U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Management and
Conservation Program
Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report
: © '
\PRO/
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Management and Conservation
Program
Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
January 18, 2013
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
CONTENTS
Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Highlights 5
GHG Emissions Inventory and Reduction Efforts 9
Reported Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emission Reductions 9
Reported Scope 3 GHG Emissions 11
Business Travel and Video Conferencing 12
Commuting Emissions and Telework 12
Leased Office Space 12
Consolidating Laboratory Infrastructure and Improving Laboratory Utilization 13
OMB Sustainability/Energy Scorecard 13
Energy Efficiency Performance 14
Current Energy Retrofits and Capital Improvement Projects 15
ESPCs and Cost-Saving Projects 19
EISA Section 432 Implementation—Energy Assessments 20
Green Power 21
Advanced Metering 21
Water Conservation 22
Water Conservation Retrofits and Capital Improvements 23
EISA Section 423 Implementation—Water Assessments 25
Nonpotable ILA Water 25
Sustainable Building Design and High Performance Buildings 26
Upgrading Existing Agency-Owned Buildings to Meet the Guiding Principles 26
Acquiring New High Performance Sustainable Green Buildings 27
ENERGY STAR 28
Carbon-Neutral Facilities 29
Building Management Plan Guidance 29
GreenCheck 30
Other Sustainable Buildings Guidance 30
Designing for Reduced Fossil Fuel Generation 31
Stormwater Management 31
Recycling and Pollution Prevention 32
On Track for the Future 33
Revision to FY 2008 Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG Emission Inventory Baselines Appendix A
Revision to FY 2003 Energy Intensity Baseline Appendix B
List of Excluded Facilities Appendix C
EPA's FY 2012 EPAct 2005 Goal Subject Building Inventory Appendix D
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
January 18, 2013
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Highlights
In FY 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again demonstrated
leadership among federal agencies in reducing its environmental footprint and promoting
sustainability. EPA continues to meet or exceed the federal sustainability goals required under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Executive Order (EO) 13514, and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions,
energy efficiency, water conservation, green buildings, solid waste diversion, and other
environmental performance metrics.
In FY 2012, EPA focused on: reducing its Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions; implementing major
energy efficiency projects; procuring green power; carrying out water conservation and stormwater
management projects; improving and certifying its inventory of Federal Real Property Profile
(FRPP) buildings as meeting the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and
Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principlesj; acquiring high performance sustainable buildings that exceed
the environmental performance of the facilities being replaced; and raising its non-hazardous solid
waste diversion rate. EPA received a score of "green" in every category on its January 2012 and June
2012 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Sustainability/Energy scorecards,
demonstrating the ongoing success of the Agency's comprehensive approach to sustainability.
In June 2012, in accordance with the requirements of EO 13514, EPA submitted a revised Strategic
Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) to OMB and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
EPA's SSPP outlines the Agency's strategies and plans to reduce GHG emissions, energy use, water
consumption, solid waste, and other resource use, and to incorporate sustainable design and
operations into all of its facilities.
GHG Emissions Down From FY 2008 Baseline
In FY 2012, EPA reported Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions of 65,127 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTC02e). These emissions were 54.1 percent lower than EPA's revised FY
2008 emissions baseline,1 which is surpassing the Agency's Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions
reduction goal of 25 percent by FY 2020 from the FY 2008 baseline. EPA achieved these
reductions through major energy efficiency projects at its facilities, improved fleet management
practices, and extensive green power purchases. EPA anticipates making further progress in FY
2013 and beyond as a result of implementing additional energy conservation projects,
consolidating or right-sizing laboratory infrastructure when opportunities arise, and continuing to
purchase green power. Even without the environmental benefit of its green power purchases
taken into account, EPA still would have reduced its Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 7.3 percent
compared to the FY 2008 baseline.
EPA also reduced its Scope 3 GHG emissions in FY 2012. The Scope 3 GHG emissions from
sources EPA is required to report totaled 48,138 MTC02e in FY 2012, which is a decrease of 32.3
1
In FY 2012, EPA revised its FY 2008 Scope 1 and 2 GF1G emissions baseline (see Appendix A) to reflect updates in its
historical energy consumption and square footage data.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report 5
January 18, 2013
-------
percent compared to the revised FY 2008 GHG emissions baseline.2 A reduction in EPA's Scope
3 GHG emissions associated with business air travel, achieved through increased video
conferencing and travel budget cuts, contributed the most to this decrease. Scope 3 GHG
emissions from air travel dropped by 46.0 percent between the FY 2008 baseline and FY 2012.
While Scope 3 GHG emissions for rental space is still an optional reporting category, because of
its continuing office consolidation efforts and increasing use of telework, EPA expects to see
reductions in this Scope 3 GHG category in the years to come.
Reported Energy Intensity Down 23.7 Percent From FY 2003 Baseline
EPA's FY 2012 reported energy intensity was 299,967 British thermal units (Btu) per gross square
foot (GSF).34 EPA exceeded the energy intensity reduction required under EISA and EO 13423—
21 percent by the end of FY 2012 compared to an FY 2003 baseline—by reducing its energy
intensity 23.7 percent compared to its FY 2003 baseline. In FY 2012, EPA initiated, continued, or
completed work on several major energy projects and mechanical system upgrades, which are
outlined later in this report, and will continue to closely manage its energy use and make further
progress in reducing its energy intensity in FY 2013.
EPA continued to be a leader among federal agencies by purchasing green power and renewable
energy certificates (RECs) equal to 100 percent of its FY 2012 electricity use. In August 2011,
EPA procured three separate blanket purchase agreements for a total of more than 265 million
kilowatt-hours (kWh) of RECs that supported renewable energy generation from wind and
biomass resources in Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska. Combined with four other
contracts for delivered green power and RECs, EPA received more than 266 million kWh of
renewable energy in FY 2012, which covered the Agency's entire estimated FY 2012 annual
electricity use.
In FY 2012, EPA completed energy assessments at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center (AWBERC) in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Main Building at its campus in Research
Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, which collectively represent 22 percent of the total energy use
of EPA's covered facilities (based on FY 2008 data, per EISA Section 432 guidance). With the
completion of these two assessments, EPA successfully completed its first four-year reporting cycle
required under EISA Section 432 by evaluating 100 percent of its covered facilities by June 2012.
EPA completed installation of advanced metering hardware at six laboratory facilities in 2012.
Advanced metering hardware now captures 72.0 percent of Agencywide reportable energy
consumption.
2 In FY 2012, EPA revised its FY 2008 Scope 3 GHG emissions baseline (see Appendix A) to reflect a revised
methodology from the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for calculating GF1G emissions associated with
employee commuting.
3 EPA's reported energy intensity accounts for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) source energy savings credits.
4 In FY 2012, EPA experienced meter malfunctions at its Main Building in RTP, North Carolina, and the Chapel Hill
Laboratory in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Although EPA has resolved the metering issues at both facilities, the Agency
is still evaluating how to retroactively estimate FY 2012 energy usage for these facilities. As a result, EPA's reported FY
2012 energy intensity might change once EPA completes this investigation.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report 6
January 18, 2013
-------
Water Intensity Down 22.5 Percent From FY 2007 Baseline
In FY 2012, EPA exceeded the EO 13514 requirement to reduce its water intensity by 10 percent
compared to the FY 2007 baseline. EPA's water intensity in reporting laboratories was 27.6 gallons
per GSF, which is 22.5 percent lower than its FY 2007 water intensity baseline.
Several individual EPA facilities achieved significant water reductions in FY 2012 by completing
water conservation projects, which are outlined later in this report. EPA also conducted water
assessments for three non-EISA-covered facilities in FY 2012.
EPA also continued to exceed the proposed requirements for reducing industrial, landscaping,
and agricultural (ILA) water use set forth in EO 13514. EPA estimates that it used 7,007,631
gallons of nonpotable water for ILA applications in FY 2012, which is 94.8 percent lower than its
interim FY 2010 baseline.
9.8 Percent of FRPP Inventory Meets Guiding Principles
Using EPA's projected FY 2015 FRPP inventory, 9.8 percent (by number of buildings) of EPA's
FRPP buildings measuring greater than 5,000 square feet met the Guiding Principles in FY 2012. This
progress exceeds the OMB goal of 9.0 percent and is two-thirds of the way to meeting the FY 2015
requirement of 15 percent. In FY 2012, EPA completed GuidingPrinciples certification for one
laboratory building and is on the cusp of certifying another in FY 2013. With the certification and
near certification of these two buildings, EPA completed piloting its own system to upgrade and
certify its existing buildings as meeting the Guiding Principles.
Green Certifications Promote High Performance Sustainable Buildings
In addition to internally certifying that its facilities meet the Guiding Principles, EPA's inventory
includes additional buildings (either owned or leased via GSA) that have received some form of
green building certification. At the end of FY 2012, 18 percent of EPA's occupied space (either
FRPP or non-FRPP) has received one or more green building certifications.
EPA occupies 10 buildings certified Gold or Silver under the U.S. Green Building Council's
(USGBC's) LEED® for New Construction & Major Renovations rating system, as well as seven
buildings certified Platinum, Gold, or Silver under the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations &
Maintenance (O&M) rating system.
In addition, three EPA Headquarters office buildings earned the ENERGY STAR® in calendar year
2012. Of the eight EPA Headquarters buildings, six have earned ENERGY STAR within the last
three years. Currently, all 10 EPA regional offices have earned the ENERGY STAR, nine of which
received it within the last three years.
