and intermittent exhaust

fans, vending machines, water coolers, etc.

Heat-Cool-Off was utilized to compute building HVAC loads of commercial

buildings. The assumption of Heat-Cool-Off was made on the basis that

this would result in minimal energy use. The economizer assumption also was made on the same basis. The open doors operation of quick food shops,

department stores, and service stations have essentially the same energy use impact as a classical economizer cycle. For lack of better

Information, the occupancy schedule was assumed not to vary seasonally.

The night-day-evening schedule, for a seven day week was set at:

The quantatlve values of thermal conversion efficiencies and refrigeration power rates were assumed at the same values as for the school.

The supply fan power requirement was based on a total air circulation

rate, 2" total pressure, 65% fan efficiency, and 90% motor-drive

efficiency. Lighting power for commercial buildings was based upon an average of 3.0 watts per square foot of building plus outdoor parking

lot and security lighting. Other electrical loads included miscellaneous

exhaust fans, food coolers, and display boxes, vending machines, fuel

dispensers, and air compressor drives.

The monthly quantity of solid waste was calculated by assuming that each

dwelling unit generated 8.4 pounds of solid waste per day (approximately

1.5 cubic feet per day, per dwelling unit). This factor was multiplied

by the number of dwelling units to obtain the quantity of solid waste

generated per day. The quantity of solid waste per day was converted to

pounds per month by multiplying by a factor of 365/12. Solid waste was assumed to the following percent composition by weight: paper - 48

percent; garbage - 16 percent; leaves and grass - 9 percent; wood -

2 percent; synthetics - 2 percent; cloth - 1 percent; glass - 6 percent;

Night

Day

Evening

0.250

1.000

0.750

Solid Waste Disposal

91
metal - 8 percent; and ashes, stone and dust - 8 percent. The economics

of heat recovery was the controlling factor whether heat recovery was

employed. A 70% boiler efficiency was utilized.

Potable Water/Wastewater Treatment

The loads on the wastewater system were the same as the potable water

system with the exception of that for external uses. Potable water

requirements were calculated by use of equations given in Volume II of

HIT-413 entitled Forecasting Municipal Water Requirement - The Main II

System . The potable water requirement was the sum of two components

calculated separately; mean annual domestic usage and the mean annual

sprinkling usage.

To calculate mean annual domestic usage equations (1) and (2) of

Appendix B in HIT-413 were used. The use of two equations was required

because most of the MIUS sites had more than one type of dwelling

unit. The significant difference between the types of units was the

manner in which they are billed for water and sewer service. Townhouses and single-family detached houses were metered while apartments

were billed at a flat rate Included in the rent. The meter-sewered

equation used for townhouses and single-family detached units was:

(‘Id) ms

“ (206 + 3.47 V/F^ - 1.3 5)

where (q..) ^ ms

= mean annual domestic water usage in

gallons per day

( 1 )

V = average home value in a range of values

in thousands of dollar

F = assessment factor

p = mean annual price of water in cents per

thousand gallons

Nj. = the number of residences in the range with

average value V

The flat-rate sewered equation used for apartment was:

(‘Id) fs

where (q^) fs

= (28.9 + 4.39 V/F^ + 33.6 Dp) Nj. (2)

= mean annual domestic water usage in gallons

per day

= average home value in a range of values in

thousands of dollars

92
F„ = assessment factor

d. Dp = population density in dwelling units in persons

per unit

Nj. = the number of residences in the range with

average value V

The values of residences were determined from data furnished by the

developer. In cases where the values of the residences were not given,

values were than determined by multiplying the floor area in square

feet by a factor of $35 per square foot. When the values of all residences were determined and appropriate value ranges are chosen, the set

of values for V and were computed. The ranges were usually $5,000

each, starting at values $20,000. The factor was set equal to 1.

The mean annual price of water, p, was established by a calculation

based on the water and sewage rate schedule. The local utility company

providing water and sewer service was contacted obtain the rate schedule

and an estimate of the average bill. The average quantity of water used

per billing was the amount needed to produce the average bill according

to the rate schedule. To obtain p the average bill was divided by the

average quantity of water. The factor D in equation (2) was set equal

to 3.3.

^

Equation (1) was used to determine domestic water usage for the metersewered dwelling units in each value range by spbstltutlng the values

of V and successively into the equation. Total domestic usage for

all meter-sewered units was obtained by summing the contributions from

units in individual value ranges. Equation (2) was similarly used to

determine domestic water usage for all flat-rate sewered units and was

the sum of the contributions from individual value ranges. The mean

annual domestic usage for all dwelling units, q^, was the sum of the

total usage for meter-sewered units and total usage for flat-rate

sewered units:

ms fs

The second component of the potable water requirement was the mean annual

sprinkling usage. It was assumed that lawn sprinkling usage occurs only

for meter-sewered dwelling units. Two equations were available for use

in determining mean annual lawn sprinkling usage in meter-sewered dwelling units. One equation was used for housing projects east of the 100th

meridian; the other, for housing projects west of the 100th meridian.

The equation for site west of the 100th meridian was:

(qs) ms ,w (0.48 X 1130 p (V/F_) ^*^29 „

S 3i L ( 5 ) where (qg) mg ^

= mean annual sprinkling usage for meter-sewered

units west of the 100th meridian in gallons per

day

93
Pg = summer price of water in cents per thousand

gallons

V = average home value in a range of values in

thousands of dollars

F„ = assessment factor

a

Nj. = the number of residences in the range with

average value V

The equation used for sites east of the 100th meridian was:

^*^s^ ms,e (0.39 X 0.164 B _ 0.6R)^'^^

Ps (6)

where (q«) mo « =

'^s ' ms ,

e

mean annual sprinkling usage for meter-sewered

units east of the 100th meridian in gallons per

day

B irrigable land per dwelling unit in acres per

unit, determined from formula given below

E total summer evapotranspiration in inches

R total summer precipitation in inches

Ps summer price of water in cents per thousand

gallons

V average home value in a range of values in

thousands of dollars

^a assessment factor

Nr the number of residences in the range with

average value V

The value used for was the same as the value used for p in computing

mean annual domestic usage since none of the utility companies reported

a seasonal differential in the rate schedule. The values used for V

and Nj. were the same as those determined for the purpose of computing

mean annual domestic usage. The assessment factor was set equal to

1. The numerical value of B was determined by another equation from

Appendix B of HIT-413:

B 0.803 (10)

where = housing density in units per acre

94
In calculating H., the gross residential area of the site, Including

streets, was used. Total summer evapotranspiratlon E and total summer

precipitation R were determined from Figure D-2 of Appendix D in HIT413. Figure D-2 was a table of values for E and R as a function of

the site latitude and longitude.

The potable water requirement, q, was the sum of the mean annual domestic

usage, q^, calculated from equations (1) and (2), and the mean annual

law sprinkling usage, qg, calculated from equations (5) or (6);

q = q^j + qg. Since water usage calculated from these equations was in

units of gallons per day, the sum of domestic usage and lawn sprinkling

usage was multiplied by 365/12 to obtain an answer in units of gallons

per month.

Maximum daily sprinkling usage was determined from one of two equations.

As in the calculation of mean annual lawn sprinkling usage, one equation

is used for housing projects east of the 100th meridian; the other, for

for housing projects west of the 100th meridian. The equation used sites

west of the 100th meridian was:

where

^^mxs^ms ,w

^‘^mxs^ms,w

Em

(3400 (V/Fg)°*^^^)Nj. (11)

maximum sprinkling usage per day

for meter-sewered units west of the

100th meridian in gallons per day

maximum evapotranspiratlon per day

which is 0.25 inches for the west

V average home value in a range of value

in thousands of dollars

F

a assessment factor

N

r the number of residences in the range

with average value V

The equation used for sites east of the 100th meridian was:

^^mxs^ms,e

where ^^mxs^ms ,

e

(0.0106 (12)

p^-1.25 (v/j,^)0.931)

maximum sprinkling usage per day for

meter-sewered units east of the 100th

meridian in gallons per day

95
B

Em

P

s

V

= Irrigable land per dwelling unit in acres per unit, determined from

equation (10)

= maximum evapotranspiration per day

which is 0.29 inch for the east !

I * summer price of water in cents per { thousand gallons •

1 = average home value in a range of values

j in thousands of dollars i

F

aN

r

assessment factor

the number of residences in the range

with average value V

The set of values for V and N^. was the same as for the calculation of

mean annual domestic usage. The assessment factor was set equal to

one. The value used for Pg was the same as the value used for p in

computing mean annual domestic usage since none of the utility companies

reported a seasonal differential in the rate schedule. The value of

B was determined by another equation from Appendix B of HIT-413:

B = 0.803 (10)

where = housing density in units per acre

In calculating the gross residential area of the site, including j streets, was used.

I Mean annual domestic usage and maximum day sprinkling usage were sub- j stituted into the following equation to determine peak hour demand: |

334 + 2.017 (q„ + (16)

peak hour demand in gallons per

day

I total number of dwelling units at

the site

mean annual domestic usage in gallons

per day >

maximum sprinkling requirement per day i calculated from either equation (11) or (12) in gallons per day

where

^pkhr

^pkhr

N,

‘Id

'mxs

96
The peak hour demand was changed from units of gallons per day to gallons

per hour by dividing qp^^j. from equation (16) by 24.

Computation of hot water energy requirement per month was based on con- sumption of hot water in three uses: laundry, bath, and dishwasher. The

percentage of mean annual domestic usage consumed by each category was obtained from Volume I of HIT-409 entitled "Main C,” Computerized Methodology for Evaluation of Municipal Water Conservation Research Programs . Figure II-5 on page 11-19 of that report gives the percentage of total

domestic use consumed in seven categories of domestic usage. For the

three categories of interest, the figure shows the following percentages

for both meter-sewer and flat-rate sewer connections (rounded off to the

nearest percent): dishwasher - 8 percent, laundry - 13 percent, and

bathing - 35 percent. These percentages can be applied to the mean annual

domestic usage, q^, to determine the quantity of hot water use (q^gg)

in each category.

To determine the energy requirement of each category it was also necessary

to know the temperature of the water in use. The following temperatures

were used for hot water in the three categories: dishwater - 150°F,

laundry - 120 “F, and bath - 100 ®F. It was assumed that the hot water

heater would take incoming water a temperature of 50 ®F and heat it to

150“F. Water from the hot water heater would then be mixed with cold

water to obtain the desired temperature in actual usage. In order to

determine the quantity of water heated to 150®F in order to produce

the desired amount of water at some other temperature, the following

equation was used:

*^hot ^^hot

Ihot

^cold

^’^cold

^cold ^^cold

quantity of water that must be heated to 150*F

by hot water heater

change in temperature of hot water initially at

150* F when it comes to equilibrium after being

combined with the cold water

quantity of cold water that must be combined

with qj^Qt to produce desired temperature

change in temperature of cold water initially at

50° F when it comes to equilibrium after being

combined with hot water

This equation can be put into another form:

^use ~

‘Ihot ^cold

where

quse “ quantity of water used in a given application.

Substituting q^g^ -

qj^^^ for q^Q^d yielded the

equation:

97
‘Ihot

AT cold

AThot ‘use.

AT

1 +

cold

AThot

This equation was used to compute the quantity of hot water needed for

each application. The total quantity of hot water required was the sum

of the quantities needed for all three uses:

‘^hot ^hot(laundry) ^

*^hot(bath) ^ ^hot( dishwasher)

The hot water energy requirement was computed from the total quantity of

hot water required by the following equation:

E

/ 365 days

_ Qhot 12 months ) 100“F

T85

Btu\

4b

8.33 lb

gal

where E energy requirement for hot water in Btu/month

^ot total quantity of hot water required in gallons

per day

The factor 365 days/12 months was included to adjust to units of

gallons per month. The factor 100®F represents the change in temperature

of the water that is heated. The factor 8.33 Ib/gal. was included to adjust

to units of pounds per month. The factor of .85 in the denominator

represents an assumed hot water heater efficiency of 85 percent. The

factor 1 Btu/lb“F is from the definition of a Btu.

The peak hour demand for hot water, Q^otCpkhr)* determined by use of

the equation:

^hot(pkhr) "

‘Ipkhr

The factor .154 represents the percentage of cold water that would be

consumed in hot water uses during a peak-hour flow. It was obtained

by adding the percentages of cold water that would be consumed by three

uses of hot water: dishwater, laundry, and bathing. The percentages

of peak hour demand for these three uses were taken from Figure II-7

on page 11-22 of Volume I of HIT-409, "Main C" Computerized Methodology

for Evaluation of Municipal Water Conservation Research Programs . The

percentages given in that figure are dishwasher - 2.3 percent, laundry

- 3.5 percent, and bathing - 9.6 percent. The multiplying factor is

thus .023 + .035 + .096 = .154.

98
Peak hour energy demand for hot water was computed from the peak hour

demand for hot water and the following equation:

^pkhr

Qhot (pkhr)

1 Btu /8.33 lb\

lb °F ^ gal

^ .85

where

Epkhr

peak hour energy demand for hot water in

Btu per hour

*^hot (pkhr) = peak hour demand for hot water

The sewage treatment requirement was assumed to be equal to the mean

annual domestic usage q^j. The value of q^, calculated in xmits of

gallons per day, was multiplied by a factor of 365/12 to express it

in units of gallons per month. The monthly maximum demand for sewage

treatment was assumed to be equal to the mean annual domestic usage

3. 2. 2. 2 Utility Resource Consumption

The input energy requirement for each building classification was modeled

mathematially , integrated for the entire community on a monthly basis,

and aggregated to an annual requirement in the subdivisions of the form

the energy is purchased. The input housing project energy needs were

then used to calculate the resource energy requirement by the application

of distribution system losses and by conversion plant heat rates. This

calculation resulted in the "Conventional System" community energy resource

requirement. Considering the current status of construction and planning,

and the energy forms available from a MIUS plant and the practicalities

of metering and hardware, assumptions were made to establish the most

favorable alternative method of serving the community energy needs from

MIUS. These assumptions, coupled with the load data were used to design

a MIUS plant. The plant performance characteristics were then used in

conjunction with the energy calculations above, to determine MIUS input

energy, waste energy, and product energy to the community.

Table 3. 2. 2. 2 is the energy flow diagram for the conventional utility

systems serving the five housing projects investigated by Hit tman/McClure.

Table 3. 2. 2. 3 is the energy flow diagrams for the MIUS alternative for

these same five housing projects. Notice that the MIUS energy flow diagram

includes that for the "sewage treatment module". The energy flow diagram

for the conventional utility system for the same site does not.

To provide conventional energy consumption for each housing project,

program HCENERG prints out the equipment

...

energy input requirements for

- - .