Facility Projects Improve Stormwater Management
EPA's stormwater management efforts continued in FY 2012 in conjunction with the requirements
set forth in EO 13514, EISA Section 438, and the Guiding Principles. In connection with its efforts
to certify existing buildings as meeting the Guiding Principles, EPA worked with the facility managers
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report 7
January 18, 2013
-------
at the Environmental Science Center (ESC) in Fort Meade, Maryland, to inventory, diagram, and
explain the operation of the existing stormwater management system, which is quite complex and
effective, and developed routine maintenance procedures for the system. At the Large Lakes
Research Station (LLRS) in Grosse lie, Michigan, EPA developed a long-range plan for stormwater
management at the site and initiated the construction of Phase I of that plan, which included
treatment of first-flush water from the facility's roofs. In addition, EPA initiated a combined sewer
overflow reduction/cistern project at EPA West, part of the Agency's Federal Triangle
Headquarters Complex in downtown Washington, D.C., and began design work for the
augmentation of the stormwater management system at the Main Building in RTP, North Carolina.
A ribbon-cutting ceremony was also held in FY 2012 for the new green roof for the Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center in Atlanta, Georgia, where the EPA Region 4 Office is housed and is the
principal building tenant.
Solid Waste Diversion Rate Increases to 63 Percent
EO 13514 requires federal agencies to meet a non-hazardous solid waste diversion rate of 50
percent by FY 2015. EPA exceeded this requirement in FY 2012 by achieving a waste diversion
rate of 63 percent. Several EPA facilities significantly contributed to EPA's non-hazardous solid
waste diversion rate increase through their ongoing source reduction, recycling, reuse, donation,
composting, and other waste reduction efforts.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
8
January 18, 2013
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2012 Annual Report
In June 2012, EPA submitted to OMB and CEQ an update to its SSPP, a comprehensive, multiyear
planning document that identifies targets for reducing Agencywide GHG emissions by FY 2020 and
outlines the steps the Agency will take to achieve those reductions. In the SSPP, EPA summarized
its efforts to improve the environmental and economic performance of its facilities to meet the
requirements of EO 13514. The SSPP identifies the key milestones and major challenges EPA faces
for achieving environmental performance goals related to GHG emission reductions; increased
energy efficiency; greater water conservation; more use of renewable energy; better transportation
management; development of more high performance sustainable buildings; coordination with
regional and local planning efforts; recycling and pollution prevention; stormwater management; and
sustainable acquisition. EPA's updated SSPP is available at
.
This Energy Management and Conservation Program Annual Report highlights EPA's progress in
FY 2012 toward implementing the strategies and meeting the milestones contained in the SSPP and
gives a snapshot in time of EPA's current environmental performance.
GHG Emissions Inventory and Reduction Efforts
In January 2008, EPA voluntarily began developing a GHG emissions inventory (following the
GHG Inventory Guidance developed by EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership) to better
understand and manage its carbon footprint. In addition to quantifying direct and indirect GHG
emissions associated with energy consumption at the Agency's 35 reporting facilities, EPA's current
inventory, in alignment with EO 13514 GHG emissions accounting and reporting guidance, now
includes: mobile emissions from fleet vehicles and equipment; fugitive emissions associated with
building fire suppression and mobile air conditioning equipment; and process emissions from
laboratory research and other activities. EPA's inventory also reflects the environmental benefits of
its green power and REC purchases on its reported GHG emissions.
In accordance with the requirements of EO 13514, EPA has committed to reducing its
combined Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 25 percent by FY 2020 from the FY 2008 baseline of
142,009 MTCOoe, as well as reducing the required categories of Scope 3 GHG emissions by 8
percent by FY 2020 compared to its revised FY 2008 baseline of 71,126 MTCOoe. More details
on the Agency's GHG emission reduction strategies are available in the Agency's SSPP.
Reported Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emission Reductions
EPA's Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions Down 54.1 Percent From FY
2008 Baseline
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report 9
January 18, 2013
-------
EPA reported Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions of 65,127 MTCOoe in FY 2012, which is 5.8 percent
lower than the Agency's FY 2011 GHG emissions and 54.1 percent lower than its revised FY 2008
baseline (see Figure 1 below). Even when the Agency does not account for green power and REC
purchases, EPA's FY 2012 combined Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions still decreased by 10,400
MTCOoe, or approximately 7.3 percent, relative to the Agency's revised FY 2008 baseline. EPA
expects continued Scope 1 and 2 GHG emission reductions in FY 2013 based on energy efficiency
projects at its facilities, consolidated or right-sized laboratory infrastructure, and future green power
and REC purchases.
Figure 1. EPA's Reported Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions, FY 2008 and FY 2012
160,000
140,000
% 120,000
O
u
H
% 100,000
"-W
Vi
G
O
"5 80,000
¦ ^
s
w
60,000
x
o
40,000
20,000
0
FY 2008 Reported GHG Emissions FY 2012 Reported GHG Emissions
In FY 2012, EPA revised its FY 2008 Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions baseline (see Appendix A) to
reflect updated square footage data, which is used to estimate fugitive GHG emissions from facility
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, and revised energy consumption data. The revised FY
2008 Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions baseline is 142,009 MTC02e. These updates did not have a
significant impact on EPA's FY 2012 GHG emissions performance relative to the FY 2008 baseline.
In FY 2012, EPA completed a pilot project at ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland, to evaluate the
accuracy of its estimate for Scope 1 fugitive GHG emissions associated with building air
conditioning and refrigeration equipment leakage at reporting facilities. Due to the challenges of
collecting activity data from individual reporting facilities, the Agency historically estimated these
fugitive emissions using a default emissions factor. Based on refrigerant purchase, disposal, and
equipment maintenance records that the facility staff provided during this pilot project, EPA
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
10
January 18, 2013
-------
calculated the GHG emissions from refrigerant leakage that occurred during equipment
maintenance activities during FY 2012. When comparing the GHG emissions from actual laboratory
data to the estimated GHG emissions from the default emissions factor, the difference was
insignificant. Therefore, in this case, the default emission factor appears to be a valid tool for
estimating these emissions whenever actual data are unavailable.
Reported Scope 3 GHG Emissions
EPA's Scope 3 GHG Emissions Down 32.3 Percent From FY 2008
Baseline
Scope 3 GHG emissions include indirect emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled
by EPA but are related to the Agency's activities, such as employee business travel and commuting,
contracted solid waste disposal, and contracted wastewater treatment. EPA's goal is to reduce the
required subset of its Scope 3 GHG emissions by 8 percent by FY 2020 compared to its revised FY
2008 baseline of 71,126 MTCO^e (see Appendix A). In FY 2012, EPA's Scope 3 GHG emissions
were 48,138 MTCOoe, a decrease of 17.3 percent from EPA's current FY 2011 GHG emissions and
32.3 percent from the revised FY 2008 baseline (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. EPA's Reported Scope 3 GHG Emissions, FY 2008 and FY 2012
80,000
70,000
O
(J 60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
FY 2008 Reported GHG Emissions
FY 2012 Reported GHG Emissions
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
11
January 18, 2013
-------
Business Travel and Video Conferencing
Decreased employee business travel—attributed to employees' increased use of video
teleconferencing, combined with a reduced Agency travel budget—contributed the most to EPA's
FY 2012 Scope 3 GHG emissions reductions. EPA's GHG emissions associated with business air
travel were 29.4 percent lower in FY 2012 compared to FY 2011 and 46.0 percent lower compared
to the FY 2008 baseline. EPA has video teleconferencing units installed Agencywide.
Commuting Emissions and Telework
EPA revised its FY 2008 Scope 3 GHG baseline inventory (see Appendix A) to reflect updated data
for employee commuting. Triggered by a methodological change in the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool
commuter survey module, this update reduced EPA's FY 2008 commuting-related GHG emissions
by 18.4 percent and its total required Scope 3 GHG emissions by 10.7 percent.
To further reduce its Scope 3 GHG emissions, and in accordance with the government-wide
initiative to facilitate employee telework, EPA is making a significant commitment to telework,
which the Agency hopes will decrease employee commuting-related GHG emissions and increase
efficiencies in leased buildings over the coming fiscal years.
EPA's current telework program allows eligible staff to work from home intermittently. This helps
to reduce the number of days employees commute to their workplace each week, which decreases
fuel consumption, traffic congestion, and the GHG emissions associated with employee commuting.
As of FY 2012, EPA estimates its employees increased their average telework hours per pay period
by 35.3 percent compared to FY 2011, and by 136.4 percent compared to FY 2009. EPA estimates
that employee telework helped the Agency avoid nearly 2,000 MTC02e of commuting-related GHG
emissions in FY 2011 (the last year for which data are available).
EPA's pledge to increase telework options is one of a variety of strategies that the Agency is
exploring to reduce unnecessary space at its laboratory and office facilities, and thus reduce its
environmental impact. With a broader use of telework, the Agency is poised to continue exceeding
its Scope 3 GHG emissions reduction goal of 8 percent by FY 2020.
Leased Office Space
EPA also voluntarily reports Scope 3 GHG emissions from non-reporting leased space, though this
is not currently required by EO 13514. In FY 2012, Scope 3 GHG emissions from energy use at
non-reporting facilities were 18.6 percent lower than the revised FY 2008 baseline. EPA expects that
increased telework and reducing unnecessary office and support space will continue to reduce Scope
3 GHG emissions in this area.
The revised Federal GHG Accounting and Reporting Guidance (published on June 4, 2012) suggests that
this source of optional Scope 3 GHG emissions may become mandatory for FY 2013 reporting.
Having calculated and voluntarily reported these emissions since FY 2010, EPA is prepared to
continue reporting these emissions should they become required in the future.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
12
January 18, 2013
-------
Consolidating Laboratory Infrastructure and Improving Laboratory Utilization
EPA is pursuing a number of paths to reduce the environmental footprint and operating costs of its
laboratory infrastructure. Efforts include facility consolidation, reductions in the number of fume
hoods at laboratories being renovated, more efficient allocation of research infrastructure among
scientists, and exploring new technologies to safely reduce air flows and associated energy use (i.e.,
temporary hibernation of fume hoods). Fume hoods are one of the most energy-intensive and
expensive components (both for initial and ongoing costs) of EPA's research infrastructure.