99
(dQU

cn o z <oX o >- O CO

OC

>1<

to

>- occ

oc

—

LU >

ar z

CM a<

cn

<d

CM C

bO 4J C U

i-( 0)

CO 1 3 O O U 3! 04

CN fO •4’

m

100

302

302

86

214

2.0

216

86

11748

16.28

16.6

32.88

15.86

11.55

0.1

5.37

17.02

4.63

11748

492

3.9

496

143

349

3.0

1.3

353

140

11748

193

292

485

267

137

3.0

80

218

55

11748

217

217

62

154

1.0

155

62

11748
II

UJ ^

ffiS < Vi 52< z

cc =

i

m

sC 00 C ITl NO O I—I •—I ^ • CM • MT NO PM I—

t

•O’ • CM • O .H O

pvoinmoooNONCMNor^"OfO ^ • • O • • • CM cn CM CM «o

*H CM CM

i”^ o o 00 in -o

CM 00 • m i-< GO

• • CM • • • O CO O

r>. NO m

NO O' On o ^ mr^omoooNOcMOvONO-Oi—<?v.r>»cMr^cM

r>. in • cn CO 00

NO • CO CM CM m

m CO CO in P- r-1 »3- ONo

in o o m in p» p^

• • • • f—i ^

CM .—I CO CO O O

CO

00 r-4 ON 0< CO CO

CO o »-i 00 O

'O • CO NO o •

• MT «-C CM CM CM CO

OONp^iHi—lOCOcO

CO ,H t-l CO CO

f—I OnO

•o in p^ NO o o o p» CO m • • • CO »-M • CO rM • • 00

CO O

CM

in00 00

• CM

in

(O

O' in in NO m NO CO 00 i-M m o • • • • fsJ • • NO o o c^ o

m CO 00 oo CO CM p«

n* •iHOOmcMNOiH

• O' • • • • »CM

CM CO O CM *-l •O CO

O' CM in NO

00 I-I CO CO

NO tp CO in O 00 O NO O CO O O f-l CM

o

-O 00 o NO CM p^ NO O' m NO f-l NO NO CM CM

CM NO

p^

m 00 NO in in noon p^ •iHtHOO ‘ONOCOCMr-l CO O • •CMnOi-IO' »COnO • CM NO CM 1-1 CM CO <r

I-I NO CO

f'- I—I CM <r m

CM

CM

00 ^ r* ^ , iHcMco-vJ-inior^t-ieMco —icMcoiHcM^^^cMco>a’in <<<C<c-<<;<pqououuouuociowo'0'0'>i>.nni n n n n

CO z <

3 X

£ X

S lu O >. - PF z z

^ XI X CD H H

fO O

O' XJ 0•H w

V

01 IM U o;

re u

» CO w O

a tj 9 C

re <<

•-ICM

a

V

4Joz

%/i :d

E

o

o>o

o

>v

O)ec

COdj

CN

CO

(D

O

ifidNi i 3 nd
fuel input to a boiler is necessary to meet space and domestic hot water

heating and absorption cooling needs. HCENERG also prints out kWh of

electricity needed for lighting, heating pumps and accessories, cooling

pumps, fans and accessories, electric compression refrigeration, space

and hot water heating. There are provisions for specifying numbers of

heating pumps, chilled water pumps, condenser water pumps, and tower

or condenser fans which are staged to come on as heating or cooling

loads Increase. Additionally part load boiler, absorption chiller, and

electric compression chiller efficiencies or figures of merit were con- sidered in determining equipment energy input requirements. A new separate

computer program summed up the HECENERG equipment input requirements. A

listing of the program is located in Appendix B.

To project MIUS energy consumption for each housing project, program XTOTEN

was written to model a total energy plant. XTOTEN performs the same functions as the existing program TOTEN with the following additions.

XTOTEN sums up to four LFILE's with different occupancy schedules. TOTEN

requires that all occupancy schedules be the same. XTOTEN allows a mix

of electric compression and absorption refrigeration; TOTEN has only absorption. The logic of XTOTEN calls for the heat recovered from the

engines to be used first for domestic hot water heating, then for either

space heating or absorption cooling as needed, up to the limit of recovered

heat. If the recovered heat is Insufficient for domestic hot water or space heating, supplemental heat is added.

If more cooling is required than recovered heat can provide, electric

refrigeration is added. The additional electric load on the plant Increases

the recovered heat and the available absorption cooling. Several iterations

of the compression/absorption split were made. Only when the compression

machine reached its full load cooling capacity was supplemental heat

used for cooling. XTOTEN was tailored to each specific site to include

heat recovered from the incinerator, plant burden, electric requirements

for the sewage plant, area lighting, etc. XTOTEN adds an engine whenever

the electrical load exceeds 80% of the capacity of the machines operating

and totals the operating hours on each engine, assuming that they were

added in sequence. Since calculations are made for each weather occurrence,

it is possible to have some conditions for which supplemental heat is

needed, while at others within the same month there is excess heat recovered.

These normally cannot be offsetting. The program output totals this recovered

but unusable heat.

102
4. UTILITY SYSTEM DESIGN AND COST ANALYSIS

The purpose of Section 4. is to present the methodologies and results

of a comparative cost analysis of MIUS and conventional utilities for

each of five housing projects described in Section 1. and Section 2.

These methodologies and results were developed by NASA-USPO and by Hlttman

Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates under contract to NBS.

4 .

1

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Section 4.1.1 presents the methodology utilized by NASA-USPO to perform

their comparative cost analysis. Section 4.1.2 presents the methodology

utilized by Hlttman Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates.

4.1.1 NASA Methodology

The purpose of Section 4.1.1 is to identify the NASA evaluation methodology utilized to generate cost data found in Section 4.2.1 for five

housing projects described in Section 1.1.4. The NASA cost methodology was developed by the Aerospace Division of Lockheed Electronics

Company under a contract to NASA-USPO. Mr. Harold E. Benson (Chief

of Subsystems Engineering) was the overall project director. The ESOP

software program was developed jointly by personnel of Lockheed and USPO.

Mr. A.E. Brandli (Systems Engineering) was the overall project director.

Information for Sections 4. 1.1.1 and 4. 1.1. 2, is found in an internal

December 4, 1974 correspondence entitled "Cost Evaluation of MIUS Services

and Conventional Utilities Services (Preliminary Methods Docimientation)

from Mr. R. V. Monzingo (Lockheed) to Mr. H. E. Benson (NASA-USPO). Information for Section 4. 1.1. 3 is found in Energy Systems Operation Program

(ESOP) User's Guide - Update IV, Economic Base, Volume III.

4. 1.1.1 Initial and Annual Costs

How the MIUS owner conducts his business with the residents of the site

and what profit he must have are related but different problems are not

considered in this evaluation. The principal discrepancy in such a com- parison is in the profits and taxes which are included in the rate structure

for conventional electrical power. This factor was not possible to assess.

Common Costs

There exists common costs for both the MIUS and conventional equipment

within the buildings which were omitted from the cost analyses.

For single-family detached dwellings, building equipment to the lot line

or utility easement was considered identical unless district heating and/

or hot water was provided. Building equipment and 0 & M costs were not

evaluated unless these latter MIUS services were provided. The cost

differences were treated in a manner identical to MIUS townhouses.

103
Townhouses were generally provided with district heating and cooling, and

domestic hot water. Equipment within buildings was evaluated as to initial

and annual 0 & M cost. The cost analysis excluded ductwork, controls,

and domestic hot water plumbing. An equivalent and similar comparison

was made of building equipment if less than three MIUS services were

provided or where natural gas or fuel oil was used for conventional

equipment

.

It was assumed that there were no differences between conventional and

MIUS services in the electrical power service, water supply, sewage and

solid waste collection to the lot line or utility easement. This assumption was not strictly true, particularly for electrical power because of

HVAC load differences, but for this exercise, the difference was not

evaluated.

Apartments, Duplexes, Commercial and Community buildings were compared in

a similar manner as MIUS townhouses.

Conventional Utilities

Single-family detached dwellings were assumed to be owned by individuals

who pay conventional utility charges in the conventional manner. Each dwelling unit had an individual water connection, individual solid

waste pickup, an individual hot water heater, and individual space heating

and cooling units. The utilities available were those which the developer

has indicated that he had made arrangements for and would have installed.

If no such information was provided by the developer, logical and reasonable

assumptions were made. Residential rates and taxes applied. Townhouses

were considered in an identical manner as single-family detached dwellings.

Residential rate and taxes applied.

Apartments were considered in terms of apartment complexes. A housing

project may have had one or more apartment complexes. If one group of

apartments was separated from another group by individually owned dwellings

i.e., single-family detached dwellings or townhouses, then more than one apartment complex was assumed. The apartments were assumed to have an owner who provided all utilities with the rent. Each apartment complex was

assumed to have one water connection, one sewer connection, and one electrical meter. (Individual electrical metering costs for each apartment

were used if this was stated by the developer) . Each apartment complex

had a single solid waste pickup point for each building. HVAC equipment

was that stated by the developer. A central chilled water and heating

system for an entire housing project had the greatest initial cost and

the least annual 0 & M cost. Individual apartment systems had the least

initial cost and the greatest annual 0 & M cost. Domestic hot water

service was provided by inldividual hot water heaters in each apartment

or a central system for each building with continuously circulating hot

water in each apartment. The latter equipment facilitated cost comparison

with MIUS equipment. Commercial rates and taxes applied.

104
Duplexes and other similar multi-family buildings were considered in an identical manner as single-family detached dwellings. These units were

owned or rented by the residents. In either case, individual dwelling

unit metering was provided. Residential rates and taxes applied.

For commercial and community buildings, each separate building was considered to have conventional utility connections similar to that of the

apartment buildings. Commercial rates and taxes applied.

MIUS

Single-family detached dwellings were identical to those for which conventional utilities were provided. If district heating, chilled water, and

hot water were provided to these units, the cost assessment was made

in an identical manner as for MIUS townhouses. MIUS initial costs were

adjusted in either case to include the cost of metering equipment for

electricity and water (and hot and chilled water if these services were

provided). Meter reader and clerical billing help were costed in the

composite MIUS crew.

Townhouses were generally provided with district heating and cooling and

domestic hot water. Metering costs were assessed for the services provided.

If none of these services were provided, the townhouse equipment was

identical to that of the conventional townhouses.

Apartments were treated in a manner identical to the conventional apartments except that district space heating, chilled water and domestic

hot water energy were supplied from the central MIUS plant. Equipment

arrangement (ducting, controls, fan coil units) within the buildings

was considered identical to that of the conventional apartments if central

HVAC equipment was costed for the conventional apartment. If conventional

apartment equipment was assumed to be individual heating and cooling

units for each apartment, then the total cost of the equipment for both

the conventional case and MIUS case were evaluated because ducting, controls

and fan coil units were different. Metering costs were considered.

Duplexes and other similar multi-family buildings were considered in a manner identical to MIUS townhouses. Metering costs were considered.

Commercial and community buildings were treated in a identical manner

as the MIUS apartments. Metering costs were considered. Since ownership

considerations affect the cost comparison of conventional utilities and

services, a cost for the MIUS grounds was added to the MIUS cost analysis.

It is asssumed that the developer provided the onsite utility easements

at no cost.

4. 1.1. 2 Utility Systems Compared

The MIUS had a single owner, either an individual, company, corporation,

municipal government, or some such other organization. The owner operates

and maintains the MIUS. The MIUS was defined as a complete set of subsystems including electrical power, water, wastewater, hot water, HVAC,

105
and solid waste. The MIUS included all the supporting components of

electrical power distribution, water distribution, sewage collection,

heating, hot water and cooling distribution, and solid waste collection.

The MIUS stopped at the lot owner's property line (or at the limits of the

utility easement). The equipment from that point, to and within the

buildings served, was the property of the property owner. The initial

cost and annual operating and maintenance cost of this Individually owned

equipment was assessed and compared to the initial and annual operating

and maintenance cost of conventional equipment which would typically be

owned by individuals. This cost differential was considered in the cost

comparison of MIUS services and conventional utilities.

The water supply and fire protection was provided by conventional means. The conventional water costs were evaluated as to initial cost (connection

fees, front foot benefits, other) and annual owning and operating expenses

(rate structure and taxes) for the requirements of both the MIUS installation

and the conventional installations. It has been determined that for some

or all of the five housing projects, there exist institutional restrictions

as well as restrictions due to previous and planned development progress.

MIUS costs were developed without regard to these conditions. The differing

time frames of the developments were compensated for in the cost comparison.

MIUS

The MIUS design (Table A. 1.1.1) provided five services. Electrical power

was supplied at 120/208-volt three-phase ac power to all occupied spaces.

Domestic hot water of potable quality was heated to 150®F. Heating and

air conditioning was provided to meet the particular heating and cooling

loads of the particular locale. Wastewater treatment was consistent with

the requirements of recycling for non-potable use and/or disposal to

the external environment. Solid waste disposal consisted of transportation

and incineration consistent with applicable EPA regulations. The optimization approach used was that of the MIUS Community Conceptual Design

Study to minimize the discounted cash flow. The alternative having the

lowest present cost was selected. The reliability requirement determined

the redundancy provided in the design of the system. Reliability also

Influenced the selection of equipment and the decisions concerning interconnection of systems. The MIUS reliability was comparable to that of

conventional systems. A design goal for all subsystems was to obtain

maximum commonality of subsystem components without decreasing efficiency

and without violating the optimization criterion.

Power was generated at 60 hertz, three-phase only. Mlnimum-heat-rate engines

were used in power generation. Heat-recovery equipment was compatible

with the HVAC system. Fuel oil was the basic energy source. A fuel

storage capability (adequate for 24 hours of normal operation) was provided

at each MIUS housing project. Replenishment of the fuel oil was from

offsite storage through an underground pipeline. The electrical power

subsystem operates Independently of, but compatibly with, the offsite

power system.

106
Table 4. 1.1.1

NASA MIUS Design

Housing Project

n #2 #3 H #5

Fuel

Electric Power Generation: #2 oil Nat. Gas #2 Oil n oil #2 Oil

Capacity (kW) 2870 2400 9500 10500 1900

Engines (#) 3 5 10 11 4

Heat recovery

(stand-by)

E,J,L E,J,L E,J,L E,J,L E,J,L

Capacity (kW) 800 400 800 800 400

Engines 0) 1 1 1 1 1 Heat recovery None None None None None

Space Heating:

Boilers (//) 1 0 0 2 1 Rating (hp) 490 0 0 460 350

Thermal Storage (kgal) 340 0 0 0 205

Air Conditioning:

Comp. Chiller (//) 2 2 2

Rating (ton) 425 425 400

Abs. Chiller 0) 1 1 2 2 1 Rating (ton) 422 160 650 725 3^5

Solid Waste Disposal:

J1 Rating (tpd) 6.2 1.3 12.2 16.2 / 5.0

Incinerator 0) 1 1 2 2

heat recovery Yes Yes Yes Yes

sludge (tpd) 4.3 1.3 9.4 10.3 3.5

f Wastewater Treatment:

Capacity (kgpd) 226 48 516 174

Potable Water Treatment:

Capacity (kgpd) Conv 45 Conv Conv 164

NASA <Conventional Design

Space Heating:

Boiler (#) 2 1 1 2 1 Rating (hp) 300 350 450 465 430

Air Conditioning:

Comp. Chiller (//) 2 1 2 3 2

Rating (ton) 680 160 650 720 585

107
The HVAC subsystem was designed to maximize the utilization of waste

heat for both summer cooling and winter heating. If necessary, supplemental

boilers were used to meet the winter space-heating peaks. Compression

refrigeration was used if suppLemental cooling capacity was required.