In FY 2012, EPA continued work on relocating its National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory and Reproductive Toxicology Facility (NHEERL/RTF) in RTP, North
Carolina, from a leased building into the Agency's existing Main Building on the RTP campus. In
addition to increasing the utilization of the Main Building and reducing the Agency's rent and utility
costs, this consolidation will reduce laboratory and office space by approximately 32,200 GSF and
significantly cut EPA's Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. The consolidation will also improve EPA's
energy intensity, as EPA will be vacating a very energy-intensive laboratory and moving into less
energy-intensive space. As of September 2012, EPA had signed design/build contracts related to the
consolidation, covering the changes to 116 existing laboratory modules and associated office space
at the Main Building to accommodate incoming research staff. The consolidation project is expected
to be completed by early summer 2014.
EPA is also undertaking right-sizing of laboratory infrastructure projects in order to significantly
reduce the facilities' energy use and utility costs. EPA continued work on the second phase of a
mechanical system replacement project at its Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island, in 2012 that will result in a reduction of laboratory fume hoods from 28
to 16 when completed. In addition, EPA started construction of the first phase of an infrastructure
replacement project (IRP) at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in
Montgomery, Alabama, which will reduce the number of fume hoods from 44 to 32, or by
approximately 25 percent, once complete.
Looking ahead to FY 2013, EPA is working with GSA on plans to reduce the size of its Chapel Hill
Laboratory in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. EPA's space in the multi-tenant facility should be
reduced by approximately 31,000 GSF, or approximately 20 percent, in connection with a
mechanical system replacement, and EPA will reduce its fume hood infrastructure as well. Upon
completion, EPA will occupy significantly less space and operate fewer fume hoods, both of which
will significantly reduce the Agency's operating costs.
OMB Sustainability/Energy Scorecard
EPA scored green in every category on both its January 2012 and July 2012 OMB
Sustainability/Energy scorecards, demonstrating the success of the Agency's long-term,
comprehensive approach to sustainability. During the previous year, EPA's July 2011 scorecard
showed a yellow rating for Scope 3 GHG emissions; however, EPA achieved and is now
maintaining a green rating in this category, based on the Agency's FY 2012 Scope 3 GHG emissions
reductions. EPA expects to continue to achieve green ratings in all categories again in FY 2013.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
13
January 18, 2013
-------
Energy Efficiency Performance
EPA's Reported FY 2012 Energy Intensity Down 23.7 Percent From FY 2003
Baseline
EISA and EO 13423 require federal agencies to reduce their energy intensity by 3 percent per year,
or 30 percent by FY 2015, compared to the revised FY 2003 baseline (see Appendix B). In 2012,
EPA exceeded the 21 percent cumulative energy intensity reductions required for FY 2012. EPA's
FY 2012 reported energy intensity was 299,967 Btu per GSF,56 which is 4.6 percent less than its FY
2011 energy intensity and 23.7 percent below the FY 2003 baseline (see Figure 3 below). EPA will
continue to closely manage its energy use in FY 2013 and expects to meet or exceed the cumulative
30 percent energy intensity reduction requirement by FY 2015.
Figure 3. EPA Annual Energy Intensity Relative to EO 13423/EISA Target
fH
(a
V
&»
h
¦Ti
o
5
P-
3
m.
.
l/j
c
V
***.
tojj
fx
u
c
M
425,000
385,000
345,000
305,000
265,000
225,000
FY 2003 Baseline: 393,130 Btu per GSF
Agencywide Energy Intensity
.ind Percent Change from FY 2003 Baseline
FY 2003 Baseline: 393.130
338,373 Btu/GSF: 1.33%
400,149 Btu/GSF: 1.79%
355,414 Btu/GSF:-9.59%
rrj
-tf-
ir>
'O
r-
CO
cs
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
&H
>H
>H
>«
><
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
>h
>H
>H
ft
>H
ft
>H
Ph
Fiscal Year
Historical Energy Intensity
EO 13423/EISA Target
(3 Percent Annual Reduction)
5 EPA's reported energy intensity accounts for source energy savings credits. Without accounting for source energy
savings credits, EPA's FY 2012 reported energy intensity is 302,883 Btu per GSF.
6 FY 2011 was the last year federal agencies were eligible to receive a green power credit against reported energy use.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
14
January 18, 2013
-------
In FY 2012, EPA excluded one source of energy consumption—its aquatic research vessel, Lake
Explorer II—from federal energy performance requirements, following the criteria included in
DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Guidelines for Establishing Criteria for Excluding
Buildings. More information on this vessel is listed in Appendix C.
Current Energy Retrofits and Capital Improvement Projects
In FY 2012, several EPA facilities achieved significant energy intensity reductions as a result of
recently completed projects, which contributed to the Agency's overall progress. In addition, EPA
has several projects underway that will help contribute to the Agency's future energy savings.
In FY 2012, EPA continued work on a multi-phase IRP at its AWBERC facility in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Agency completed IRP Phase III construction, awarded the contract for IRP Phase V
construction in July 2012, and expected completion of IRP Phase IV in December 2012. In FY
2012, the Agency also initiated an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) procurement
process for a boiler replacement project at the AWBERC facility and completed chiller plant
automation and operational improvements.
Also in FY 2012, EPA continued significant energy-saving projects at its Main Building in RTP,
North Carolina. In February 2012, EPA completed the construction and commissioning of a heat
recovery system for Main Buildings B, D, and E that is expected to save 16.5 billion Btu per year,
equal to a 4.5 percent reduction in energy intensity for the facility. In addition, EPA continued work
on a comprehensive laboratory controls optimization phase 2 (LCOP-2) for the Main Building,
which includes: fume hood control upgrades; decoupling of lights and fume hoods that previously
resulted in higher than necessary ventilation rates; and fume hood retrofits that allow containment at
lower air flow rates. The fume hood retrofit project was 80 percent complete as of FY 2012 and is
expected to reduce the facility's energy use by 23.4 billion Btu per year, or a 6.4 percent reduction in
energy intensity for the facility.
EPA also initiated work on a resource efficiency manager (REM) contract for its Chapel Hill
Laboratory in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This part-time building engineer would be dedicated
exclusively to managing energy use at the Chapel Hill Laboratory, which is currently EPA's most
energy- and cost-intensive laboratory. The annual compensation for this REM position would be
paid back through cost savings accrued from energy conservation projects that the REM helps
identify and implement. EPA plans to complete the hiring process in FY 2013.
Other significant energy-saving projects underway or completed in FY 2012 include:
• Repairing existing chillers which ended the use of temporary chillers at the National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• Improving operation of the co-generation unit at the Region 9 Laboratory in Richmond,
California.
• Substantially completing a boiler burner replacement project at ESC in Fort Meade,
Maryland, which will replace the previously oversized units and help to improve energy
efficiency.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
15
January 18, 2013
-------
• Replacing windows, re-configuring chiller/cooling tower piping, and improving operational
efficiency at the National Exposure Research Laboratory (ORD Laboratory) in Athens,
Georgia.
• Hibernating fume hoods at AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Chapel Hill Laboratory
in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
• Upgrading lighting at AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio; the Main Building in RTP, North
Carolina; the AED Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island; and the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Center (ORD Laboratory) in Ada, Oklahoma.
Once completed, these capital improvement projects are expected to yield significant energy savings.
In FY 2012, EPA made progress on the energy efficiency efforts listed in Table 1 below, which
represent significant annual energy savings. EPA believes the much milder winter in FY 2012 also
contributed significantly to its FY 2012 energy use reductions.
Table 1. Energy Conservation Projects Underway or Completed in FY 2012
Facility
Description of Improvements
Estimated Annual
Energy Savings
AWBERC m
Cincinnati, Ohio
Continued construction of IRP Phase IY, which was
substantially completed in December 2012. EPA also
awarded the contract for IRP Phase V construction, the
last major phase, in July 2012.
EPA expects the IRP will
save 11.6 billion Btu in
FY 2012.
Initiated an ESPC procurement process for a boiler
replacement in FY 2012. EPA expects to select a
contractor for the preliminary assessment by end of the
second quarter of FY 2013.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 14 billion Btu
per year once the project
is completed.
Completed a fume hood air flow reduction pilot project
to reduce minimum flow rates in fume hoods based on
new ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 laboratory ventilation standards.
Flows were reduced to 175 cubic feet per minute (cfm)
for a standard 6-foot hood; previous minimum flow was
250 cfm. EPA implemented these changes during IRP
Phase IYc.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 6 billion Btu
per year.
Completed the automation and commissioning of the
chiller plant, which included a new sequence of
operations, during the third quarter of FY 2012.
Contracted to retrofit variable air volume (VAV) fume
hoods to provide hibernation/decommissioning
capabilities; this will allow fume hoods to operate at 90
cfm and thus save energy when the hoods are not in use.
The project was completed in November 2012.
Began installation of occupancy sensors in offices and
administrative spaces to enable the lights to turn off and
the space temperatures to fluctuate ±5° Fahrenheit off
set point when an office is unoccupied. This project was
80 percent complete at the end of FY 2012.
Contracted to install occupancy sensors in the
laboratories, enabling the lighting to turn off and air
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
16
January 18, 2013
-------
changes to be adjusted back to four air changes per hour,
where appropriate, during unoccupied times. Installation
during IRP Phase IYc is substantially complete;
installation during IRP Phases I, II, and III should be
completed by May 2013.
Contracted to install "advanced T8" (24-watt bulb)
lighting in the stairwells and boiler room. Completion is
expected in May 2013.
Completed modification of three biosafety level 2 fume
hoods to provide re-circulated air, which will
dramatically reduce energy use and air flows.
Main Building in
RTP, North Carolina
Completed construction and commissioning of a heat
recovery system in February 2012.