Circulating hot-water and chilled-water systems were used for the highdensity regions of the housing project. Where possible, heat was rejected

directly to the environment so that water can be conserved.

The solid waste was disposed of by incineration. Energy, in the form

of heat, was recovered from the wastes. The heat-recovery equipment

used was compatible with the HVAC subsystem. The burning schedule of

the solid wastes conformed to the requirements of the HVAC subsystem.

The utilization of supplemental fuel in the incineration process was minlulzed. The stack emissions complied with EPA guidelines. All solid

waste used was from the community Itself; solid wastes were not Imported

to the housing project. Alternate disposal or storage was provided for

protection against possible subsystem failure. The ultimate disposal

(in the form of ashes) was to a remote offsite landfill.

All water produced by the potable water subsystem met the 1962 U.S.

Public Health Service standards for drinking water. Only such potable

water was used for human consumption. Prime mover waste heat was used

wherever possible to heat domestic hot water. Wastewater treatment produced an effluent that was of sufficient quality for use in heat exchangers

and cooling towers. Human contact with treated effluent was minimized.

Surplus treated wastewater was used for lawn watering. Throughout the

potable and wastewater portions of the subsystem, alternate means of

disposal or storage were provided in case of subsystem failure. Adequate

pressure and storage of water existed for firefighting purposes at any

location within the housing project.

Electric Power Generation

Electrical power loads for both MIUS and conventional service were developed

for each housing project in terms of building type, direct consumption, and

auxiliary loads. The auxiliary loads in both cases included HVAC consumption,

building exterior lighting (street lighting), water supply power, sewer system power, and incinerator system power. The domestic loads include

all loads developed within each dwelling unit excluding the mentioned

auxiliary loads. For the MIUS, the initial costs and production costs

for this power were evaluated for the entire site without regard to individual building type consumption. For conventional power, an assessment

was made of consumption by building type because of conventional rate

structure and then compared to the MIUS costs for the entire site. Electrical

power was metered by the MIUS owner as conventional electrical power.

Street lighting power costs were distributed proportionately between the

individual consumers for both the MIUS and conventional systems.

For conventional electrical power Initial costs, it was determined whether

or not: (a) there are any initial costs to be Imposed on the developer

such as for bringing power to the site, or establishing one or more

108
transfoirmer stations; (b) there are any Initial costs imposed on the

developer for providing underground distribution (underground distribution

costs run 1-1/2 to 3 times the cost of typical overhead distribution);

(c) there is an Initial one-time electrical connection fee. A one-year

deposit was required for a singlefamily dwelling unit in some cases. While this deposit was not be considered an Initial expense, the interest

on the deposit was considered an initial expense. MIUS initial capital

and annual (0 & M and annualized Initial costs) costs were adjusted to

Include meters and metering reading. The personnel costs were included

in the MIUS composite crew. Conventional annual costs were developed

from appropriate rate schedules using average consumption values. Initial

and annual costs of equipment within buildings were considered to be

the same in both the MIUS and conventional cases and were not evaluated.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

MIUS and conventional costs Include the central plant, hot and chilled

water distribution (including trenching, metering and isolation valves)

and Individual building equipment. Building equipment includes central

heat exchangers for domestic hot water and for heating and cooling. It

does not include ducting, controls, piping and building space. Annual

costs (other than annualized Initial costs) for both MIUS and conventional

are labor, fuel, materials and individual building maintenance.

Solid Waste Disposal

Generally, neither the developer nor property owner incur any Initial

costs relative to the disposal of solid waste in the conventional case. The responsibility for this activity is assumed directly by a local government or by private contractors who are licensed by the local government.

Charges may Include taxes as well as periodic payments in either case. Unless so specified, it was assumed that none were applicable In the

conventional case. The cost analysis for offsite disposal of residual

solid waste for MIUS were adjusted to reflect local conditions at each

site.

Wastewater Treatment

The MIUS initial cost included the treatment plant, collection system

(including trenching which terminated on the utility easement), the outfall, and fire protection if MIUS provided a potable water subsystem.

MIUS annual 0 & M costs were chemicals, labor and miscellaneous materials.

Electrical power was not assessed separately. The Initial conventional

costs were connection fees, permanent deposits, interest on non-permanent

deposits and front foot benefit charges. Annual charges for other than

annualized first costs were based on applicable tax and rate structures.

For comparislon to the MIUS, in order to assess initial as well as annual

costs, the period of financing of the conventional system was ignored.

Current interest rates and an assumed 20-year period for MIUS financing

109
made this comparison reasonable. The conventional system will typically

be financed for a longer period at a lower rate of interest than will be

possible with MIUS.

Potable Water Treatment

If a water supply subsystem was not provided with the MIUS, the applicable

tax/rate structure was applied to both the MIUS and conventional system

costs. A MIUS installation, without a water subsystem still used less

water than the conventional system because of the tertiary treated wastewater used in the cooling tower and the treated wastewater used for irrigation. This irrigation was assumed to be accomplished from the fire

protection system and credit for this savings was not taken unless a wastewater-fire protection system was installed. If the MIUS had a water

subsystem, then fire protection was provided by a MIUS wastewater subsystem.

If the MIUS did not have a water subsystem, then fire protection was

provided by the conventional water supply system.

For the conventional water supply system, the initial costs cannot be

clearly separated from those of wastewater and storm water. If MIUS does

not provide a water supply subsystem, MIUS and conventional systems were

costed the same. Initials cost were connection fees, front foot benefits

(proportionalized between water, wastewater and storm water as necessary),

installation of supply line, interest on non-permanent deposits and permanent

deposits

.

Other Condersideratlons

A cost for the MIUS building and grounds were included in total MIUS

costs. An acreage was specified for this and the developer and/or local

tax authorities were contacted for an estimate of this value.

4. 1.1. 3 ENERGY SYSTEMS OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

ECOBAS determined the capital and operating and maintenance cost for both

MIUS and a conventional system based on the energy analysis performed by

ESOP.

ECOBAS

The economic data base consists of approximately 130 tables of costs for

various components and operating/maintenance expenses. ECOBAS is programmed for utiity systems consisting of ten basic pieces. These ten

pieces are: electrical power generation (engine/generator sets, heat

exchangers, fuel storage); electrical power distribution (wire, transformers, switchgear); potable water supply (plumbing, pumps, valves,

tanks, chlorination); domestic hot water (tanks, pumps, heat exchangers,

plumbing); wastewater management which Includes collection, processing

and residual disposal (plumbing, pumps, lift stations, manholes, package

plants); HVAC (pumps, plumbing, chillers, cooling towers, boilers, valves,

heat exchangers); solid waste management (incinerators, material handling

110

I
equipment, pumps, blowers, plumbing, heat exchangers); control system;

equipment building space; and miscellaneous. Each of these ten pieces

includes costs for internal controls /instrumentation, consumables, 0 & M

rates, and miscellaneous.

ECOBAS is a four-step computation. From the ESOP energy analysis ECOBAS

develops the required capacities of each piece of equipment and the usage

rates of consumables (fuel oil, electricity, natural gas) for MIDS and

conventional utilities. MIUS or conventional utility systems need not

contain all the cost items mentioned in the previous paragraph. The con- verse is true. The miscellaneous item in one of the other nine pieces

or miscellaneous itself may be used to input additional cost items.

ECOBAS interpolates within the cost tables and determines the cost of

each cost item. Both the capital cost and the operating/maintenance

cost are available. ECOBAS prints out a cost data summary. This cost

data summary includes yearly operating/ maintenance costs for both MIDS

and conventional, and a listing of the capital cost of each constituent

cost item.

Program Input Data Discussion

The program input format is basically Fortran V namelists. The required

namelists are MAINT, and SIZE. MAINT Inputs information concerning the

housing project (location, population, dwelling unit number, per capita

utility consumption, cost index), utility equipment (annual consumables,

0 & M costs) and utility equipment consumables (cost). SIZE has four

variables: CPCTY, UNITS, DIRCOS, and RATE. CPCTY is the capacity of

each component in the equipment inventory. UNITS is the number of CPCTY

units. DIRCOS is the direct cost of each CPCTY unit. RATE is labor required

to install each CPCTY unit.

4.1.2 Hittman/McClure Methodology

The purpose of Section 4.1.2 is to identify the evaluation methodology of

Hittman Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates which generated the

cost data found in Section 4.2.2 for the five housing projects described

in Section 1. and Section 2. Information for Sections 4. 1.2.1 and 4. 1.2.2

is found in "MIDS Review Site Four" by Charles J. R. McClure Associates,

January 29, 1976 and "Draft MIDS Case Study Report" (Rough Draft)

by Hittman Associates, February 1976.

4. 1.2.1 Initial and Annual Costs

Detailed identification of affected subsystems, developer design constraints,

local construction cost factors, pertinent details of terrain and other site

specific characteristics were evaluated. It was determined that differential

costs would be evaluated. Only those project features directly influenced by

system design options were analyzed. No monetary consideration was given

so desirability or preferences as seen from the stand point of the developer.

111
contractor, owner, or tenant. A cost comparison was developed of initial

construction costs. A cost comparison was made of maintenance and operating

costs for the first full year of operating. The first full year was January

through December 1977.

The cost of the conventional system energy to each of the user buildings

in the community was calculated by applying appropriate utility and product

costs. These costs were then summed to establish a "value" of the product

from the MIUS, which was then applied in the analysis as the potential MIDS

revenue. The MIUS investment cost was calculated by preparing a detailed

construction cost estimate of the plant, distribution systems, and terminal

systems costs of the user buildings. System diagrams and equipment lists were developed in the design of the utilities for the conventional and MIUS

for each housing project (Table 4.1.2.1). The costs developed were limited

to services provided up to the dwelling units but do not include terminal

or distribution apparatus within the buildings. Construction costs were determined on the basis of unit prices for components of subsystems and

Included: vendor selling prices for principal apparatus, installation

expenses peculiar to the location and system design, cost of buildings and

other site improvements incident to the subsystems, utility connection charges,

engineering designs, contingency allowances, contractor overhead charges, sales

taxes, and start-up expenses.

Annual operating expense of the utility services systems on each housing

project were developed from the data generated in the system design. Energy

charges, including demand and commodity cost and taxes, were computed for

each utility service purchased: electricity, water, sewer, steam, chilled

water, etc. Local utility rates were verified; the expense of solid waste

handling and disposal, calculated. Annual operating labor costs, parts and

supplies expenses, contract services, replacement parts allowance. Insurance

costs, and property taxes were estimated. Operating schedules for utility

service functions were determined. Hours of use for each apparatus were

estimated. Replacement and overhaul intervals, and costs were obtained from

suppliers and contractors.

Site-specific characteristics significantly affect both the construction costs and the energy consumption. Comparative costs for distribution

supply system vary significantly with length of main per service entrance,

service entrances per unit area of development, topographical characteristics of the site, location of MIUS with respect to user builders,

geological characteristics of site, etc. Investment cost of the plant

relates not only to the segregated product demands (electric, heat, and

cooling), but to the full load balance of these products from an integrated plant. For example, the full load balance between electrical

and thermal requirements dictates the type of prime mover, the salvage

heat systems necessary for the prime mover, the need for supplemental

heat, the method for generating chilled water for cooling, and the need

for thermal storage systems.

112
Housing Project

#1 n #3 //4 #5

Fuel

Electrical Power Generation: #2 Oil Nat Gas //2 Oil #2 Oil //2 Oil

Capacity (kW) 3250 900 1400 10400 2500

Engines (//) 5 4 5 4 5

Heat recovery E,J E,J E,J E,J E,J

(stand-by)

Capacity (kW) NA NA NA NA NA

Engines (//) NA NA NA NA NA

Heat recovery NA NA NA NA NA

Space Heating:

Boilers (//) 2 None 2

Rating (hp) 60 0

Thermal Storage None None None None None

Air Conditioning:

Comp. Chillers (#) 2 2 None None 2

Rating (ton) 4325 100 0 0 350

Abs. Chillers (//) 1 1 3 3 1 Rating (ton) 665 200 174 365 500

Solid Waste Disposal:

Rating (tpd) 3.3 0.6 5.4 6.9 2.1

Incinerator 0) 1 1 1 1 1 Heat recovery Yes No No Yes No

Sludge (tpd) LndFl LndFl LndFl LndFl LndFl

Wastewater Treatment:

Capacity (kgpd) 190 195

Potable Water Treatment:

Capacity (kgpd) Conv 46 Conv Conv 24

H/M Conventional Design

Space Heating:

Source Elect Furn Gas Furn Elect Furn Gas Furn Elect Furn

Cop 1.0 0.75 1.0* 0.75 1.0

Air Conditioning: Elect Comp Elect Comp Elect Comp* Elect Comp1 Elect Comp

Source 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

EER

113
4. 1.2. 2 Cost Projections

The regions for which costs were projected (Table 4. 1.2. 3) are: West

North Central (Housing Project //I); East South Central (Housing Project //2); South Atlantic (Housing Project /^3, and #5) and the New England

(Housing Project //4). The specific cost variables that were projected

are indices for labor, equipment, fuel, and selected utilities.

Capital

The wholesale price index for machinery and equipment on an annual basis

is reported by BLS^, though only on a nationwide basis. For the U.S.

as a whole, the annual growth rate for the wholesale price index for

machinery and equipment was calculated to be 2.55 percent.

Labor

Average hourly earnings are undoubtedly the relevant^ variable for estimating labor costs. Data for average hourly earnings in manufacturing

are available for each state in Employment and Earnings; States and Areas

which is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Data for average

hourly earnings in electric companies and systems are tabulated by the

BLS only for the nation as a whole. Earnings in electric companies and

systems were estimated on a state by state basis for the electric companies

and systems in the U.S. as a whole on data for average hourly earnings

in manufacturing as a whole (BLS). The resulting relation was then used

to generate the appropriate series for average hourly earning in electric

companies and systems for each state.

Once the four data series were estimated, the four index growth rates

were calculated according to the autoregressive method described above.

The rates thus obtained are: 5.51 percent (West North Central); 5.18

percent (East South Central); 5.00 percent (South Atlantic); and 4.81

(New England)

.

Fuel

Chase Econometrics' special long-term forecasts provided specific long-term

annual forecasts for the prices of oil, electric utilities, and gas utilities

through the year 1980 for the U.S. as a whole. The imputed annual growth

rates for these projected indexes from 1975 to 1980 were calculated to

be 6 percent for all oil, 10 percent for electric utilities, and 10 percent

for gas utilities. Allowances for regional variations in fuel costs were

made by an examination of past trends. Annual data on national wholesale

prices for refined petroleum products, gas fuels, and electric power

for the past dozen years were obtained from Business Statistics, while

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "The Biennial Supplement to the Survey

of Current Business," of Business Statistics.

114
Table 4. 1.2. 3 - Price Indices Projections (By Area)

(1974 - 100)

West North

Cost Indices Year Central

Capital: Industrial 1975

Conimoditles 1976

(Wholesale) 1977

Labor: Average 1975 105.59

Hour ly 1976 112.27

Earnings 1977 119.31

Fuel: Coal 1975 106.89

(Wholesale) 1976 114.25

1977 122.13

n Fuel Oil 1975

(Wholesale) 1976

1977

#6 Fuel Oil 1975

1976

1977

Gas 1975 134.33

(Utilities - 1976 147.76

Wholesale) 1977 162.54

Electricity 1975 115.17

(Utilities - 1976 126.69

Wholesale) 1977 139.39

Potable Water: 1975

(Utilities - 1976

Wholesale) 1977

East South

Central

South

Atlantic

New

England

United

States

102.55

105.16

107.84

105.21

111.47

118.05

105.10

111.23

117.67

104.78

110.56

116.63

111.24

123.74

137.64

108.50

117.72

127.73

107.10

113.53

120.34

105.10

111.41

118.09

105.82

111.94

118.43

118.72

125.84

133.39

127.72

135.38

143.51

105.82

111.94

118.43

135.10

14,8.61

163.47

134.02

147.42

162.16

129.49

142.44

156.68

126.40

139.04

152.94

126.40

139.04

152.94

129.71

142.68

156.95

102.06

104.16

106.31

115
regional data for these same variables were obtained from "Energy Prices,"

1960-1973 (Foster Associates, Inc.)*^ The mean deviation of the wholesale

price index for each region from the national wholesale price indexes

on a year by year, region by region, and source by source basis, and

then dividing by the number of years. The mean deviations thus calculated

were then incorporated into the forecasts as an adjustment for regional

discrepancies in cost structures by incorporating them at the beglnnlngof the series and thereafter applying the imputed constaint growth rate

to project the series forward. Hence, fuel cost projections of each region

for oil, gas, and electricity are trends that differ from the past national

trend by a constant percentage that reflects past trends in regional

cost differences.

Unlike other fuel sources, the trend of past coal prices was judged to be

a reasonable predictor of future trends. Over the past decade or so, coal

prices have displayed a steady and strong upward trend. Regression analysis,

used as before, yielded the following growth rates for the f.o.b. mine

wholesale price of coal: 8.50 percent (U.S.); 6.89 percent (West North

Central); and 11.24 percent (East South Central).

Potable Water/Wastewater Treatment

Data for water and sewerage services were not presented as separate tabulations or by regions, but were Included nationally under the category

of consumer prices for "Housing Fuel and Utilities" by "Business Statistics

Supplement" to the Survey of Current Business. This was judged to be

the relevant index to use for water utilities. Regression analysis yielded

a growth rate of 2.06 percent for the consumer prices index of fuel and

utilities over the past two decades. The series has been projected forward

at this constant rate.

4.2 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Section 4.2.1 presents the cost data developed by NASA-USPO for the five

housing projects described in Sections 1.1.4 and with the methodology

described in Section 4.1.1. Section 4.2.2 presents the cost data developed

by Hittman Associates and Charles J. R. McClure Associates for the same

five housing projects with the methodology described in Section 4.1.2.

It should be pointed out that regional data were not available here or elsewhere for fuel oil in the West North Central pr East South Central

areas, while price indexes for coal in the South Atlantic and New

England areas were unavailable as well. In these particular cases,

the average national trend was used as a proxy for regional rates.

^ The Identical projections for electric utilities in the East South

Central and South Atlantic areas are not a result of Identical data.

It is a mere coincidence of the data that the mean deviation form

the national trend was the same in, both cases.

116
4.2.1 NASA Evaluation

4. 2. 1.1 MIUS

MIUS cost evaluation was originally intended to be made using the data

developed for 496 apartments in the summer of 1974. These data have been

published by the NASA Urban Systems Project Office in a report entitled,

"Preliminary Design Study of a Baseline MIUS System," dated April 1974,

reprinted July 1974. The baseline study was for a very high population

and dwelling unit density housing project of 11.18 acres, and 496 dwelling

units, 106.5 residents per acre. The five housing projects in Section 1.1.4

possess generally far more dwelling units and considerably less residents

per acre density than the baseline system. As a result, a combination of

the cost data developed for the baseline MIUS and for the community study,

which was conducted by NASA in the summer of 1973 and which had a population

density of 9 residents per acre, are used for the cost estimates for the

five housing projects. Costs for the community study are documented in a report entitled, "Cost Methods and Cost Analysis Results for the Community

Study MIUS Concepts," dated December 7, 1973.

In both studies, initial costs were developed excluding general contractor

profit and overhead which would add between 15% and 40% to the published

costs. No engineering costs were included, nor adjustments made for con- struction time, construction loan costs, architectural fees, or similar

real expenses. No land, right-of-way, or site preparation costs were

included. Provisions for storm water drainage and the costs for disposal

of the treated wastewater were not included in the studies. No costs had

been included for laboratory facilities for testing the quality of the

water and wastewater. Operating and maintenance costs were exclusive of

overhead or fixed costs such as for taxes, interest and principal on initial capital, insurance, and administrative and clerical costs. Maintenance cost figures were averages which would occur over a period of

several years.

An elementary "turnkey cost" estimate (Table 4. 2. 1.1) has been made for

each housing project to partially compensate for the omissions discussed.

The 19.2% added to the base cost of materials and labor for general con- tractor overhead was taken from the 1974 Building Construction Cost File

and details of this estimate are given in that reference. The 7.5%

estimate for architectural fees for the MIUS building is from the same

source. Engineering costs and general contractor profit are estimates

based on engineering judgement. While each general contractor will develop

his estimates in much greater detail as it relates to his unique costa

and conditions, the total turnkey cost provides a reasonable estimate

of the additional costs over materials and subcontractor costs which should

be expected. For total annual outlay, an Insurance estimate and an annual

payment of principal and interest were added to the base 0 & M cost.

Costs for the baseline MIUS (Preliminary Design Study) were developed using

primarily either Chicago or U.S. average costs (Table 4. 2. 1.2). While

Chicago costs do not represent a U.S. average, this combination was the

117
Table 4. 2. 1.1

NASA MIUS Turnkey Cost

( 10^ $)

Housing Project

#1 n #3 H //5 Turnkey Cost:

Material, Sub labor 3447 1336 7071 9234 3524

Profit, Overhead

Gen. Cont. Overhead 662 257 1358 1773 677

(@ 19.2% M&L)

Engineering

((? 10% M&L)

345 134 707 923 352

Architecture 259 100 530 693 264

(Q 7.5%)

Gen. Cont. Profit

(0 10% M&L)

345 134 707 923 352

Total 5058 1961 10373 13546 5169

Annual Cost:

O&M 514 227 1205 1251 411

Insurance

(@10% M&L)

34 13 71 92 35

Total 548 240 1276 1343 446

118
best available for developing cost data from which location variations

could be studied. This approach is used for evaluation of the five

housing projects. Three indices have been used to assess the variation

in cost from one location to another with Chicago being 100 in each

case. Operating personnel costs are varied according to the construction

labor Indices given in the 1974 Building Construction Cost Data published

by Robert Snow Means Company, Inc. Construction labor and materials are related to the total construction indices from the same reference. 0

& M costs are also varied by the same relationship. Fuel costs are related to Chicago and the housing project locations through use of the

variation in the price of gasoline, exclusive of state taxes, as reported

in "The Oil and Gas Journal," as of July 30, 1974. Table 4. 2. 1.3 Illustrates

the indices used to effect the cost variations because of location. The

indexing method used for these variations is not for absolute costs of a particular component or subsystem and is intended only to provide the

proper trend for the major variations in total system cost with location.

Electric Power Generation

The engine-generator sets with all local controls, heat recovery equipment.

Interconnecting steam and lube oil piping, primary switchgear and transformers, wiring, day tank, installation, warranty, manuals, and initial

oil fill had a single value. The costs were based on Falrbanks-Morse-type

engine and were estimated to be approximately 10% to 15% more per kW than

a comparable Caterpillar Installation. A Caterpillar-type engine-generator

set without heat recovery and with a minimum of accessories was costed

separately as a standby auxiliary. There were no switchgear and transformer

costs associated with this standby engine-generator.

Fuel storage and supply equipment consisted of underground fuel storage

tanks with capacities up to 40,000 gallons each. The tanks were coated

steel similar to those used for gasoline service stations. A four-pump

distribution system with underground copper piping was included. Distribution external to the MIUS building Included underground wiring (but no trenching cost), transformers, and switchgear. No costs were included

for wiring from the terminal transformers to the dwelling unit buildings.

No metering equipment was included. In the case of the very high density

(106.5 residents/acre), distribution costs were $3, 390/acre, $76. 50/dwelling

unit, or $26.40/kW of installed capacity with heat recovery. In the less

dense neighborhood of the community study (9 residents/acre), distribution

costs were $2, 010/acre, $524/dwelling unit, or $81.70 per kW of installed

capacity. For the cost evaluation of the five housing projects, a cost per

acre (linear) as a function of residents/acre (log scale) has been used with

the two points of 9 residents/acre at $2, 010/acre and 106.5 residents/acre

at $3, 390/acre.

A total cost of maintenance of the engine-generator sets, heat recovery

equipment, and MIUS building transformers and switchgear is 4.02 mils/

kWh. Distribution equipment maintenance was at 2%/year of the Initial

equipment costs. The lube oil value used was .75 mils/kWh. Fuel costs

were based on the requirments generated by the ESOP program, the fuel

119
Table 4. 2. 1.2

NASA MIUS Cost

( 10^ $)

Housing Project

n n #3 //4 #5

Materials, and

Subcontractor Costs:

Electrice Power Generation 1125 521 2640 3318 1281

Space Heating and Air

Conditioning

638 67 1043 1364 662

Solid Waste Disposal 136 52 280 321 120

Wastewater Treatment 622 326 1337 1912 630

Potable Water Treatment 428 90 810 989 330

Controls 127 104 134 135 154

MIUS Bldg 158 72 231 275 143

Miscellaneous 213 104 596 920 204

Total

Annual Operating and

Maintenance Costs:

3447 1336 7071 9234 3524

Electric Power Generation 301 135 914 906 209

Space Heating and Air

Conditioning

40 2 19 28 30

Solid Waste Disposal 20 5 37 45 16

Wastewater Treatment 28 11 49 61 25

Potable Water Treatment 16 3 31 37 12

Controls 16 14 17 17 17

MIUS Bldg 2 1 3 4 2

Miscellaneous 0 0 1 1 1 Operating Crew 91 56 134 152 99

Total 514 227 1205 1251 411

120
Table 4. 2. 1.3

Cost Indices

(By Area)

Housing Project

n il Chicago

1974 MEANS Building

Construction Cost Data:

Labor 91 68 99 99 99 110

Materials and Labor 91 75 96 97 96 104

Labor* 82.7 61.8 90.0 90.0 90.0 100

Materials and Labor* 87.5 72.1 92.3 93.3 92.3 100

Oil and Gas

Journal (July 1974):

Gasoline 44.4 40.9 42.9 41.9 42.9 45.6

Gasoline* 97.5 89.7 94.0 92.0 94.0 100

*Related to Chicago @100

121
indices of Table 4. 2. 1.3, and a delivered cost of 34.2^/gallon for the

Chicago area. Operating labor is based on the composition of the operating

crew.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

Only the central chilled and hot water plant costs and the cost of distribution to individual buildings were assessed. No costs for equipment

within the dwelling unit and commercial buildings were evaluated because

this equipment is assumed to be the same for both the MIUS and conventional

system. This equipment included fan coil terminal units, thermostats,

ducting, and piping. No costs were included for single-family dwelling

unit HVAC equipment on the assumption that this equipment was required

even if a MIUS was not installed. Power loads were considered for the

single-family dwelling units in sizing the power plant.

The cost elements for the MIUS HVAC and domestic hot water equipment included

for example, absorption and centrifugal chillers; cooling tower(s); chilled

water pumps; hot water pumps; Interconnecting plumbing, valves, and heat

exchangers within the MIUS building; and hot water and chilled water distribution piping from the MIUS building up to but not including individual

buildings. Some MIUS designs also included low pressure steam boilers,

themal storage pumps, and a thermal storage tank. Installed costs for

chillers, boilers, and cooling towers were taken directly from standard

cost references. Plots for chilled and hot water pumping equipment were

also developed from standard cost references. The thermal storage tank

costs (where required) were based on the detailed cost analysis for the

496-apartment baseline MIUS and cost trend data for underground concrete

tanks taken from Richardson's. The MIUS building interconnect plumbing,

valves, and heat exchangers were related to the 496-apartment baseline

MIUS costs on an installed chiller capacity basis and this value is used

for all systems.

The hot and chilled water distribution piping was related to the dwelling

unit density per acre in a special study. The special study was made

for regular distribution patterns for 4, 16, and 64 dwelling units per

acre. Results of the study agreed reasonably well with the community

study data and the 496-baseline MIUS data. This type of estimate was necessary because building locations were not defined for all five housing

projects. The area or areas being served by the central hot and chilled

water were estimated and the cost was interpolated from the special study

data. For the housing projects where the MIUS building was not located

adjacent to the site being served, separate estimates were made for the

primary piping required to deliver service to the high density areas.

O&M costs, exclusive of labor (one-half the maintenance labor was assumed

to be provided by the operating crew), were evaluated for each component

or subassembly. Fuel costs were evaluated for the quantities developed

from the ESOP program data, the fuel index, and the 34.2<{/gallon for

diesel fuel in Chicago.

122
Solid Waste Disposal

For solid waste disposal, there was one (or more) incinerator with a heat

recovery boiler, Interconnecting steam and water piping, ash removal equipment, and other related accessories. The A96-apartment baseline system

data were scaled based on the cost trend of incinerators without heat

recovery and the other peripheral equipment. The sizing of the incinerator

was based on burning the average daily solid waste load in twelve hours.

Collection equipment costs were related to the number of dwelling units

seirved. Collection equipment cost was taken from the 496-apartment baseline MIUS. This cost agreed quite closely with the community study data.

Operating costs (excluding labor) for the solid waste subsystem included

incinerator fuel, collection equipment fuel, and an estimate for the cost

of offsite disposal of ash and non-combustibles. Offsite disposal cost was related to the community study data (adjusted to mid-1974 $). The

offset disposal cost was $21. 64/ton. From this total cost, the cost of

collection and cost for incinerator fuel were subtracted because these

costs were included in the MIUS operating costs. As in many other areas

of this preliminary costing, the actual cost of disposal of residual

solid waste depended on the local conditions at each housing project.

Maintenance costs for the solid waste equipment were developed for individual components of the 496-apartment baseline MIUS. Maintance costs

from this study were related to the total Initial costs of the MIUS building and the collection equipment.

Wastewater Treatment

No costs were included for the disposal of treated wastewater since this

represented a unique cost for each particular housing project. In the

MIUS studies conducted by NASA, fire protection equipment costs were included

with the wastewater subsystem. Because it was assumed that the conventional

potable water supply system provided for fire protection, this element

of cost was omitted from the wastewater subsystem.

Primary and secondary treatment costs were scaled from the detailed cost

analysis made for the 496-apartment baseline MIUS. Vendor cost data for

the Three-Stage Autotrol Bio-Disk Process equipment were used to establish

the cost trend with the assumption that the other auxiliary equipment

required followed the same cost trend. The bio-disk process equipment

was the major cost item of the primary and secondary treatment. Auxiliary

equipment included pumps, tanks, and Interconnect plumbing. Costs for

this process were based on the peak capacity requirements.