EPA anticipates total
energy savings of 16.5
billion Btu, or a 4.5
percent reduction in
energy intensity for the
facility.
Completed decoupling of laboratory lighting and
ventilation controls, upgraded sensors and control
systems capabilities, and lowered fume hood air flows.
EPA expects energy
savings of 23.4 billion
Btu per year (15.4 billion
Btu from Buildings D
and E, and 8 billion Btu
from Building B) once
these LCOP-2 projects
are completed.
Completed 80 percent of planned fume hood retrofits in
FY 2012. Laboratory Building D fume hood retrofits
were completed in April 2012, and the Building B and E
fume hood upgrades were completed in January 2013.
Completed laboratory Buildings B, D, and E
downstream rebalancing.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 2.5 billion Btu
per year.
Completed LED lighting replacement projects in the
parking garage.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 0.8 billion Btu
per year.
NHEERL/RTF
Consolidation in
RTP, North Carolina
Design/build contracts were awarded in August 2012 to
accommodate the consolidation of laboratory staff and
equipment from the NHEERL/RTF facility into the
Main Building. Designs for the renovations started in
November 2012. Construction is expected to begin in
May 2013 and be completed by early summer 2014.
Approximately 116 laboratory modules would be
remodeled at the Main Building as part of the
consolidation. There will be a net of 25 new fume hoods
and four new biosafety cabinets in the Main Building
associated with the consolidation.
EPA anticipates a
reduction in laboratory
space of approximately
32,200 GSF, as well as
rent and utility cost
savings. Agency energy
intensity should drop
slightly (as this is a per
GSF metric), and Scope 1
and 2 GHG emissions
should drop significantly
(as this is an absolute
metric).
Chapel Hill
Laboratory in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Completed terminal box calibration and building
automation system (BAS) repairs in FY 2012.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 2.2 billion Btu
per year.
Completed air handling unit (AHU) pressurization
upgrades in FY 2012.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 3.4 billion Btu
per year.
Completed temporary hibernation of 11 of 30 fume
Because this is a constant
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
17
January 18, 2013
-------
hoods in the second quarter of FY 2012. EPA will
hibernate six additional fume hoods at the facility in FY
2013.
volume laboratory, EPA
only anticipates small
energy savings from this
effort.
Identified steam system problems and necessary
upgrades. System improvements are anticipated to be
completed in FY 2013.
EPA anticipates
significant energy savings
from this project when
completed in FY 2014.
Initiated the process of hiring a REM who would be
dedicated exclusively to managing energy use at the
facility. EPA expects contract execution in June 2013.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 6.3 billion Btu,
or 7 percent, by FY 2014.
ESC in Fort Meade,
Maryland
Continued work on a burner replacement project in FY
2012. Work on two boilers was 85 percent complete by
September 2012. Replacement of all three burners was
completed in December 2012, with final boiler and
control tests (under full load) completed in January 2013.
EPA expects energy use
will decrease by 4.5
billion Btu per year.
NAREL in
Montgomery,
Alabama
Awarded boiler replacement design contract in FY 2012.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 843 million
Btu per year.
Initiated construction on IRP Phase la in FY 2012.
Completion is expected in FY 2013.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 3.5 billion Btu
per year.
Reached 90 percent design completion for IRP Phase lb.
The project will eventually reduce fume hood capacity by
25 percent.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of an additional
3.5 billion Btu per year.
Completed computer room air conditioning system
replacement.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 224 million
Btu per year.
Region 9 Laboratory
in Richmond,
California
Recommissioned the facility's co-generation operations.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 4 million Btu
per year.
Continued work on a YAY conversion project in
conjunction with expiration of the facility's current lease.
The new lease will require mechanical system upgrades.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 5 billion Btu
per year when the
mechanical upgrades are
completed.
NYFEL in Ann
Arbor, Michigan
Initiated process metering study and implementation.
EPA anticipates a process
energy exclusion of 22.6
billion Btu per year.
AED Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode
Island
Completed chemistry laboratory modernization and
HVAC system replacement in June 2012. This represents
the first phase of a major multi-year mechanical system
IRP.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 3 billion Btu
per year.
Installed four 1-kilowatt (kW) wind turbines and a 5-kW
photovoltaic (PV) array in October 2011.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 75 million Btu
per year.
Region 7 Laboratory
in Kansas City,
Kansas
Made various BAS programming adjustments based on
recommissioning report recommendations.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 1.6 billion Btu
per year.
New England
Regional Laboratory
Contracted for installation of a dry cooler to supplement
the process chiller. The project is expected to be
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 134 million
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
18
January 18, 2013
-------
(NERL) m
Chelmsford,
Massachusetts
completed in FY 2013.
Btu per year.
ORD Laboratory in
Athens, Georgia
Replaced 40-year-old single-pane windows on the main
laboratory building with energy-efficient, double-pane,
low-e windows. The window replacement contract was
in the punch list stage as of December 2012.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of 1.3 billion Btu
per year.
Awarded a construction contract for controls, piping,
pump, and cooling tower upgrades in the fourth quarter
of FY 2012.
EPA anticipates energy
savings of nearly 1 billion
Btu per year.
ESPCs and Cost-Saving Projects
As with many federal agencies, EPA has limited capital funds to maintain existing laboratory
infrastructure, replace aging infrastructure, and reconfigure existing research laboratory space to
meet mission-critical needs. EPA must carefully focus its staff, resources, and funding to maximize
programmatic, energy conservation, and infrastructure right-sizing opportunities.
When appropriate, EPA considers ESPCs as a potential funding source for energy-saving projects, if
they enable the Agency to reduce the burden of up-front capital costs. In February 2012, in
connection with the White House's Better Buildings Initiative, EPA committed to pursue two large-
scale ESPC or ESPC-like projects worth $9 million. Through these mechanisms, EPA is working on
a boiler replacement project at AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a PV installation at the Region 2
Laboratory in Edison, New Jersey. The ESPC at the AWBERC facility will replace two aging steam
boilers with a new heating system proposed by the energy service company. EPA expects to execute
this contract in FY 2013.
In April 2013, EPA anticipates signing a 10-year ESPC and power purchase agreement (PPA) hybrid
for the Edison laboratory's PV installation. Because of the dramatically lower cost of PV panels and
lower interest rates, EPA believes it will be able to procure electricity at below the current market
rate. This agreement could provide the Edison laboratory with more than 40 percent of its electricity
through renewable sources (equivalent to more than 6.8 billion Btu) at half the current cost.
In late FY 2012, EPA initiated the process for a utility energy service contract (UESC) project at its
Region 10 Laboratory in Manchester, Washington, to retrofit the fuel oil-fired boilers with natural
gas. Fuel oil is currently the primary and only fuel used in the laboratory's boilers. This project
presents significant cost savings for the Agency, as well as large GHG emissions reductions, as
natural gas is cheaper and produces fewer emissions than fuel oil.
Many of the Agency's energy-saving projects are often not viable candidates for ESPCs (e.g., due to
the extreme age and complexity of mechanical systems, the laboratories' remote locations, and the
smaller size of available projects). However, EPA recognizes ESPCs and UESCs as useful vehicles
for completing projects and will continue to evaluate their use for future projects.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
19
January 18, 2013
-------
EISA Section 432 Implementation—Energy Assessments
EPA Completes 100 Percent of Energy Assessments Required by EISA,
Ready for the Next Four Years of EISA Reporting
In FY 2012, EPA completed energy assessments at AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio, and its
Main Building at RTP, North Carolina, which collectively represent 22 percent of the total
energy use of EPA's covered facilities (based on FY 2008 data, per EISA Section 432
guidance). In addition, EPA completed all or a portion of EISA recommissioning requirements
at AWBERC, the Main Building in RTP, and LLRS in Grosse lie, Michigan. The Agency
collected information on potential energy conservation measures and compiled the associated
implementation costs, estimated annual energy savings, and estimated annual cost savings in a
comprehensive report submitted to FEMP in June 2012. See Table 2 below for a list of the
reported measures.
Table 2. Potential Energy-Saving Projects From FY 2012 EISA Energy Assessments
Facility
Description of Potential Projects
Estimated
Annual Energy
Savings
Main Building in RTP,
North Carolina
Establish occupied/unoccupied modes and YAY
operation for laboratory spaces, as well as establish
occupied/unoccupied operation for office and
administrative areas and corridors.
2.3 billion Btu
Complete air flow reduction in die animal suites.
3.1 billion Btu
Install a process water loop.
0.4 billion Btu
Establish High Bay air and occupancy control, including
air changes per hour reductions, economizers, winter set
points, rollup door interlocks with VAV, and lighting
and VAV controlled by occupancy.
4.5 billion Btu
Install an exhaust energy recovery glycol loop system.
1.3 billion Btu
Initiate laboratory and office occupancy air flow
reductions.
234 million Btu
AWBERC in Cincinnati,
Ohio (TRP Phase IV)
Convert laboratory/office air handler from constant air
volume to VAV.
8.7 billion Btu
Convert laboratory supply and exhaust valves from
constant air volume to VAV.
With the completion of energy assessments at AWBERC and RTP, EPA successfully completed its
first four-year reporting cycle required under EISA Section 432 by evaluating 100 percent of its
covered facilities. Having met this requirement, EPA is now focusing on implementing key projects
identified during all four years of assessments and working with the facilities on measurement and
verification efforts. EPA will continue to re-evaluate its covered facilities per EISA requirements for
further energy- and water-saving opportunities, relying on the federal energy managers' expertise at
these facilities.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
20
January 18, 2013
-------
Green Power
EPA Continues to Cover 100 Percent of Electricity Use With Green Power
In FY 2006, EPA became the first federal agency to cover 100 percent of its electricity use with
green power. In FY 2012, EPA continued to be a leader among federal agencies by covering 100
percent of its FY 2012 electricity use with purchased green power and RECs for the seventh
consecutive year.
In August 2011, EPA procured three separate blanket purchase agreements for a total of more than
265 million kWh of RECs that supported renewable energy generation from wind and biomass
resources in Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska. Combined with four additional contracts for
delivered green power and RECs, EPA has purchased more than 266 million kWh of renewable
energy in FY 2012, enough to cover 100 percent of the Agency's estimated FY 2012 annual
electricity use at its 175 facilities across the country.
In September 2012, EPA signed a new blanket purchase agreement for more than 246 million kWh
of RECs, for delivery in FY 2013. This is equal to 100 percent of all of EPA's estimated FY 2013
conventional electricity consumption in its offices, laboratories, and support buildings. In an effort
to maximize the positive impacts of its green power purchases, EPA made the FY 2013 REC
purchase using a newly developed solicitation strategy to procure RECs from regions of the United
States where renewable energy generation would displace the "dirtiest" conventional electric
generation.
The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) is a
comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of nearly all electric
power generated in the United States. Per the Federal GHG Accounting and Reporting
Guidance and the FEMP Annual GHG and Sattainability Data Report, EPA uses the
location and amount of conventionally generated electricity purchased; eGRID data;
and the location, amount, and type of green power procured to calculate Scope 2 GHG
emissions. EPA anticipates these new, targeted REC purchases will increase EPA's
Scope 2 GHG emission reductions in FY 2013.
Advanced Metering
Advanced Metering Hardware Installed or Under Construction to Capture
72.0 Percent of Agencywide Reportable Energy Consumption
EPAct 2005 and EISA require federal agencies to install advanced metering equipment for
electricity, as well as steam and natural gas, to the maximum extent practicable by FY 2012 and FY
2016 respectively. When funding is available, EPA installs advanced meters for natural gas at the
same time that it installs advanced electric meters. In 2012, EPA completed installation of advanced
metering hardware at six laboratory facilities:
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
21
January 18, 2013
-------
• ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland
• ORD Laboratory in Athens, Georgia
• Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Laboratory in Athens, Georgia
• Chapel Hill Laboratory in Chapel Hill, North Carolina
• Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED) Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota
• NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan
By the end of 2012, EPA had approximately 72.0 percent of its energy measured by advanced
metering hardware.
Advanced metering installations at some EPA facilities were not economical as stand-alone projects
in FY 2012; however, EPA will expand the reach of its advanced metering systems in FY 2013 in
connection with large IRPs at three facilities:
• AED Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island
• NAREL in Montgomery, Alabama
• Western Ecology Division (WED) Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon
Water Conservation
EPA Reduces FY 2012 Water Intensity 22.5 Percent From FY 2007
Baseline
EO 13514 requires federal agencies to reduce their potable water intensity by 2 percent per year
through FY 2020, based on an FY 2007 baseline. Because EPA ran an active and successful water
conservation program in the mid 2000s, EPA's starting FY 2007 baseline was a low 35.6 gallons per
GSF. Nevertheless, EPA continues to far exceed federal water intensity reduction requirements,
including the new EO 13514 requirements for FY 2012, and is on track to meet the FY 2020 federal
requirement, as well.
Through water-saving measures and capital improvement projects, EPA exceeded its water
performance goal for FY 2012, achieving a water intensity of 27.6 gallons per GSF, which is a
decrease of 22.5 percent compared with the FY 2007 baseline (see Figure 4 on page 23) and a
decrease of 6.6 percent compared to FY 2011. To put these savings into perspective, EPA used
136.5 million gallons of water to support its FY 2007 operations, yet only 106.7 million gallons of
water to support its FY 2012 operations.
Several EPA facilities exceeded their water reduction goals with projects completed in FY 2012. For
example, the MED Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota, was able to reduce its water use by 38.6
percent compared to FY 2011, and LLRS in Grosse lie, Michigan, was able to reduce its water use
by 84.8 percent compared to FY 2011. Replacing toilets and urinals with high-efficiency
models contributed to water savings at both facilities.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
22
January 18, 2013
-------
Other facilities also achieved greater than a 15 percent reduction in water use compared to FY 2011
by implementing best management practices. Those facilities include:
NERL in Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Gulf Ecology Division (GED) Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida
MED in Duluth, Minnesota
LLRS in Grosse lie, Michigan
ORD Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma
Region 6 Laboratory in Houston, Texas
Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch Laboratory in Newport, Oregon
Figure 4. EPA Water Intensity Relative to EO 13514 Target
f-i
rt
£
V
p.
Hh
-yj
O
-------
EPA started, continued, or completed numerous water conservation projects in FY 2012, as listed in
Table 3 below, which helped to significantly reduce the Agency's annual potable water use. EPA
estimates that projects completed in FY 2012 saved approximately 1.2 million gallons of potable
water per year.
In particular, EPA continued to work on the condensate recovery system at its Main Building in
RTP, North Carolina. This project is expected to reduce water use at the central utility plant (CUP)
that serves the Main Building7 by 6 to 8 million gallons per year once completed. In addition, EPA
completed a study on the use of publicly owned treatment works (POTW)-treated effluent water in
the CUP cooling towers. The Agency is proceeding with the preliminary design and expects to
reduce potable water demand by 12 to 16 million gallons through this project.
EPA does not report CUP water as part of its potable water consumption, and thus cannot claim
credit for the water savings resulting from these projects. Regardless, EPA still pursues these water-
saving projects because of its commitment to the environment and the surrounding community,
which has experienced droughts in recent years. By reducing its water use, EPA will lower the
demand on the public water supply.
Also in FY 2012, EPA conducted a feasibility study at its Testing and Evaluation (T&E) Facility in
Cincinnati, Ohio—a unique research center that studies drinking and waste water in large water
delivery and sewage collection and treatment systems—for eliminating single-pass cooling for
equipment used at the laboratory. EPA also initiated a collaborative effort with researchers at the
facility to identify opportunities for reducing the need for potable water in research. Since FY 2007,
this facility's water use has ranged from 10 to 13.8 million gallons of potable water per year,
averaging 11.8 million gallons annually, which means the T&E facility alone can raise or lower
EPA's water use by up to 3.5 percent annually.
Table 3. Water Conservation Projects Underway or Completed in FY 2012
Facility
Description of Improvements
Estimated Annual
Water Savings
Main Building
in RTP, North
Carolina
Continued work on a condensate recovery system in FY 2012.
EPA is now working on designing, constructing, and
commissioning the condensate water/cooling tower delivery
apparatus and control sequence.
6 to 8 million gallons
Completed a water quality and feasibility analysis regarding the
possible use of POTW-treated effluent water from the
sewage treatment plant in the CUP cooling towers. Preliminary
design of the reclaimed wastewater system and the CUP was
started in December 2012.
12 to 16 million gallons
NERL in
Chelmsford,
Massachusetts
Funded work on a condensate recovery project in July 2012,
initiated project work in late FY 2012, and completed work in
October 2012.
200,000 gallons
MED
Laboratory in
Duluth,
Completed toilet and urinal replacements in June 2012.
309,000 gallons
7 The National Institutes of Environmental Health Science owns and operates the CUP that serves EPA's Main Building
and National Computer Center in RTP, North Carolina.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
24
January 18, 2013
-------
Minnesota
LLRS in Grosse
lie, Michigan
Completed toilet and urinal replacements in May 2012.
158,000 gallons
Revised the facility's water management plan in October 2011
in connection with EPA's efforts to meet the Guiding "Principles.
Region 8
Laboratory in
Golden,
Colorado
Completed an irrigation system optimization project in May
2012 to improve the system's efficiency. This project involved:
replacing and raising sprinkler heads; adjusting the location of
sprinklers and spray arcs; installing a rain sensor on the
irrigation controller; and implementing a new irrigation
schedule. With proper management, the new system will cut
irrigation water use 20 to 30 percent.
730,000 gallons
Region 6
Laboratory in
Houston, Texas
Revised the facility's water management plan in December
2011. In FY 2013, the facility plans to replace toilets with dual-
flush models, install dual-flush retrofit kits on 1.6-gallon-per-
flush (gpf) toilets, and install WaterSense® labeled showerheads
and urinals.
142,000 gallons
ORD
Laboratory in
Ada, Oklahoma
Completed the installation of faucet aerators and WaterSense
labeled showerheads in FY 2012. In FY 2013, EPA has already
initiated projects to replace toilets with dual-flush models,
install dual-flush handle retrofit kits on 1.6 gpf toilets, and
install an air handler condensate recovery system.
1.6 million gallons
EISA Section 423 Implementation—Water Assessments
In FY 2012, EPA completed water assessments at three non-EISA-covered facilities (although these
facilities are not covered under EISA, EPA has already completed water assessments at all EISA-
covered facilities):
• Region 8 Laboratory in Golden, Colorado
• Region 10 Laboratory in Manchester, Washington
• National Exposure Research Laboratory and Radiation and Indoor Environments National
Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada
In FY 2013 and beyond, EPA will continue to evaluate water-saving opportunities by conducting
assessments at non-covered facilities, analyzing projects identified for these facilities for feasibility
and cost effectiveness, and working with its facility managers to implement.
Nonpotable ILA Water
EO 13514 set requirements for reducing ILA water use by 2 percent per year through FY 2020,
compared with an FY 2010 baseline, even if the water used for these purposes is nonpotable, fresh
water. Based on the proposed ILA water guidance issued by CEQ on December 5, 2011, EPA
calculated its FY 2010 interim baseline for Agency nonpotable water use to be 135,191,600 gallons.
When final reporting guidance is issued by CEQ, EPA will confirm or revise its baseline accordingly.