Tertiary treatment plant costs were scaled from the detailed cost analysis

for the 496-apartment baseline system using vendor cost data for the MetPro IPC Advanced Treatment equipment as the cost trend Indicator. This

123
equipment was the major cost element of the tertiary treatment. Auxiliary

supporting equipment included plumbing. Costs for this process were also

based on the peak capacity requirements.

Wastewater collection cost was the third element of the cost evaluation

and was related to both the community study and the 496-apartment baseline

MIUS. The Option I MIUS of the community study Included 29 450,000-gpd

wastewater treatment plants, one typically serving a neighborhood on 365 acres with 713 single-family dwellings, 324 townhouses, 324 apartments,

and several miscellaneous neighborhood buildings. Nine residents per acre represented the neighborhood population density. For this system,

the collection equipment costs included lift stations, manholes and piping

(but not trenching costs), and came to $1, 825/acre (1974 $). The 496-

apartment baseline had 106.5 residents/acre and a collection equipment

cost of $2, 485/acre. A cost per acre (linear) as a function of residents

per acre (log) was used, based on these values, to estimate collection

equipment costs.

Potable Water Treatment

An Independent MIUS potable water supply and treatment plant was not

to be developed for any of the five housing projects. Because a water

supply presented a unique situation for any housing project, the conceptual

water supply system costs developed for the community study were used in

the MIUS base cost analysis without any adjustment for the different

locations

.

MIUS Control Subsystem

A comprehensive study of the requirements and costs for control and monitoring equipment for the 496-apartment baseline MIUS was conducted and

was documented in the "Preliminary Design Study of a Baseline MIUS System,"

dated April 1974 and reprinted July 1974 . Costs for the Baseline MIUS

System were used in cost evaluation for each housing project. While

some variation was expected in the cost for equipment for the different

housing projects because of numbers of pieces of equipment requiring

control and monitoring, no satisfactory approach was developed for determining this variation in cost. The same cost for this element was used

for each of the five housing projects with the only variation resulting

from the construction cost index. The equipment costed under this category

included only the control room equipment, sensors, and transducers. Costs

for control valves was included with the subsystem costs. Costs for pilot

valves, pneumatic equipment, and piping was included in Miscellaneous.

MIUS Central Equipment Building

The MIUS building, which houses the MIUS subsystems, was sized according

to the equipment installed. A value of $16.69/ft^ excluding general con- tractor profit and overhead site work, engineering and architectural costs.

124
was used. A description of the building being costed was included in both

the community study cost documentation and the 496-apartment baseline MIUS

documentation.

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous trenching costs were related to both the community study

and the 496-apartment baseline MIUS. In both of these studies the site

area was assumed to be flat and costs were based on "unclassified" soil.

Wastewater trenching, which was separate from all other service trenching,

was related to the population density of each site. The trenching (adjusted

to mid-1974 $) for a community study neighborhood of 365 acres with 9 res- idents/acre came to $1,015 /acre (Chicago). The trenching costs for the

496-apartment baseline MIUS with 106.5 residents/acre came to $2, 180/acre.

A plot of these two cost values (linear) against residents/ acre (log) was used to estimate the wastewater trenching costs. Trenching costs

for all other services, based on the community study data, were set at

$413/acre independent of population density. The initial fuel load was charged to miscellaneous costs. The fuel tank capacity was sized to

accommodate a 30-day fuel supply.

Operating Crew

The operating crew for each MIUS Included as a minimum, one skilled employee

and three semi-skilled employees. Service workers were added as necessary

to cover the estimated manhours per week required to operate the system.

A base annual Chicago cost of $22,880 for the skilled employee, $12,430

for each of the seim-skilled employees, and $8,283 each for the service

workers was established from the Bureau of Labor statistics. Social security

tax, unemplo3nnent tax, 3% of the base for overtime, and an additional

5% for other costs set the Chicago costs at $26,532 for the skilled

employee, $14,731 for each semi-skilled employee, and $9,827 for each

service.

Forty hours per week were allotted for the one skilled employee who was the

Engineer-Supervisor. An engine-generator required five man-hours per week.

Man-hours per 24 hours for the wastewater equipment were based on the

average daily processing load where 18 man-hours per 24 hours were required

to operate a plant processing an average of 88,000 gpd and 25 manhours per

24 hours are required to operate a plant processing an average of 338,000

gpd. Manhours per week for the HVAC equipment were set a 7,7 manhours per

major component (chiller, boiler, and cooling , tower) . Manhours per week

for the solid waste subsystem were related to: the tons per week to be

collected; the collection cost per ton as a function of residents per acre

(based on the community study and the 496-apartment baseline studies); and

the average hourly rate for the service workers. The manpower estimate

obtained in this manner can be Improved. The method did provide a consistent,

relative set of cost values for comparison.

125
4. 2. 1.2 Conventional Utilities

An elementary "turnkey cost" estimate (Table 4. 2. 1.4) was made for conventional utility costs at each housing project. Refer to Section 4. 2. 1.1.

Costs for conventional utilities (Table 4. 2. 1.5) were based on the community study conducted by NASA in the summer 1973. The purpose of evaluation

of costs for conventional utilities was to obtain a point of reference

for comparison. These costs did not represent the costs which would be

incurred by a developer. The community study costs, documented as, "Cost

Methods and Cost Analyses Results for the Community Study MIUS Concepts,"

dated December 7, 1973^, were originally developed for the Washington, D.C.

area. No attempt was made to adjust these costs for each different location. All 1973 costs were adjusted to reflect mld-1974 replacement costs.

Electric Power Generation

It was assumed that capital costs for the conventional electrical power

plant were based on 2o peak load plus 6% of the values generated by

the ESOP program. The electrical power plant costs were based on the

East Central Power Region using the Homer City, Pennsylvania coalburning

plant as a cost reference point. Transmission and general plant facilities

costs were related to the generating plant costs according to the total

capital. Distribution equipment costs were related to the distribution

equipment costs for the MIUS in order to make a more reasonable comparison.

The heat rate of the Homer City power plant, as reported by the Federal

Power Commission and as used in the ESOP program, was 11,360 Btu/kWh

delivered. In order to provide a consistent comparison for all five

building sites, it was assumed that conventional system fuel costs would

be 80% of the cost of fuel for the MIUS. Table 4. 2. 1.6 lists the local

power plants for each housing project for electrical power cost comparison

with that assumed. Other O&M costs for the generating, transmission,

and general plant facilities were also related to the Homer City plant

and the East Central Power Region.

Distribution equipment costs for the conventional system were not taken

from the East Central Power Region values but rather are related to the

distribution costs for the MIUS. The conventional system distribution

costs was related to the MIUS distribution equipment costs by the ratio

of the 2o peak power load plus 6% of the conventional requirements. Two

percent of the initial cost of the distribution equipment was for O&M

costs. This was an approximate average value obtained from several sources which agrees well with the data reported by the Federal Power Commission,

generally given in mlls/kWh.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

The HVAC equipment costs used for the community study could not be used

for a conventional equipment cost comparison. A conventional HVAC system

(including domestic hot water) of similar design to that of the MIUS

126
Table 4. 2. 1.4

NASA Conventional Turnkey Cost

Housing Project

//I n #3 //4 //5 Turnkey Cost:

Material, Sub. Labor,

Profit, Overhead

3335 1201 7595 9098 3334

Gen. Cont. Overhead 640 231 1458 1747 640

(0 19.2% M&L)

Engineering

((? 10% M&L)

334 120 760 910 333

Architecture

(@ 7.5%)

Gen. Cont. Profit

(@ 10% M&L)

334 120 760 910 333

Total 4643 1672 10573 12665 4640

Annual Cost:

O&M 512 181 1131 1335 385

Insurance

(@ 1% M&L)

33 12 76 91 33

Total 545 193 1207 1426 418

127
Table 4.2. 1.5

NASA Conventional Cost

(10^ $)

Housing Project

n #2 n //4 #5

Materials, and

Subcontractor Costs

Electric Power Generation 1186 721 3784 4262 1250

Space Heating and Air 666 83 997 1344 928

Conditioning

Solid Waste Disposal 156 55 327 407 126

Wastewater Treatment 710 149 1323 1622 548

Potable Water Treatment

Controls

MIUS Bldg

Miscellaneous

617 193 1164 1463 482

Total 3335 1201 7595 9098 3334

Annual Operating and

Maintenance Costs:

Electric Power Generation 259 130 813 839 191

Space Heating and Air

Conditioning

138 7 103 224 101

Solid Waste Disposal 49 18 102 128 39

Wastewater Treatment 32 7 60 73 25

Potable Water Treatment

Controls

21 6 40 49 16

MIUS Bldg

Miscellaneous

Operating Crew* 13 13 13 22 13

Total 512 181 1131 1335 385

*HVAC only

128
Table 4. 2. 1.6

Electrical Power Cost Comparison

(C/10^ Btu)

1971 Fuel Costs

Coal Oil Gas

Site //I

“ Power Plant A 39.31 29.38

“ Power Plant B 32.62 29.13

Site #2

° Power Plant A 31.14 28.80

“ Power Plant B 30.68 29.27

° Power Plant C 27.41 29.00

° Power Plant D 26.48 27.54

Site #3 (No Plants Identified)

Site //4

® Power Plant 54.65 64.85 49.45

Site //5

“ Power Plant A 46.23 70.05

® Power Plant B 52.32 71.31 40.66

® Power Plant C 70.11

° Power Plant D 49.74 69.91

° Power Plant E 78.06 70.57

129
was costed. This system did not use absorption refrigeration machines.

Chilled and hot water pump costs were the same as for the MIUS. The

distribution piping costs were also. This equipment cost was also adjusted to the Washington, D.C. area to provide a consistent set of data

As in the case of the MIUS the cost of single-family dwelling HVAC and

hot water equipment was not costed since these costs were the same whether

a MIUS was used or not.

Solid Waste Disposal

For conventional solid waste disposal, NASA utilized the results from

their community studies. The conventional solid waste system for the

community study consisted of local collection equipment, transport equipment for hauling the solid waste to a central incinerator facility and to

a landfill area located offsite, incinerators, and landfill equipment.

O&M costs included operator labor, fuel, and maintenance materials and

labor for the equipment. Capital and fuel costs have been adjusted to

reflect mld-1974 costs. The capital cost of the community study equipment came to $25, 150/ton of capacity and $21. 64/ton for O&M costs.

Wastewater Treatment

Conventional wastewater costs were based on collection system costs and

treatment plant costs. Provision for outfall from the treatment plant was not considered. In the community study, the treatment plant was

located at the edge of the community and was assumed to be Installed

in 2, 000, 000-gpd stages as the requirements of the community increased.

The total capacity at the end of the study period was 14,000,000 gpd.

Capital cost and O&M costs for the treatment plants were developed from

data obtained from numerous operating facilities and EPA reports.

The collection system was comprised of concrete sewer pipe in sizes ranging

from 8" to 66" in diameter, lift stations, and manholes. The gravity

system was assumed to have been installed in a flat area and consequently

required more lift stations than a typical system. Operation and maintenance costs for the collection system were taken as one-fourth the O&M labor

costs for the treatment plants. The total O&M costs for the wastewater

system, including electricity, came to 51.9«‘/1000 gallons (adjusted to

reflect mid-1974 costs). The mid-1974 capital cost of the system, not

Including land, came to $2. 62/gallon capacity. A proportional part of

the capital cost of the above system was used based on peak dally requirements. O&M costs for the system were based on annual usage.

Potable Water Treatment

The community study conventional water supply was assumed to be from

a natural source located 15 miles from the community. Like all the

conventional systems of the community study, the water supply system

was assumed to have been built up over a period of 20 years. The completed system consisted of pumping station. Installed in two phases,

a pipeline to the community, 28, 000, 000-gpd treatment plant Installed

130
in 4,000,000-gpd stages, elevated storage, and distribution throughout

the community. There were no fire hydrants, a relatively small cost,

which was inadvertently omitted. Electrical power costs, not assessed

independently in the community study, were taken at 2.41^/kWh. Mid-1974

costs for the system were: $2. 01/gallon of capacity; an operating cost

of 84<‘/1000 gallons delivered, and maintenance costs (derived from the

community study data and other related data) of 2% of the initial cost

of the system. A proportional part of the capital cost of the above

system was used based on peak daily requirements. O&M costs for the

treatment plant were based on the annual requirements and the average

operating costs of the 28,000,000-gpd plant. Maintenance costs for use

of the distribution system were also a proportional part of the above

community system costs based on average usage.

Operating Crew

Costs for operating and maintenance personnel were included in the system

O&M cost for each of the systems except for HVAC. For consistency of

the comparison, the HVAC operating crew was assessed in the same manner

as was the MIUS crew. It was assumed that one semi-skilled employee

would be required in any case, and any additional help would be costed

at the service worker’s rate. A full-time service worker was added for

total weekly hours over 53. Manhours per week have been estimated based

on 7.7 manhours per week per chiller, boiler, and cooling tower.

4.2.2 Hittman/McClure Evaluation

Information for Section 4.2.2 is found in "MIUS Review Site Four” by

Charles J. R. McClure Associates, January 29, 1976 and "Draft MIUS Case

Study Report" (Rough Draft) by Hlttraan Associates, February 1976.

4. 2. 2.1 MIUS

Construction costs were developed. (Table 4. 2. 2.1) Itemized costs of

materials and labor were determined. Total cost impacts were calculated.

Individual building terminal subsystems considered were: heating (energy

source, controls, primary distribution unit, wiring, fuel storage and

building space); air conditioning (energy source, piping, wiring heat

transfer equipment and controls); domestic hot water (energy source, wiring

and controls); and electricity (service entrance and distribution panel).

Electrical distribution on the housing project in conventional design

was considered as having no investment expense to the project since the

electric utility rates charged to the users included installation expenses

and the maintenance of the primary distribution system, transformers and

service entrances. For the MIUS design, the costs of the land on which

the plant was sited, all costs of building and equipment in the plant,

and the mechanical and electrical distribution systems were identified

and were calculated for the specific design selected for the housing project.

Construction costs were developed by obtaining quotations on specific

makes and models of apparatus from nationally distributed manufacturers

131
Table 4. 2. 2.1

H/M MIUS Cost

( 10^ $)

Housing Project

Materials, and

Subcontractor Costs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Electric Power Generation 3560 1901 7241 8054 3156

+ Space Heating and Air

Conditioning

Solid Waste Disposal 125 27 86 186 113

Wastewater Treatment 530 293 1334 1472 518

Potable water Treatment 137 190 161 721 327

Fire Protection 110 101 183 369 544

House Appliances 838 164 605 618 138

Working Capital 223 97 550 431 225

Land 9 3 11 11 8

Total 5532 2776 10171 11862 5029

Annual Operating and

Maintenance Costs:

Electric Power + Space 691 168 1664 1288 580

Heating and Air Conditioning

Solid Waste Disposal 65 42 60 75 52

Wastewater Treatment 136 108 209 220 162

Potable Water Treatment 78 70 118 142 88 + Fire Protection

Natural Gas 731

House Appliances 41 11 189 192 24

Total 1011 399 2240 2648 906

132
and suppliers and by calculating manhours of labor for installation from

labor data from the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.