As of FY 2012, six EPA facilities use nonpotable ILA water from sources such as lakes, creeks, and
wells for purposes such as irrigation, agricultural research, and process cooling. These facilities
include:
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
25
January 18, 2013
-------
• MED Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota
• ORD Laboratory in Athens, Georgia
• SESD Laboratory in Athens, Georgia
• Willamette Research Station in Corvallis, Oregon
• Main Building in RTP, North Carolina
• NERL in Chelmsford, Massachusetts
EPA estimates that these facilities used 7,007,631 gallons of nonpotable water for ILA use in FY
2012. This amount is 128,183,969 gallons or 94.8 percent lower than the interim FY 2010 baseline
and 79,065,948 gallons or 87.5 percent lower than FY 2011, and it exceeds the ILA water reduction
requirements set forth in EO 13514. EPA will continue assessing each facility's nonpotable water
use through its EISA water assessments and will continue reducing the Agency's nonpotable water
use where possible. EPA expects to meet the new guidelines for nonpotable water reduction
requirements once they are issued.
Sustainable Building Design and High Performance
Buildings
EPA occupies approximately 11 million square feet of space in more than 300 buildings nationwide.
Such a large quantity of buildings has the potential to impact the Agency's energy, water, and other
resource use, from design to construction to O&M. EPA works to promote energy and resource
efficiency, waste reduction, pollution prevention, indoor air quality, and other environmental factors
both during new construction and in existing buildings owned by the Agency or leased via GSA.
For new major lease acquisitions, EPA works with GSA to acquire high performance sustainable
buildings that exceed the environmental performance of the facilities being replaced. EPA has
developed a variety of strategies to help GSA meet these objectives. More details on these strategies
are available below and in the Agency's SSPP.
Upgrading Existing Agency-Owned Buildings to Meet the Guiding Principles
9.8 Percent of EPA's Projected FY 2015 FRPP Inventory Meets the Guiding \
Principles
EO 13514 requires that 15 percent of an agency's FRPP inventory (by number of buildings) meet
the Guiding Principles by FY 2015. EPA's calendar year 2012 FRPP inventory consists of
approximately 4.4 million square feet of Agency-owned or directly leased space, clustered in 23
locations, and made up of 171 buildings. However, the EO 13514 requirement only applies to
buildings that are projected to be in the 2015 FRPP inventory and are 5,000 square feet or larger.
EPA has 51 buildings (73.1 percent of its FRPP, or approximately 3.2 million GSF) in its projected
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
26
January 18, 2013
-------
2015 FRPP inventory that are subject to this requirement.8 GSA provides EPA with the remaining
6.9 million square feet of laboratory, office, and support space, either in GSA-owned facilities or in
facilities leased via GSA from private owners.
As of the end of FY 2012, five buildings—or 9.8 percent—in EPA's projected FY 2015 FRPP
inventory met the GuidingPrinciples. This progress exceeds the federal agency goal of 9.0 percent set
by OMB and is two-thirds of the way to meeting the FY 2015 requirement. EPA's LLRS in Grosse
lie, Michigan, met the Guiding Principles in FY 2012.
EPA's ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland, is on the cusp of meeting the Guiding Principles, pending
completion of a lighting controls study currently underway at the facility. Once these projects are
complete at ESC in early FY 2013, the number of EPA FRPP buildings meeting the Guiding Principles
will rise to 11.8 percent.
In FY 2012, EPA began the certification process for the AED Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode
Island. The laboratory is currently in the middle of IRP Phase II, which is projected to reduce energy
use at the laboratory by 2.5 billion Btu or 10 percent. All of the Guiding Principles metrics have been
met, except for the energy use reduction requirement and commissioning, which relate primarily to
the completion of IRP Phase II, and ASHRAE 55 and 62 evaluations of certain older sections of the
building.
The Guiding Principles requirement for energy use reduction remains EPA's most challenging and
costly metric to meet, as EPA's FRPP inventory is made up entirely of energy-intensive laboratories.
Acquiring New High Performance Sustainable Green Buildings
EPA uses several tools to acquire new space in existing, newly designed, or newly constructed
buildings that meet its own environmental performance requirements, as well as the requirements of
the Guiding Principles. EPA's Architectural and Engineering Guidelines provide minimum requirements for
the sustainable design and construction of all new Agency-owned facilities. EPA also maintains a
Best Practice (Environmental) Lease Provisions document to collect and apply lessons learned and
innovative environmental practices in buildings procured for EPA by GSA. EPA also uses programs
such as ENERGY STAR, WaterSense, and GreenCheck to ensure its new facilities are sustainable,
energy-efficient, and meet the Guiding Principles.
EPA often utilizes the USGBC's LEED green building certification program as a tool for acquiring
high performance green buildings and ensuring their continued performance. EPA has extensive
experience with the LEED for New Construction, LEED for Core and Shell, and LEED for
Commercial Interiors rating systems. Periodic recertification under the LEED for Existing
Buildings: O&M rating system is also required throughout the term of the building's rental when
leasing from GSA.
Virtually all major new building construction projects initiated by EPA since 1997, whether EPA-
owned, GSA-owned, or GSA-leased, have been certified under the LEED for New Construction
8 This accounts for EPA direct leases that are projected to be removed from the FRPP (i.e., become GSA leases) prior to
2015, as well as four warehouses that are no longer maintained and therefore are coded "N/A" with regards to
sustainability.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
27
January 18, 2013
-------
rating system. As of FY 2012, EPA occupies 10 buildings certified Gold or Silver under the LEED
for New Construction rating system. In addition, seven of EPA's leased office buildings have
achieved LEED Platinum, Gold, or Silver certification under the LEED for Existing Buildings:
O&M rating system.
In FY 2012, the Potomac Yard Two EPA Headquarters Building in Arlington, Virginia, was certified
Platinum; the Southern California Field Office in Los Angeles, California, was certified Gold; and
the Region 6 Office in Dallas, Texas, was certified Silver, all under the LEED for Existing Buildings:
O&M rating system. Also, the Caribbean Environmental Protection Division (CEPD) in Guaynabo,
Puerto Rico, received Gold certification under the LEED for Commercial Interiors rating system in
early FY 2013. This project is the first in Puerto Rico to achieve Gold certification under the LEED
for Commercial Interiors rating system and is currently the highest rated LEED for Commercial
Interiors project in the Commonwealth.
As of FY 2012, approximately 18 percent (by GSF) of EPA's owned or leased buildings are certified
either under EPA's own internal certification system for existing buildings that meet the Guiding
Principles, the LEED for New Construction rating system, or the LEED for Existing Buildings:
O&M rating system.
Looking ahead to FY 2013, EPA expects its new Region 7 Office in Lenexa, Kansas, will receive
Gold certification under the LEED for New Construction rating system.
ENERGY STAR
Since 2003, EPA has required all large, newly leased buildings to have earned the ENERGY STAR
prior to lease award or within 18 months for new construction. EPA now also requires all new leases
for major office buildings to re-certify as an ENERGY STAR building every three years, where
market conditions make it feasible. EPA's goal is for all its large offices, including regional offices
and Headquarters buildings, to earn the ENERGY STAR, current within the last three years.
In 2012, three EPA Headquarters buildings in Washington, D.C., earned the ENERGY STAR:
• EPA East, West, and Connecting Wing
• Franklin Court Building
• 1310 L Street
These buildings join the three EPA Headquarters facilities that earned the ENERGY STAR prior to
2012:
• Ariel Rios EPA Headquarters Building in Washington, D.C. (2011)
• Potomac Yard One EPA Headquarters Building in Arlington, Virginia (2012)
• Potomac Yard Two EPA Headquarters Building in Arlington, Virginia (2011)
In addition, as of FY 2012, all EPA regional offices have earned the ENERGY STAR:
• Region 1 Office in Boston, Massachusetts (2011)
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
28
January 18, 2013
-------
• Region 2 Office in New York, New York (2012)
• Region 3 Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2011)
• Region 4 Office in Atlanta, Georgia (2010)
• Region 5 Office in Chicago, Illinois (2012)
• Region 6 Office in Dallas, Texas (2012)
• Region 7 Office in Lenexa, Kansas (2011)
• Region 8 Office in Denver, Colorado (2008)
• Region 9 Office in San Francisco, California (2012)
• Region 10 Office in Seattle, Washington (2010)
Of these facilities, all but one earned the ENERGY STAR within the last three years.
Carbon-Neutral Facilities
EO 13514 requires that, beginning in 2020, all new federal buildings entering the planning process
be designed to achieve net-zero energy status by 2030. Net-zero energy means the building
produces as much energy as it uses over the course of a year. EPA plans to meet this requirement
for all construction projects it initiates starting in 2020.
As a first step toward achieving net-zero energy facilities, EPA has achieved carbon neutrality for
three of its facilities through significant energy use reductions and/or green power REC purchases:
• ORD Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma
• Region 7 Office in Lenexa, Kansas
• GED Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida
At the ORD Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, EPA installed a ground source heat pump (GSHP)
system and VAV laboratory ventilation systems; this eliminated onsite fossil fuel use and cut energy
use by more than 40 percent. EPA then procured green power RECs to cover the remaining
electricity use. The other facilities are electricity only—no fossil fuels are combusted onsite for
facility heating or cooling—and EPA purchases green power RECs to cover the facilities' electricity
use.
Building Management Plan Guidelines
In its efforts to improve the environmental performance of EPA facilities so that they meet the
Guiding Principles, EPA completed piloting of its own Guiding Principles certification process in FY
2012; the Building Management Plan Guidelines (BMPGs) are a significant part of this process.
The BMPGs are an EPA-developed and comprehensive set of sustainable building management
procedures and policies that represent best practices, minimum requirements, conformance
assurance processes, and performance standards for a number of green building practices.
Over the past two years, EPA tested the BMPGs at three FRPP facilities: ESC in Fort Meade,
Maryland; LLRS in Grosse lie, Michigan; and the AED Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island.