,

Washington, D.C.

Annual operation expenses were developed as a composite of; fuel consumption; plant staff personnel expense; plant supplies (parts, overhaul/and

replacement allowances); plant management (engineering, insurance, taxes);

and terminal equipment (parts, supplies, replacement allowance). The fuel

consumption estimate (generated in the Medsi Energy Analysis, with allowance for the requirements of the solid and liquid waste systems) was priced

at costs obtained from major oil suppliers in the area.

The power plant operating and maintenance staff size and technical skills

were determined from extrapolation of experience at other total energy

plants. The staff was planned to provide all required labor and management

for onsite repairs, maintenance, operating and replacement for all in-plant

equipment and customer's terminal equipment (other than conventional allelectric dwelling unit customers). Some special service skills for plant

apparatus were to be provided by outside contractors. The plant staff was sized for 24 hour attendance with the capacity to provide emergency

and routine service to the electrical and mechanical distribution systems.

Power plant supplies, overhaul and replacement allowances were developed

principally from recent cost studies of two existing total energy plants

with central heating and air conditioning systems serving dwelling units

and a large commercial facility. Provisions were included for contracted

services to service automation components and refrigeration machinery.

Engine generator overhaul periods and costs were developed in conference

with the manufacturer.

A substantial annual allowance was provided for management and engineering

services in addition to the plant operating staff. The scope of services

to be provided included: the business of billing customers for services;

receiving and disbursing funds; purchasing supplies; evaluating performance of personnel and equipment; design of alterations to the plant and

distribution systems; and customer relations. Annual costs for boiler

and machinery insurance were from vendors. Real estate taxes on the power

plant building and ground were from local tax rates.

The annual allowances for parts and supplies to service and maintain all

the customer's terminal apparatus were developed in the same manner as for the conventional system. In addition, an estimate was Included of man hours to service the heat exchange apparatus in each customer's premises

that was connected to the MIUS central heating and cooling circuits.

Customer's terminal equipment replacement allowance was developed in the same manner as described for the conventional system with the addition

of staff man hours estimated for replacement labor of those items connected

to the central plant heating and cooling circuits.

133
Basic to this study was the assumption that the customers would pay no more for the same services regardless of the source. Therefore, the

initial step was to calculate the MIUS plant revenue earned by providing

electricity to the customers served. Again, the individual customer

consumption estimate was priced with prevailing utility company electric

rates with appropriate escalation and tax factors. The totals were

extended to develop the total annual revenue to the MIUS from the sale

of electricity.

Individual MIUS items costed were: central equipment building site property;

central equipment building (foundations, ventilation systems, accoustical

Isolation, illumination, automation with indicators and controls); compressed air (compressors, tanks, piping, air filter drier, controls); en- gineering (design, testing, start-up and preparation of operation and

maintenance program); administration of construction program (site preparation, insurance, permits, zoning approval, and legal requirements); con- struction financing; and facilities management of operations (bookkeeping,

customer relations, operations and maintenance staff training, accounting,

taxation, legal, purchasing of supplies and services).

Electric Power Generation

Cleanable tube heat recovery mufflers were selected, which reduce the

exhaust gas temperature from 600 F to 350 F, providing approximately

1800 Btu recovered heat per kilowatt hour. One reason for the selection

of muffler recovery, in lieu of jacket heat recoveiry, was that the muffler

heat could be recovered in the form of medium pressure steam (60 psi).

Steam recovery systems had advantages over water systems in that:

1. Higher temperatures and pressures were available;

2. Greatly increased reliability of the plant was achieved

(A failure in the fluid reserve or pressure of one unit

did not affect the other units);

3. Minor pressure losses did not result in vapor binding which

could cause complete plant shutdown; and

4. Inherent advantages of a constant-temperature, two-phase

system were available.

The non-recovered heat Included: stack exhaust (from 350°F. down to ambient)

which was rejected directly to the atmosphere; heat from engine jacket,

from oil coolers, and from aftercoolers which were cooled with cooling

tower water (heat rejected as latent heat to the atmosphere); and heat

lost by radiation and by convection to the room for removal and by the room ventilation system.

Coolant water for the aftercooler, oil cooler and engine jacket circulated

through a closed circuit on each prime mover. The heat was then transferred

134
to the lower temperature cooling tower circuit through a water/water heat

exchanger. Separate cooling tower pumps were provided for each unit on

the basis of reducing interdependence, improving reliability, and reducing

plant burden. The cooling tower water after circulating through the three

engine heat exchangers was then piped to waste heat condensers where

excess steam was condensed. This surplus heat is also dissipated to the

cooling tower.

The voltage class of the distribution system between the power plant and

these building transformers could have been either 600 volt, 5000 volt

or 15,000 volt. An economic study was made from which 5,000 volt class was selected. The use of the 600 volt class, specifically 480 volts,

resulted in poor regulation, the use of many 500 MCM cables and a premium

for outdoor type distribution transformers. The use of the 5000 volt

classs proved most economical and allowed the selection of generators

rated 4160V/2400V and the use of unshielded cables. The use of the 15,000

volt class would have resulted in special generators and circuit breakers

(or a step-up transformer arrangement to obtain the 15,000 volts), the use

of shielded cables with more expensive splices and terminators, and more

expensive distribution transformers. A 480 volt step down transformer

was used to obtain a utilization voltage for the MIUS Plant loads.

MIUS electrical power generation cost items were central equipment

building equipment, site distribution, and individual building equipment.

Individual building equipment cost items were: distribution system transformers, space, and pad; low voltage distribution, switchboard, and

distribution cable; meter installations; and dwelling unit distribution

centers. Site distribution cost items were: high voltage transformers,

distribution cable, conduit, trenching, and manholes. Central equipment

building equipment cost items were: heat recovery (heat exchangers,

controls, piping, pumps, insulation); fuel (fuel storage, pumps, piping);

lube oil (make-up and waste oil tanks, piping, controls, heat exchangers);

engine exhaust (heat recovery mufflers, exhaust piping, insulation,

accoustlcal control); power distribution (feeders, main switch board,

isolating breakers, grounding network, metering, generator control, subfeeders, switchboard, transformers, power branch circuits, motor control

centers. Indicators, and controls); diesel enginers (governors, starters,

lube filters, pumps, vibration Isolators, safety and alarm sensors);

generators (voltage regulators, exciters, safety and alarm sensors);

and apparatus installation/connection.

Space Heating and Air Conditioning

The thermal system was designed to convey heat to the community in the

form of hot water. The water system was selected for the inherent simplicity of terminal apparatus which permits the plant to operate independent of terminal maintenance. To hold piping sizes and pumping

capacities to a minimum, efforts were made to maximize the temperature

differential at the terminal apparatus. A 50“F temperature range was achieved by arranging several terminal connections in series. The temperature also was dictated by the need for 140®F domestic hot water.

135
The distribution system temperature was set at 240 °F which, with a saturation pressure of approximately 10 psig, enabled the use of low pressure

piping in the distribution system and avoided temperature ranges of

excessively active electrolytic action. To retain a reasonable LMTD

(loop mean temperature differential) for the domestic water heat

exchangers, the minimum loop temperature of 190“ was selected. A steam

pressure of 60 psig (308“F) was selected to heat the distribution water

from 190° to 240°. The LMTD would have been considerably reduced had

the engine jacket heat been needed, since the jacket temperatures are

limited to approximately 15 psig (250°F).

The Central Equipment building distribution system was pumped as a primary

loop to hydraulically Isolate the terminal systems from the plant system.

Two primary pumps were used. Both were needed to provide the design

loop flow. In the event of failure of one pump, reduced flow (of approximately 70% design) was still available to serve the community, which

would be sufficient for the vast majority of the operating hours. Each

terminal connection was pumped from the loop, circulating first to

the domestic hot water heating load then to the space heating load.

This always provided for the highest temperature water available to

heat the 140°F domestic water.

The two phase heat transfer system was designed as a complete closed

system to minimize corrosion and chemical treatment costs. The only

vent point provided was the deaerator vent, and the only point for air

entrance was at the main condensate receiver. The concept was that this

singular connection could be used for the controlled injection of inert

gas when the system pressure dropped beyond a predetermined value into

the vacuum range. Although this latter concept had not been commercially

proven to date, recent advances in state-of-the-art in two phase systems

appeared to be rapidly approaching this technology.

The chilled water distribution system was arranged' for variable flow

in response to load variations to Improve source control response and

minimize plant energy burdens. The chillers, in turn, were arranged as secondary pumped loops in series such that the chillers could be staged

with flow variations.

MIUS HVAC cost items were; central equipment building equipment; site

distribution; and individual building equipment. Individual building

equipment cost items were: service entrance space and circulating pump

room for hot and chilled water; air handling units (heating and cooling

colls, piping, and controls); pump room piping, pumps, and controls;

domestic hot water heat exchanger and control; and electrical power and

connections to pumps. Site distribution cost items; chilled water

and hot water mains, valves, manholes. Insulation, trenching, backfill,

chilled and hot water building run-outs, and connections. Central equipment

building cost items were: heat rejection (cooling towers, heat exchangers,

pumps, piping, controls, water treatment); auxiliary heating (supplementary

boilers, stacks, fuel piping, pumps, controls, insulation); and water

chilling (chillers, pumps, piping, controls insulation).

136
Solid Waste Disposal

The MIUS performance specification stated that refuse must be reduced

65 percent by weight and that the subsystem must generate an element

of value or the subsystem was not to be considered a MIUS subsystem.

The only commercially available process for reducing the weight of refuse

by 65 percent was Incineration. To obtain an element of value from Incineration, heat was recovered In a form compatible with the MIUS thermal

subsystems. Heat recovery economics must, therefore, be such that enough

fuel to the MIUS plant can be saved to pay for the Incinerator and waste

heat boiler.

The Incinerator and waste heat boiler utilized for the Individual housing

project cost evaluations were those of Environmental Control Products Inc.

The equipment was guaranteed by the manufacturer to meet or exceed all

EPA and state emission standards. The units could be purchased separately

If heat recovery was not desired. The requirements were that the equipment

be as automatic as practicable to minimize labor requirements. Refuse

was not be stored for periods exceeding 24 hours, where practicable.

All loads were determined on the basis of 8.4 lbs per dwelling unit

per day (approximately 1.5 cu. ft. of refuse per day per unit). This

factor was multiplied by the number of dwelling units to obtain the

quantity of solid waste generated per day. The quantity of solid waste

generated per day was converted to tons and then expressed as tons per

month by multiplying by 365/12. Solid waste was assumed to have the

following as-received percentage composition by weight: paper - 48

percent; garbage - 16 percent; leaves and grass - 9 percent; wood -

2 percent; synthetics - 2 percent; cloth - 1 percent; glass - 6 percent;

metal 8 percent; and ashes, stone, and dust - 8 percent.

The economics of refuse Incineration and heat recovery was a controlling

factor In determining whether an element of value was generated by the

subsystem. In the case of Housing Project # 3, the thermal and electrical

subsystems required no supplemental heat; therefore, only an Incinerator

yas designed. The heat recovery economics were studied for the value

of the heat as follows:

or exceed the value of supplemental heat requirements In terms of fuel

(oil or natural gas) and equipment costs saved. This analysis was used

to determine the value of heat recovery from the refuse Incineration.

Because of suspect reliability of refuse Incineration, small refuse load

relative to supplemental heat requirements, and low utilization rate (eight

hours dally, Monday through Friday), the MIUS used supplemental heat

boilers. Heat recovered from refuse Incineration was used when available.

The analyses show that Housing Project #4 was the only housing project

having sufficient refuse load to warrant Incineration and heat recoveiry.

Annual Annual

+ Operating must not equal

Costs

Annualized + Recurring

Equipment Costs Costs

137
Incineration and heat recovery was also employed, however, at Housing

Projects 1 and 5. Incineration only was employed at Housing Projects

2, and 3.

Wastewater Treatment

The sewage treatment requirement was assumed to be equal to the mean annual

domestic usage (qj))* Refer to Section 3. 2. 2.1 for mean annual domestic

usage (qn)* The value of q^ (gallons per day) was multiplied by a factor

of 365/lZ to obtain the monthly sewage treatment requirement (gallons

per month). The monthly maximum demand for sewage treatment was assumed

to be the same as the average monthly sewage treatment requirement.

The MIUS performance specifications^ called for the liquid waste treatment

system to process and "renovate liquid wastes to levels adequate for

final disposal or non-potable reuse." The MIUS sewage treatment system

was a biological and tertiary wastewater treatment system designed to meet

the above specifications.

The Incoming liquid wastes were macerated and pumped to an aeration tank.

The extended aeration tank had a design retention time of 24 hours rather

than the typical six. Here, an activated-sludge process biologically

degraded the liquid wastes under aerobic conditions. Air was continuously

bubbled through the tank. The extended aeration subsystem significantly

reduced the sludge volumes, and allowed the primary sedimentation to

be omitted. The extended aeration tank also acted as a flow equalizer

to smooth out fluctuations in the input, thus reducing the size of the

clarifier. The mixed liquor from the aeration tank was then put through

a mechanical clarifier which concentrated the suspended solids. The

sludge was sent to a thickener while the effluent overflowed to anaerobic

denitrification.

In anaerobic denitrification, methanol was bubbled as a source of carbon.

Here the nitrate was converted into nitrogen gas biologically. The

effluent from anaerobic denitrification was then mixed with lime and sent

to a phosphate flocculation and settling subsystem with a designed

detention time of 10 minutes. The calcium of the lime reacted to remove phosphorous as flocculant calcium phosphates; the resulting high pH permited

the stripping of any ammonia in the liquid. The precipitated solids

were sent to a sludge thickener while the liquid was charged with CO2 in a recarbonation chamber to reduce the pH. The recarbonated liquid

was passed through fine filtration and was sent to a chlorination chamber.

The flow from the chlorination chamber was retained in an effluent storage

tank for 48 hours. This allowed sufficient time to conduct the necessary

chemical water quality tests. Some of the final effluent was piped to

the fire main while some was used as cooling and makeup water for the

MIUS thermal subsystem. The rest of the effluent was discharged to the

environment

.

138
The sludge was thickened in a thickener and then vacuum dewatered. The

resulting sludge was sent to the MIUS solid waste disposal subsystem

while the liquid supernate was recirculated with the incoming wastewater.

Potable Water Treatment

For most housing projects, off-site conventional utilities supplied the

potable water. Potable water was utilized also for fire protection.

Local regulations necessitated a separate fire protection system. The

major potable water cost item other than fire protection was the housing

project connection and distribution mains.

4. 2. 2. 2 Conventional Utilities

Conventional construction costs were developed in the same manner as for

MIUS. Refer to section 4. 2. 2.1. Annual operating costs were determined

for each class of building in two major steps; energy cost and maintenance/

replacement cost. Operating labor expense for conventional systems was considered not significant and was not costed.

Electric energy costs were calculated using the output of the Medsi energy

analysis and applying current utility company rate schedules, fuel escalation charges and taxes. Oil-using customers' costs were established in

a similar fashion with fuel prices obtained from sales agencies in the

housing project area.