These tests helped the Agency review and improve the BMPGs. EPA solicited feedback on the
implementation process from these facilities and will continue this practice moving forward,
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
29
January 18, 2013
-------
leveraging the "on-the-ground" experience of the facility managers and onsite contractors to
efficiently turn policy into practice. Lessons learned have been and will be incorporated into the
BMPGs as EPA works to certify additional FRPP facilities.
With three facilities having used and customized the BMPGs, EPA believes the BMPGs are an
understandable, educational, and value-added tool that will improve the environmental operating
performance of the Agency's facilities. This approach represents an appropriate and efficient path
toward helping EPA's existing buildings meet the Guiding Principles.
GreenCheck
GreenCheck is a process EPA uses to formally identify environmental performance goals for each
new EPA facility, significant renovation/construction project, and lease of EPA-occupied space, and
ensure compliance with the multiple environmental performance standards for EPA facilities. The
GreenCheck form covers all the facility-specific requirements of EPAct 2005, EO 13423, EISA, the
Guiding Principles, and EO 13514, as well as the Agency's own facilities standards and policies as
reflected in its Best Practice (Environmental) Lease Provisions and updated Architecture and Engineering
Guidelines. EPA updates the GreenCheck checklist periodically to incorporate new requirements and
address lessons learned from reviews.
All projects requiring funding in excess of $85,000, affecting at least 5,000 GSF, or increasing
impervious area by more than 5,000 GSF qualify for a full GreenCheck review. In FY 2012, EPA
staff initially screened and performed mid-project updates on 40 major construction projects and
lease actions through the GreenCheck process.
Other Sustainable Buildings Guidance
EPA is committed to improving the sustainability of all of its facilities, whether owned or leased. To
this end, EPA has developed tools and guidance documents to help improve the performance of the
buildings it owns and leases from GSA. The Agency continued to refine and improve these
resources in FY 2012 as part of its ongoing green building efforts.
In FY 2012, EPA developed the Guiding Principles Targeted Facility Selection Tool9 to streamline the
strategy for selecting facilities to meet the Guiding Principles. The tool incorporates information such
as square footage, energy and water consumption data, date of last commissioning, and completed
onsite projects to help determine facilities to target. EPA moved to this new Microsoft Excel tool to
focus on functionality and produce faster and easier updates.
In addition, EPA revised its Sustainable Building Implementation Plan (SBIP) in October 2011. The
SB IP outlines EPA's plan for implementing federal sustainable building requirements. Although
EPA was not required to submit an updated SBIP in FY 2012, the Agency continued to refine its
SBIP so that the document can serve as an internal reference for the Agency's long-term
sustainability goals. More details on EPA's sustainability strategy are available in the Agency's SSPP.
9 The Guiding Principles Targeted Facility Selection Tool replaces EPA's previous Strategy for Meeting the Guiding
Principles report.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
30
January 18, 2013
-------
Designing for Reduced Fossil Fuel Generation
In accordance with EISA, new federal buildings or federal buildings undergoing major renovation
must be designed to reduce fossil fuel-generated energy consumption by 65 percent by FY 2015 and
meet at least 30 percent of hot water demand with solar hot water heating. While implementation
guidance has not been issued in this area, EPA plans to install GSHPs at the WED Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon, and the new Region 6 Laboratory in Houston, Texas. In addition to offsetting
fossil fuel-generated energy consumption at these facilities, the GSHP projects will provide EPA
with valuable lessons learned (e.g., economics/investments, climate ranges, hybrid versus full GSHP
systems) that the Agency can apply to future GSHP projects at other facilities.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater runoff in urban areas is one of the leading sources of water pollution in the United
States. To mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff, the Agency implements green
infrastructure/low impact development (LID) projects in connection with all new construction and
major renovation projects. EPA also retrofits older facilities in connection with its efforts to
transform its existing buildings into high performance, sustainable buildings, or when other
opportunities present themselves.
In FY 2012, EPA developed a stormwater master plan at LLRS in Grosse lie, Michigan, to identify
potential LID strategies that could be implemented. The result of this study was three different
phases of potential LID stormwater projects for the facility. EPA contracted for and completed
Phase I (i.e., the installation of rain gutters and rain barrels to capture excess stormwater, with first-
flush treatment capability) in FY 2012.
In addition, EPA worked with the facility managers at ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland, and LLRS in
Grosse lie, Michigan, to create facility-specific stormwater management plans that inventory the
sites' stormwater infrastructure and define routine operations and maintenance procedures. These
plans help the facilities understand how their often complex and unseen systems work and ensure
that the onsite stormwater infrastructure is properly maintained, works effectively to decrease the
risk of flooding, prevents stream erosion, protects water quality, and meets the requirements of the
Guiding Principles.
In FY 2012, EPA worked with its Office of Water and GSA to increase the capabilities of the
current cistern system at EPA West, which is part of the Federal Triangle Headquarters Complex in
downtown Washington, D.C. The EPA West building currently houses six 1,000-gallon cisterns,
which satisfy 80 percent of the facility's summertime irrigation requirements. The EPA West garage
cisterns are designed to capture runoff from the approximately 10,000 square feet of roofing at the
Federal Triangle Complex. The original project was completed in summer 2008. Once the controls
are upgraded, the system will be able to pump previously captured rain water into the combined
sewer prior to forecasted storms. This maximizes stormwater storage capacity to handle an
impending storm and decreases stormwater flows and combined sewer overflow during actual storm
events.
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
31
January 18, 2013
-------
In September 2012, in connection with the consolidation of RTF/NHEERL into the Main Building
at RTP, North Carolina, a design/build contract was awarded that requires augmentation of the
existing stormwater management system.
EPA supports stormwater management and green infrastructure/LID projects at all of its facilities,
whether owned or leased. On May 31, 2012, GSA held a dedication and ribbon-cutting ceremony
for the new green roof installation at the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center in Atlanta, Georgia,
where the EPA Region 4 Office is housed and is the principle building tenant. The green roof
installation covers two of the four buildings that comprise the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center.
Approximately 10,000 square feet of the roof surface is covered with a white "cool roof," while the
remaining 50,000 square feet is covered with a waterproof membrane and nearly 200,000 plants in a
variety of species. These features are expected to decrease stormwater runoff by more than 600,000
gallons per year.
The combination of roofing systems provides a variety of additional benefits, such as reduced
heating and cooling costs, less strain on the rooftop HVAC equipment, and reduced Scope 1 and 2
GHG emissions for GSA (Scope 3 GHG emissions for EPA). In addition, 80 percent of the existing
roof material was recycled during construction, including the pavers, waterproofing membrane, and
rigid insulation.
EPA's stormwater management efforts will continue in FY 2013 in accordance with the
requirements set forth in EO 13514, the Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Rjinoff
Requirements for Federal Projects under EISA Section 438, and the Guiding Principles.
Recycling and Pollution Prevention
EPA Achieves a Solid Waste Diversion Rate of 63 Percent in FY 2012
Based on data submitted by EPA facilities, including Headquarters, regional offices, and regional
laboratories, the Agency achieved a 63 percent waste diversion rate in FY 2012. EO 13514 requires
federal agencies to meet a non-hazardous solid waste diversion rate of 50 percent by FY 2015.
Through its recycling, reuse, donation, composting, and other waste reduction efforts, EPA has
already exceeded this goal. As a result, the Agency set a more aggressive waste diversion goal of 55
percent. EPA surpassed this goal in FY 2012 and is on track to continue to exceed it again in the
coming years.
Several EPA facilities significantly contributed to EPA's non-hazardous solid waste diversion rate
increase in FY 2012, including seven facilities that achieved a diversion rate greater than 70 percent:
• AED Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island (91 percent)
• Region 9 Office in San Francisco (86 percent)
• NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan (83 percent)
• Region 8 Office in Denver, Colorado (82 percent)
• Region 9 Laboratory in Richmond, California (77 percent)
• ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland (71 percent)
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
32
January 18, 2013
-------
• Region 7 Office10 and Science and Technology Center in Kansas City, Kansas (71 percent)
EPA anticipates it will continue to increase its solid waste diversion rate in FY 2013 as a result of
theseand other projects.
In addition to its solid waste diversion efforts, EPA also took steps to reduce construction and
demolition waste generated from projects at its facilities. For example, as part of the Vehicle
Compliance Building Additions project at NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan, EPA recycled more
than five tons of steel; used approximately 169 tons of recycled asphalt; poured concrete containing
approximately 65 percent fly ash; and saved approximately 4,200 cubic yards of displaced soil for
future reuse. In addition, EPA saved rather than discarded extra construction materials; saved
shipping containers, pallets, and dunnage for recycling or reuse; and educated the project staff about
the availability of recycling containers for paper, plastic, and cardboard.
On Track for the Future
EPA is continually working to reduce its GHG emissions, energy intensity, water conservation, solid
waste, and other resource use, as well as incorporate sustainable design and operations into all of its
facilities, and to be a model of sustainability for other federal agencies. In FY 2013, the Agency will
continue to build on these efforts by focusing on GHG emissions reduction efforts; pursuing new
energy efficiency projects and completing ongoing ones; and focusing on projects in areas such as
green power, green buildings, advanced metering, water conservation, and waste diversion. EPA will
continue to be a leader among federal agencies in the challenge to promote sustainability and reduce
the environmental impact of its facilities and operations. For additional data on the Agency's FY
2012 environmental performance, see EPA's FEMP Annual GHG and Sustainability Data Report.
10 EPA vacated its Region 7 Office in Kansas City, Kansas, as of October 15, 2012. Therefore, the FY 2013 waste
diversion rates for the Region 7 Office will be reported by the new facility in Lenexa, Kansas.