Maintenance and replacement expenses were determined for each item con- sidered relevant to the differential cost analysis. Annual maintenance

allowance for each item was estimated from McClure Associates' service

experience of similar customers and apparatus. Costs were based on custodial

personnel providing basic servicing and cleaning with contracted services

on a periodic seasonal basis. Replacement costs for a 20-year life cycle

were estimated from the estimated present cost of the replacement divided

by the estimated service life expectancy of the component. Estimated service

life. Initial cost per dwelling, and annual maintenance and repair expense

factors were verified with HUD information on this topic. The sum of

all the customer's total owning and operating expenses was then identified

for comparison with the MIUS alternative.

Conventional system cost items (Table 4. 2. 2. 2) varied. When a unitary

building system was compared with MIUS, the conventional system cost

items were the individual building electrical distribution and mechanical

subsystems. Individual building electrical distribution cost items were:

utility distribution tranformer; space and concrete pads; low voltage

distribution switchboard and distribution cable; meter installations; and

individual dwelling unit distribution centers. Individual building mechanical

cost items were: power wiring to heating; air conditioning; building

openings; framing; and weather-proofing for air conditioning units; air

conditioning condenser units; concrete pads; piping connections; air handling

units; vaporators; resistance heaters; contactors; electrical hot water

heaters; storage tanks; and controls. When a district heating/cooling

139
Table k, 1.1.1

H/M Conventional Cost

( 10^ $)

Housing Project

Materials, and Subcontractor n n //3 H #5

Costs:

Electric Power + Space

Heating and Air Conditioning

Solid Waste Disposal

Wastewater Treatment 174 293 689 804 518

Potable Water Treatment 137 209 161 711 340

Fire Protection 8 8 20 11 9

House Appliances

Working Capital

901 188 591 914 572

Land 1 5

Total 1220 699 1461 2461 1444

Annual Operating and

Maintenance Costs:

Electric Power + Space

Heating and Air Conditioning

700 50 1691 1170 587

Solid Waste Disposal 15 6 66 64 18

Wastewater Treatment 61 43 199 148 117

Potable Water Treatment 76 43 139 141 100 + Fire Protection

House Appliances 123 29 211 293 80

Natural Gas

Fuel Oil

33

24

1095

Total 975 204 2330 2911 902

140
systems was compared with MIUS, the cost items for heating portion of

the district system were: fuel storage and piping; boilers; burners;

chimneys; boiler room space and ventilation; heating pumps; boiler room

piping; electrical power distribution and connections; and domestic hot

water heater (tank, controls, and fuel systems). The cost items for the

air conditioning portion of the district systems were: refrigeration machines

condensers; evaporators; controls; cooling towers; pumps and piping; chilled

water pumps; electrical power distribution; and connections.

Wastewater Treatment

In two cases, Housing Projects, and //5, offsite wastewater treatment

was not available. All (capital operating and maintenance) cost items were developed for these two, housing projects in the same manner as MIUS.

Refer to Section 4. 2. 2.1.

Potable Water Treatment

Potable water supply was from an offsite municipal plant. Housing project

water distribution mains, fire hydrants and connection to the off-*site

system were the initial capital costs. A separate fire water distribution

system was required for MIUS only. Coventional O&M costs were front-foot

benefits assessment and the water bill determined by the local water rates.

141
REFERENCES

1. Mitchell, David J., Performance Guidelines for a Modular Integrated

Utility System, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 77-1395, November

1978.

2. Fulbright, B. E. , MIUS Community Conceptual Design Study, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Flight Center,

Urban Systems Project Office, NASA TMX-58174, June 1976.

3. Wolfer, Barry M. et. al. , Preliminary Design Study of a Baseline

MIUS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson

Space Flight Center, Urban Systems Project Office, NASA TMS-58193,

April 1977.

4. Wolfer, Barry M. , Design Techniques for Modular Integrated Utility

Systems, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson, Space

Flight Center, Urban Systems Project Office.

142
APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DATE: August 12, 1974

RE: THE ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN A MODULAR INTEGRATED UTILITY

SYSTEM BY A SUBSIDIARY OF AN ELECTRICAL UTILITY.

FACTS

The Office of Policy Development and Research of the Department of Housing

• and Urban Development is investigating the construction and operation

of a Modular Integrated Utility System (hereinafter a "MIUS"). A MIUS is an improved means for providing five previously separate services, space

heating and air conditioning, solid waste processing, liquid waste

processing, water purification and electricity, in an integrated package.

The electricity from the MIUS generators provides power and is used to

operate the solid and liquid waste processing facilities and the

air conditioning facilities. The heat from the generators and the solid

waste processing facilities provides space heating and is used to operate

the water purification & the liquid waste processing facilities. The integration of these services saves energy and minimizes any adverse environmental impact associated with them.

One of the primary goals of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

for a MIUS is to determine whether a MIUS is a commercially feasible alternative for providing the five basic services Involved.

The electric utility, through one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries (hereinafter "Subsidiary"), is contemplating submitting a proposal in conjunction

with a Developer and a Designer. The Developer is constructing an essentially residential community (hereinafter the "Community") of approximately

1600 living units and a few small commercial units. Some of the residential

units will be purchased by the residents, and some will be leased. The

Designer will design and construct the MIUS Plant for the Community. The

plant will then be sold or leased to Subsidiary for operation.

The Community is located in the distribution area of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the electric utility. The MIUS will be physically interconnected

with the electric utility system for back-up purposes. The cost of the

MIUS Plant and its operating revenues will be minimal in comparison to the

book value of the assets and the operating revenues of Subsidiary.

ISSUE

Does the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 permit Subsidiary

to acquire an interest in a MIUS?

143
SHORT ANSWER

I. SUBSIDIARY SHOULD OBTAIN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONCURRENCE

BEFORE ACQUIRING AN INTEREST IN A MODULAR INTEGRATED UTILITY SYSTEM.

II. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SHOULD CONCUR IN SUBSIDIARY'S

ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN A MODULAR INTEGRATED UTILITY SYSTEM.

DISCUSSION

I. SUBSIDIARY SHOULD OBTAIN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONCURRENCE

BEFORE ACQUIRING AN INTEREST IN A MODULAR INTEGRATED UTILITY SYSTEM .

The electric utility is a registered holding company under Sec. 5 of the

public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (hereinafter the "Act"), c. 681,

Title I, 49 Stat. 803, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 79 et seq . Moreover, because

Subsidiary is wholly-ovned, it is defined in the Act to be a subsidiary

company. Sec. 2(a) (8).

Sec. 9(a) of the Act requires any registered holding company and any

subsidiary company to obtain the approval of the Securities and

Exchange Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") before acquiring

any new business interests. Sec. 9(a) states:

"Unless the acquisition has been approved by the Commission

under Section 10, it shall be unlawful -

(1) for any registered holding company or any subsidiary company

thereof, by use of the mails of any means of Instrumentality of

interstate commerce, or otherwise, to acquire, directly or indirectly, any securities or utility assets or any other Interest

in any business;"

The term "to acquire" is defined in the Act to include inter alia to purchase

or to acquire by lease. Sec. 2(a) (22). The term "utility assets" is defined

to mean:

"facilities, in place , of any electric utility company. . .for

the production, transmission, transportation, or distribution

of electric energy..." Sec. 2(a) (18) (emphasis added).

Because the facilities of the MIUS Plant to be used for the production of

electric energy are not yet in place, they are not utility assets. They

are also clearly not securities. Thus, Subsidiary is required to obtain

the Commission's approval of the lease or purchase and the operation of

the MIUS Plant only if those actions constitute acquisition of "any other

interest in any business."

The phrase "any other interest in any business" has been held to have

a narrow meaning. The Commission has stated:

144
"Although this elusive phrase is not defined by the Act and

although there is little legislative history to guide us, we think that the word "business” means something more than

property as such, whether real or personal." New York State

Natural Gas Corporation , 35 S.E.C. 480 (1953).

In fact, all the cases in which the Commission has specified addressed

the question of the propriety of the acquisition or retention of "any

other Interest in any business" have involved interests in enterprises

organized and operated for the purpose of either directly or indirectly

making a profit. See , e.g. , General Public Utilities Corporation , 32 S.E.C.

807, 840-42 (1951); Engineers Public Service , 12 S.E.C. 41, 54-55 (1942).

In the present case, on the other hand, the lease or purchase and the

operation on of the MIUS Plant are not being undertaken for the purpose of

making a profit. The Plant is experimental. Its purpose is to determine

whether a MIUS is an economically feasible alternative to the present

methods of providing the five services Involved. Consequently, neither

the lease or purchase of the MIUS Plant nor its operation by Subsidiary

should be considered an acquisition of "any other Interest in any business,"

requiring the Commission's approval for it to be lawful.

However, if Subsidiary were not to obtain the Commission's approval of such

ap acquisition and it were subsequently deemed to be an acquisition of "any

other interst in any business," the acquisition would not be lawful, and

all contracts entered into by Subsidiary for the acquisition would be

void under the Act. Sec. 26(b). Therefore, the prudent course of action

would be for Subsidiary to obtain the Commission's concurrence in the proposed acquisition, either by obtaining a decision from the Commission that

it need not approve the acquisition or if the acquisition were deemed to be an acquisition of "any other interest in any business," by obtaining the

Commission's approval of the acquisition.

II. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SHOULD CONCUR IN SUBSIDIARY'S

ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN A MODULAR INTEGRATED UTILITY SYSTEM .

As is discussed in Section I above, the Commission should concur in

Subsidiary's proposed acquisition by finding that it need not approve the

acquisition for it to be lawful. Even if the Commission were to find

that its approval of the acquisition was required, it should grant its

approval for the reasons discussed below.

Sec. 10(a) of the Act provides that a person may apply for approval of an acquisition of "any other interest in any business" by filing an application,

which must include certain information, in the form provided by the Commission.

Sec. 10(b) provides, insofar as is here relevant, that the Commission will

approve any such acquisition that complies with state law unless the Commission

determines that:

145
"(1) such acquisition will tend toward interlocking relations

or the concentration of control of public utility companies,

of a kind or to an extent detrimental to the public interest

or the interest of investors or consumers;

* * *

(3) such acquisition will unduly complicate the capital structure

of the holding-company system of the applicant or will be detrimental to the public interest or the interest of investors or consumers or the proper functioning of such holding-company system."

The proposed acquisition by Subsidiary of an interst in a MIUS does

not complicate, or in any way change, the capital structure or control

of the holding company system or of any subsidiary company* Therefore,

the Commission should under this criterion approve the acquisition.

However, Sec. 10(c) of the Act states:

"Not withstanding the provisions of subsection (b), the Commission

shall not approve -

(1) an acquisition of securities or utility assets, or of any other

interest, which is. . .detrimental to the carrying out of the provisions

of section 11;"

Sec. 11 of the Act contains narrow restrictions on the type of interest that can be acquired or retained by a registered holding company or any subsidiary

company.

Sec. 11(b) provides that it is the duty of the Commission:

"To require..., that each registered holding company, and each

subsidiary company thereof, shall take such action as the Commission

shall find necessary to limit the operations of the holding-company

system of which such company is a part to a single integrated publicutility system, and to such other businesses as are reasonably Incidental,

or economically necessary or appropriate to the operation of such

Integrated public-utility system:

* * *

The Commission may permit as reasonably incidental, or economically

necessary or appropriate to the operations of one or more integrated

public-utility systems the retention of an interest in any business

(other than the business of a public-utility company as such) which

the Commission shall find necessary or appropriate in the public

interest or for the protection of investors or consumers and not

detrimental to the proper functioning of such system or systems."

Section 2(a) (29) of the Act defines the term "integrated public utility

system," as applied to electric utility systems, as follows:

146
"(A) system consisting of one or more units of generating plants

and/or transmission lines and/or distributing facilities, whole

utility assets^ whether owned by one or more electric utility

companies, are* physically interconnected or capable of physical

interconnection and which under normal conditions may be economically

operated as a single interconnected and coordinated system confined

in its operations to a single area or region, on one or more

States, not so large as to Impair (considering the state of the

art and the area or region affected) the advantages and the localized

management, efficient operation, and the effectiveness of regulation;”

In New England Electric System , 38 S.E.C. 193, 198 (1958), the Commission

concluded that the requirement that a system's utility assets be interconnected

or capable of interconnection and be capable of economic operation as a single Interconnected and coordinated system was met if one group of utility

assets were connected to another primarily for back-up purposes.

Also, in Mississippi Valley Generating Company , 36 S.E.C. 159, 187-188

(1955), the Commission held that physical interconnection of utility

assets primarily for the purpose of supplying back-up power met the

requirement of an interconnected and coordinated system. Because the

MIUS will be physically interconnected with the electric utility system

for back-up purposes, the two systems meet the requirement that they be

physically interconnected and coordinated.

In order to be an "Integrated public utility system," a system must

also be "confined in its operations to a single area or region, in one or more States,..." The Commission, in Mississippi Valley Generating

Company , 36 S.E.C. 159 (1955), concluded that if a new generating facility

was located within the applicant's present service area, the single area

or region requirement was met. The Commission stated:

"We think it clear that no problem with respect to the 'single area or region' test is presented." 36 S.E.C. at 187.

In the present case, because the Community and the MIUS Plant are within

the electric utility's distribution area, the electric utility portion of

the MIUS and the electric utility's electric utility system constitute

an integrated public utility system.

Thus, the question presented here is whether the lease or purchase and

the operation of the MIUS Plant to provide space heating and air conditioning,

liquid and solid waste processing, and water purification meet the requirement

of Sec. 11(b) for "the retention of an interest in any business (other

than the business of a public-utility company as such)..."

Sec. 11(b) has been interpreted by the courts to impose a twofold requirement.

The court in Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. S.E.C. , 444 F. 2d 913 (D.C. Clr.

1971), stated:

147
"The Commission in construing this section has adopted what has

been referred to as the 'functional relationship' test in order

to determine whether the retention of a particular business is

permissible under the Act. To pass this test the holding company

or its subsidiary must clear two hurdles. First, the company

must show that its 'other business' is 'reasonably incidental, or economically necessary or appropriate to the operations of such

integrated public-utility system.' (Id. ) Once a company has cleared

this hurdle, the Commission then looks to see whether the retention

of the 'other business' is 'necessary or appropriate in the public

interst.' (Id.

)

k ie ic

We think that prior judicial decisions, the principles of statutory

construction, and the legislative history call for adoption of the

Commission's interpretation." 444 F2d at 916.

See North American Co. v. S.E.C. , 133 F2d. 148 (2nd Cir. 1943), aff'd

on other grounds 327 U.S. 686 (1946).

Thus, the first requirement imposed by Sec. 11(b) is that Subsidiary's

operation of the MIUS Plant be "reasonably incidental or economically

necessary or appropriate" to the operation of the electric utility's

integrated electric utility system. Past cases indicate that if each

of two tests are met a business will be held to be "reasonably incidental...

to an electric utility system. The first test that must be met is that

the business must be subordinate in size to the electric utility system.

"In general, the pattern of the statute and the context of the

relevant statutory provisions seems to indicate that the other

business tests are not to be applied to operations grossly out of

proportion to the utility business with respect to which they are claimed to be reasonably incidental, or economically necessary

or appropriate. In the ordinary case, therefore, we believe

the statute contemplates that after compliance with Section 11(b) (1)

the integrated systems retainable by a registered holding company

will constitute its primary business and that retainable nonutility

interests will occupy a clearly subordinate p>ositlon. ( The North

American Company and its Subsidiary Companies , 11 S.E.C. 194 (1942)

aff'd.' North American Company v Securities and Exchange Commission , 133 F.(2d) 148 (C.C.A. 2d, 1943).)" Cities Service Company, 15 S.E.C.

962, 976 (1944)

Also, in Lone Star Gas Corporation , 12 S.E.C. 286 (1942), Commission

expressly found that each business that was retainable was "clearly

subordinate in size to public utility operations." 12 S.E.C. at 289-299.

The second test that must be met if a business is to be "reasonably

Incidental..." to an electric utility system is the test of whether

148
a functional relationship exists between the business and the utility

system. Thus, it is not sufficient that there is a relationship between

the business and the utility system if the relationship is not a result

of their functions. The test is not met by the business and the utility

system sharing common management. See Philadelphia Company, 28 S.E.C.

35 (1948), aff’d 177 F2d 720 (D.C. Clr. 1949).

There is a functional relationship, however, if the business uses the

by-products from the electric utility system's production of electricity.

For example, in General Public Utilities Corporation , 32 S.E.C. 807,

840-841 (1951), the Commission concluded that the sale of waste steam,

steam that had been used to drive the electric utility system's generators, was a business that was functionally related to the electric utility

system. The same result was also reached in Philadelphia Company, 28 S.E.C.

35 (1948), aff'd 177 F.2d 720 (D.C. Clr. 1949).

In the case of a MIUS, the space heating and air conditioning, liquid

and solid waste processing, and waste purification services are all

functionally integrated with the generation of electricity. The heat

from the MIUS generators is used for space heating and to operate the

water purification and liquid waste processing facilities. Consequently,

the operation of the MIUS Plant to provide these services is "reasonably

Incidental..." to the integrated public utility system.

The second requirement imposed by Sec. 11(b) of the Act is that the

acquisition or retention of a business be in the "public interest

or for the protection of investors or consumers and not detrimental

to the proper functioning of such (utility) system..." The requirement that

the acquisition or retention be in the "public interest..." refers to

the public affected by the operation of the business. Philadelphia Company,

28 S.E.C. 35 (1948), aff'd 177 F2d 720 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

In a number of cases the requirement that the acquisition or retention

of a business be in the "public interest..." has almost automatically

been found to be satisfied if the requirement that the business be

"reasonably Incidental..." to the utility system was met. See, e.g. , North American Company , 32 S.E.C. 168, 182 (1950).

In the cases that discuss the requirement that the acquisition or retention

of a business be in the "public interest...", one measure of public interest

that has been used is the savings to be business that would result from its

retention as part of the utility system. E.g., Philadelphia Company, 28S.E.C.

35 (1948), aff'd 177 F.2d 720 (D.C. Cir. 1949)

There can be no question in this case that the cost of operating the MIUS

Plant will be lower if the Plant is operated by Subsidiary rather than someone else. Common management for the operation of the Plant and

the electric utility system and Subsidiary's experience in the production

and distribution of utility services will both contribute to low costs in the

operation of the MIUS Plant. Consequently, both requirements of Sec. 11(b)

of Ithe Act are met.

149
APPENDIX B

SUMMATION PROGRAM

00100 PROGRAM PRNT (INPUT .OUTPUT, TAPEl

)

00110 DIMENSION E(4 , 9 , 13 )

, D(4 , 9. 13 )

, DSUM(9 , 13 ) ,ESUM(9 , 13

)

00120 DIMENSION EKWH(13) ,DKW(13) ,EBTU(13) ,EBTUC(13)

00122 DIMENSION 1M0NTH(13 ) ,0IL(13 ) ,PDMND(13) ,PL0AD(13) ,QSALV(13

)

00123 DIMENSION QSUP(13)

00124 DATA 1M0NTH/3HJAN,3HFEB,3HMAR,3HAPR,3HMAY,3HJUN,3HJUL,3HAUG,

00126+3HSEP, 3H0CT, 3HN0V, 3HDEC , 3HT0T/

00130 PRINT, *DATA FILE NAME, NUMBER OF DATA SETS, PRINT PARTS 1,2, 3, 4 *,

00132 PRINT, *(0=NO)*

00140 READ,NFILE,NDATA,N1,N2,N3,N4

00150 PRINT 20

00160 20 FORMAT(////*MIUS SITE 4, ST. CHARLES, MARYLAND*//)

00170 CALL PFUR(3HRET,5HTAPE1,NFILE,0,ISTA)

00180 DO 100 I=1,NDATA

00190 DO 100 J=l,6 ' 00200 READ(1,) NLINE, (E (I , J,K) ,K=1 , 6)

00210 READQ,) NLINE, (E(I,J,K) ,K-7, 12)

00220 READ(1,) NLINE, (D(I , J ,K) ,K=1 , 6

)

00230 IF(D(I,J,2)) 60,40,60

00240 40 DO 50 K=2,12

00250 D(I,J,K)»D(I,J,1)

00260 GO TO 70

00270 60 READ(1,) NLINE, (D(I ,J ,K) ,K=7 , 12

)

00280 E(I,J,13)=0.

00290 70 DO 80 K-1,12

00300 80 E(I,J,13)=E(I,J,13)+E(I,J,K)

00310 100 D(I,J,13)=0.

00320 IF(Nl.EQ.O) GO TO 142

00330 DO 130 J=l,6

00340 DO 110 K-1,12

00350 110 PRINT 120,(D(I,J,K),E(I,J,K),I-1,NDATA)

00360 120 F0RMAT(4(F5.0,1X,F10.0,2X))

00370 130 PRINT 140,(E(I,J,13),I=1,NDATA)

00380 140 FORMAT(4(6X,F10.0,2X)////)

00385 142 CONTINUE

00390 DO 145 J=l,6

00400 DO 145 K=l,13

00410 ESUM(J,K)=0.

00420 DSUM(J,K)=0.

00430 DO 145 I=1,NDATA

00440 IF((I.GE.3).AND.(J.EQ.5)) GO TO 145

00450 ESUM(J,K)=ESUM(J,K)+E(I,J,K)

00460 DSUM(J,K)=DSUM(J,K)+D(I,J,K)

00470 145 CONTINUE

00480 DO 150 K=l,13

00490 EKWH(K)=0.

00500 DO 150 J=l,6

00510 EKWH(K)=EKWH(K)+ESUM(J,K)

00520 150 DKW(K)=DKW(K)+DSUM(J,K)

00530 0SUM=0.

00540 DO 172 K-1,13

00550 EBTU(K)-0.

00560 DO 165 I=3,NDATA

00570 165 EBTU(K)=EBTU(K)+E(I,5,K)

00580 EBTU(K)=EBTU(K)*34.3.E-9

00581 IF(EBTU(K)-.05) 166,167,167

150
00582 166 EFF=.6

00583 GO TO 170

00584 167 IF(EBTU(K)-.3) 168,169,169

00585 168 EFF=.65

00586 GO TO 170

00587 269 EFF=.7

00588 170 OIL(K)=EBTU(K)/(EFF*1.44E-4)

00589 OSUMOSUM-K)IL(K)

00590 172 CONTINUE

00592 OIL(13)=«OSUM-OIL(13)

00595 IF(N2.EQ.O) GO TO 195

00600 PRINT 175

00610 175 FORMAT (1 OX, *LIGHTING*,1 IX, *AIR HANDLING*, 7X,*OTHER ELECTRICAL*

00612+/3 (7X, *KW*, 9X, *KWH*)

100620 DO 185 K-1,12

00630 185 PRINT 180, IMONTH(K) , (DSUM( J,K) ,ESUM(J,K) , J»1 , 3)

'00640 180 F0RMAT(A3,3(1X,F6.0,1X,F12.0,1X)

00650 PRINT 190,IM0NTH(13),(ESUM(J,13),J=1,3)

00660 190 FORMAT(A3,3(8X,F12.0,1X)/////)

00665 195 IF(N3.EQ.O) GO TO 225

00670 PRINT 200

00675 200 FORMAT (*CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM*//10X,*ELECTIC*, 17X,*OIL*/

0067 6+3 3X , *HEATING* /7X , *KW* , 9X , *KWH* , 8X , *BTU* , 6X , *GALLONS*

)

00680 200 F0RMAT(11X,*ELECTRIC*,18X,*0IL HEATING*/5X,*KW*,14X,

00690+*KWH , 20X , *BTU /YR*

)

00700 DO 205 K-1,12

00710 205 PRINT 210, IMONTH(K) ,DKW(K) ,EKWH(K) ,EBTU(CK) ,0IL(K)

00720 210 F0RMAT(A3,1X,F6.0,1X,F12.0,2X,F7.3,*E09*,2X,F7.0)

00730 PRINT 220,IMONTH(13),EKWH(13),EBTU(13),OIL(13)

00740 220 F0RMAT(A3,8X,F12.0,2X,F7.3,*E09*,2X,F7.0///)

00745 IF(N4.EQ.O) GO TO 360

00750 PRINT 230

00760 230 FORMAT(*MIUS PLANT*// 1 OX, *CUSTOMER*, 8X,*HOT WATER*, 2X,

00765+*CHILLED WATER*/10X, *ELECTRIC*, 9X, *HEATING*, 6X,*COOLING*/

00770+7X , *KW* , 9X , *KWH* , 8X , *BTU* , 1 OX, *BTU*

)

00775 195 CONTINUE

00780 DO 250 J=l,6

00790 DO 250 K=l,13

00800 ESUM(J,K)=0.

00810 DSUM(J,K)=0

00820 DO 250 1=1,4

00830 C=l.

00840 IF((I.EQ.1).AND.(J.GE.5)) C=.1943

00850 IF((I.EQ.1).AND.(J.EQ.4)) C=.6852

00860 ESUM(J,K)=ESUM(J,K)+C*E(I,J,K)

00870 DSUM(J,K)=DSUM(J,K)+C*D(I,J,K)

00880 250 CONTINUE

00890 DO 260 K-1,13

00900 EKWH(K)=0.

00910 DKW(K)=0.

00920 DO 260 J=l,6

00930 EKWH(K)=EKWH(K)+ESUM(J,K)

00940 260 DKW(K)=DKW(K)+DSUM(J,K)

00950 DO 280 K-1,13

00960 EBTU(K)=0.

00965 EBTUC(K)=.3148+.75E-5’*E(1,4,K)

151
00970 DO 275 J=5,6

00980 275 EBTU(K)=EBTU(K)+.8057*E(1,J,K)

00990 280 EBTU(K)=EBTU(K)*3413.E-9

01000 DO 290 K=l,12

01020 290 PRINT 300, IMONTH(K) , DKW(K) ,EKWH(K) ,EBTU(K) ,EBTUC(K)

01030 300 FORMAT ( A3 , IX, F6 . 0, IX, F12 . 0,2X,F7 . 3

, *E09* ,3X,F7 . 3

, *E09*)

01040 PRINT 301, IM0NTH(13),EKWH(13),EBTU(13),EBTUCU3)

01050 301 FORMAT(A3,8X,F12.02X,F7.3,*E09*,3X,F.3,*E09*)

01055 302 CONTINUE

01060 PRINT 305

01070 305 FORMAT (///*MIUS PLANT BURDEN*/ /7X,*KW*,9X,*KWH*)

01080 PL0AD(13)=0.

01090 DO 310 K-1,12

01100 PDMND(K)=460. +DKW(K)/154.+. 6852/17. *D(1, 4, K)

OHIO PL0AD(K)=235060.+EKWH(K)/154.+. 6852/17. *E(1, 4, K)

01120 PL0AD(13)=PL0AD(13)+PL0AD(K)

01122 310 CONTINUE

01126 DO 312 K-1,12

01130 312 PRINT 315, IMONTH(K) ,PDMND(K) ,PLOAD(K)

01140 315 F0RMAT(A3,1X,F6.0,1X,F12.0)

01150 PRINT 320,IMONTH(13),PLOAD(13)

01160 320 F0RMAT(A3,8X,F12.0)

01165 325 CONTINUE

01170 DO 330 K=l,13

01180 DKW(K)=DKW(K)+PDMND(K)

01190 EKWH(K)=EKWH(K)+PLOAD(K)

01200 0IL(K)=10947./144000.*EKWH(K)

01210 OSALV(K)=1.15*(EBTU(K)+1.5*EBTUC(K))

01220 330 QSUP(K)=QSALV(K)-1800.E-9*EKWH(K)

01230 PRINT 335

01240 335 FORMAT(///*MIUS PLANT TOTALS*//39X, *ENGINE HEAT*,2X,

01250+*SUPPLEMENTAL*/26X,*ENGINE FUEL*,3X,*SALVAGED*,3X,*HEAT REQUIRED*

0126 0+/7X , *KW* , 9X , *KWH* , 7X , *GALL0NS* , 8X , *BTU* , 1 OX, *BTU*

)

01270 DO 340 K-1,12

01280 340 PRINT 345 , IMONTH(K) ,DKW(K) ,EKWH(K) ,OIL(K) ,QSALV(K) ,QSUP(K)

01290 345 F0RMAT(A3,1X,F6.0,1X,F12.0,2X,F10.0,4X,F7.3,*E09*,3X,F7.3,

01300+*E09*)

01310 PRINT 350,IMONTH(13),EKWH(13),EKWH(13),OIL(13),QSALV(13),QSUP(13)

01320 350 F0RMAT(A3,8X,F12.0,2X,F10.0,4X,F7.3,*E09*,3X,F7.3,*E09*)

01325 360 CONTINUE

01330 END

RUN COMPLETE.

152
NBS-114A (REV. a-7e»

U.S. DEPT. OF COr4M. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET NBSIR 79-1787

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE •

MIUS Feasibility - Five Exploratory Studies

t5o! M6i 3.

\

' J- , d*t*

5. Publication Date January 1980

T,

lalUiMki I if^i 7. AUTHOR(S)

David J. Mitchell

8. Performing Organ. Report No. 733

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fSrreet, city, St^te. ZIP)

Office of Policy Development and Research

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D. C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered NBSIR

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

L J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Softw/are Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual aumaiary of moat significant Inloimatlon. If document Includes a aignificanl bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) This report highlights the collaborative efforts of the National Bureau of Standards,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and their contractors in the analysis

of a Modular Integrated Utility System (MIUS) and conventional utilities for five

separate housing projects. The collaborative efforts consist of three separate tasks:

1. Comparative Environmental Analysis

2. Comparative Energy Analysis

3. Utility System Design and Cost Analysis

17. KEY WORDS ('six to twelve entries; alphabetiea! order; capitaUze only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Energy conservation; environmental impact; feasibility study; integrated

utilities; MIUS; on-site utilities.

18. AVAILABILITY OUnlimited

[1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1 I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

LXl Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

157

22. Price

$ 11.00

USCOMM-DC