January 18, 2013
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report
33
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
$
<
10
O
\
&
^ PROt^°
T>
z
LU
CD
Appendix A:
Revision to FY 2008
Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG Baselines
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2012 Annual Report
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
FEMP Energy and GHG Reporting Tool: Results Summary FY 2008
Scope and Category
Total Quantity Emitted
GHG Target Subject
(MT C02e)
Total Quantity Emitted
GHG Target Excluded
(MT C02e)
Total Quantity Emitted
International (MT
C02e)
Total Quantity Emitted
(MT C02e)
Total Quantity Emitted
Biogenic C02 (MT)
Scope 1: Stationary Combustion: EISA 2007 Goal Subject and
Excluded Building Energy Consumption
22,553.7
0.0
0.0
22,553.7
0.0
Scope 1 Mobile Emissions: Vehicles and Eguipment
3,075.4
0.0
0.0
3,075.4
0.0
Scope 1 Mobile Emissions: FAST
3,763.5
1,444.9
0.0
5,208.4
329.5
Scope 1 Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive Fluorinated Gases and
Other Fugitive Emissions
2,025.2
0.0
0.0
2,025.2
Scope 1 Fugitive Emissions: On-site Wastewater Treatment***
0.0
0.0
0.0
Scope 1 Fugitive Emissions: On-site Landfills and Municipal Solid
Waste Facilities***
0.0
0.0
0.0
Scope 1: Industrial Process Emissions By Process
531.4
0.0
0.0
531.4
Subtotal Scope 1
31,949.2
1,444.9
0.0
33,394.2
329.5
Scope 2: Purchased Electricity Consumption
73,402.6
0.0
0.0
73,402.6
0.0
Scope 2: Purchased Renewable Energy Biomass Emissions
0.0
0.0
0.0
Scope 2 Indirect Emissions: Purchased Steam and Hot Water
(Includes Transmission and Distribution Losses)
10,896.1
0.0
0.0
10,896.1
0.0
Scope 2 Indirect Emissions: Purchased Chilled Water (Includes
Transmission and Distribution Losses)
13,362.0
0.0
0.0
13,362.0
0.0
Scope 2: Indirect Emissions: Purchased CHP Electricity, Steam &
Hot Water
12,399.4
0.0
0.0
12,399.4
Subtotal Scope 2
110,060.1
0.0
0.0
110,060.1
0.0
Scope 2: Reductions from Renewable Energy Use
0.0
0.0
Subtotal Scope 1 & 2
142,009.3
1,444.9
0.0
143,454.3
329.5
Scope 3: Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Losses
4,835.1
0.0
0.0
4,835.1
0.0
Scope 3: Biomass Generated with No RECs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Scope 3: Federal Employee Business Air Travel**
17,391.5
17,391.5
Scope 3: Federal Employee Business Ground Travel***
9,345.7
9,345.7
Scope 3: Federal Employee Commuting***
37,550.2
37,550.2
Scope 3: Contracted Wastewater Treatment***
86.0
86.0
55.0
Scope 3: Contracted Municipal Solid Waste Disposal***
1,917.8
1,917.8
606.3
Scope 3: Renewable Energy Generated with No RECs
0.0
0.0
Subtotal Scope 3
71,126.3
0.0
0.0
71,126.3
661.3
Total
213,135.7
1,444.9
0.0
214,580.6
990.8
'Domestic Only
**GHG Target Subject Only
***GHG Target Subject Domestic Only
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
Si
f
K ,
\PR0^
L
Z
LU
CJ
T
Appendix B:
Revision to FY 2003
Energy Intensity Baseline
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2012 Annual Report
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
FY 2003 ENERGY DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - EXISTING ON RECORD
Agency: EPA Prepared by: Evan Snyder
Date: 1/18/2013 Phone: 202-564-0358
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123 REPORTING CATEGORIES
1-1. Standard Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
Standard Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
1-2. Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy-Intensive Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
133,707.1
$7,844.1
456.2
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
525.7
$513.9
72.9
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
354,470.1
$2,604.7
365.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,443.0740
Energy-Intensive Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,717.4
Btu/GSF:
388,190
1-3. Exempt Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
Exempt Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
ENERGY POLICY ACT 2005 REPORTING CATEGORIES
EPACT Goal-Subject Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
133,707.1
$7,844.1
456.2
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
525.7
$513.9
72.9
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
354,470.1
$2,604.7
365.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,443.1
EPACT Goal Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,717.4
Btu/GSF:
388,190
EPACT Excluded Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
EPACT Excluded Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
133,707.1
$7,844.1
456.2
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
525.7
$513.9
72.9
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
354,470.1
$2,604.7
365.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,443.1
All Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,717.4
Btu/GSF:
388,190
-------
FY 2003 ENERGY DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - REVISED BASELINE
Agency: EPA Prepared by: Evan Snyder
Date: 1/18/2013 Phone: 202-564-0358
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123 REPORTING CATEGORIES
1-1. Standard Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
Standard Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
1-2. Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy-Intensive Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
134,800.5
$7,844.1
459.9
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
526.0
$513.9
73.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
369,014.4
$2,604.7
380.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,461.8350
Energy-Intensive Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,718.4
Btu/GSF:
393,130
1-3. Exempt Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
Exempt Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
ENERGY POLICY ACT 2005 REPORTING CATEGORIES
EPACT Goal-Subject Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
134,800.5
$7,844.1
459.9
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
526.0
$513.9
73.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
369,014.4
$2,604.7
380.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,461.8
EPACT Goal Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,718.4
Btu/GSF:
393,130
EPACT Excluded Facilities
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Other
BBtu
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
$0.0
0.0
EPACT Excluded Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
0.0
Btu/GSF:
#DIV/0!
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED
Energy
Consumption
Annual
Annual Cost
Site-Delivered Btu
Type
Units
Consumption
(Thou. $)
(Billion)
Electricity
MWH
134,800.5
$7,844.1
459.9
Fuel Oil
Thou. Gal.
526.0
$513.9
73.0
Natural Gas
Thou. Cubic Ft.
369,014.4
$2,604.7
380.5
LPG/Propane
Thou. Gal.
9.8
$18.3
0.9
Coal
S. Ton
0.0
$0.0
0.0
Purch. Steam
BBtu
13.1
$526.1
13.1
Other
BBtu
534.5
$5,257.8
534.5
Total Costs:
$16,764.8
1,461.8
All Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
3,718.4
Btu/GSF:
393,130
-------
,? Q L
1W*
\PR0^°
Appendix C:
List of Excluded Facilities
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2012 Annual Report
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
Appendix C - List of Excluded Facilities
Table C-l. List of Excluded Facilities
Facility
Explanation
FY 2012 Energy
Consumption
Research A research vessel based out of the MED Laboratory in Duluth,
Vessel, Mid- Minnesota, consumes energy when it is docked; this is known as "cold
Continent iron energy." FEMP's Guidelines for Establishing Criteria for Excluding
Ecology Buildings, dated January 27, 2006, states that "Federal ships that consume
Division 'Cold Iron Energy' (energy used to supply power and heat to ships
(MED) docked in port)," are "assumed to already be excluded from the energy
Laboratory, performance requirements of Section 543" of EPAct 2005. Therefore,
Duluth, EPA is reporting the energy consumed by this vessel in FY 2012 in the
Minnesota Energy Goal Excluded category of the GHG and Sustainability Data
Report accompanying this narrative. The energy consumed by this vessel
was, however, included in the Agency's Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions
calculations per the EO 13514 Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and
Reporting Guidance.
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
Sr-47-,
A
I „
\ PRO^&
Tj
X
LU
CD
T
C?
Appendix D:
EPA's FY 2012 EPAct 2005 Goal
Subject Building Inventory
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2012 Annual Report
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
EPA FY 2012 Annual Energy and Water Report January 18, 2013
-------
Appendix D - EPA's FY 2012 EPAct 2005 Goal Subject Building
Inventory
Table D-l. EPA's FY 2012 EPAct 2005 Goal Subject Building Inventory1
Facility Name
Location
Site Energy
Manager
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma
John Skender
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Steven Dorer
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
Rick Pittman
Science and Ecosystem Support Division Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
Betty Kinney
New England Regional Laboratory
Chelmsford,
Massachusetts
Michael Kenyon/
Robert Maxfield
Chapel Hill Laboratory
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
Greg Eades
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center-
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rich Koch
Test and Evaluation Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rich Koch
Center Hill Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rich Koch
Child Development Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rich Koch
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Warehouse
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rich Koch
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Western Ecology Division
Corvallis, Oregon
Primo Knight
Willamette Research Station
Corvallis, Oregon
Primo Knight
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Duluth, Minnesota
Rod Booth
Region 2 Laboratory
Edison, Newjersey
Joseph Pernice
Response Engineering and Analytical Contract Trailers
Edison, Newjersey
Joseph Pernice /
Butler Building and Office of Research and Development
T railers
Edison, Newjersey
Joseph Pernice/
Carolyn Esposito
Environmental Science Center
Fort Meade, Maryland
Jeffrey Dodd
Region 8 Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
Craig Greenwell
Large Lakes Research Station
Grosse lie, Michigan
Rod Booth
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Clay Peacher
Region 6 Environmental Laboratory
Houston, Texas
Stephen Reese
Kansas City Science and Technology Center
Kansas City, Kansas
J ohn Begley
-------
Facility Name
Location
Site Energy
Manager
National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental
Sciences Division
Las Vegas, Nevada
Robert Andrews
Region 10 Laboratory
Manchester,
Washington
Robert Manos
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
Montgomery, Alabama
Mike Clark/
J onanthan Aplin
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rhode
Island
Russ Ahlgren
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Western Ecology Division
Newport, Oregon
Primo Knight
New Consolidated Facility
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
National Computer Center
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
Page Road Facility
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
Ambient Air Innovative Research Site Facility
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
Burden's Creek/Jenkins Road Facility
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
First Environments Early Learning Center
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Greg Eades
Region 9 Laboratory
Richmond, California
J ennifer Mann
1 EPA is required to report to DOE and OMB the energy use at facilities for which the Agency pays utility bills.
Although EPA occupies other facilities, utility expenses for those facilities are paid by GSA.
------- |