Significant energy and carbon originate in the existing built environment and retrofit is therefore a key carbon reduction strategy. However heritage buildings -comprising around 20% of UK buildings-are challenging to retrofit appropriately due to their historical values and traditional construction. Retrofit carbon savings are dependent on current energy use which is strongly influenced by residents' behaviours, and retrofit decisions for domestic heritage are generally the responsibility of homeowners. Therefore both residents' views and behaviours are important for effective retrofit strategies. However behaviours are rarely considered in standard energy models and residents' views are often overlooked in heritage retrofit policy. This paper analyses a survey of the views, values and behaviours of 147 residents of pre-1940 buildings. The majority are found to strongly value their homes' heritage and mainly view exterior building alterations negatively. However residents' heritage values and acceptable retrofits, frequently differ from those of experts and policy makers. Residents report actively engaging in several positive energy behaviours and many have already undertaken common carbon saving measures. These findings imply that, for effective carbon reduction from heritage buildings, policy and legislation needs to extend beyond current definitions of 'heritage' and acknowledge residents' complex values, motivations and energy behaviours.

What are the opportunities and challenges for upscaling the energy retrofit of heritage buildings? Heritage buildings comprise approximately 20% of the UK building stock and are challenging to retrofit sensitively because of their heritage values and traditional construction. These buildings may therefore be unconducive to standard retrofitting approaches. Twelve case studies in the UK are examined. Three key findings are presented together with their implications for upscaling retrofit. First, heritage residents are found to engage in positive energy behaviours, which differ from standard assumptions and have a significant impact on energy demand. Second, standard energy models are shown to considerably overestimate the energy use within heritage buildings, failing to accurately portray both traditional construction and residents' behaviours. Third, residents consider many common retrofits, such as replacement windows and wall insulation, to be unacceptable to their heritage values. A number of more acceptable and less invasive 'soft retrofits' were modelled and shown to have significant potential for reducing energy and carbon. Therefore, a more holistic approach to heritage building retrofitting needs to be taken, treating the complex interrelationship of buildings and their users as a system, and expanding notions of retrofitting to include soft retrofits and user behaviour. POLICY RELEVANCEThis research identified the importance of appropriately retrofitting heritage buildings, which include around 20% of the UK building stock. Standard solutions such as wall insulation and window replacement are unlikely to be enacted by most heritage residents because they are not acceptable to their heritage values, suggesting the need to prioritise other measures. Standard energy models such as Reduced data Standard Assessment Procedure (RdSAP) were found to be inaccurate for heritage buildings, overestimating energy use by both buildings and occupants, and should not be used to inform retrofit decisions for these buildings. Notions of retrofit should be expanded beyond fabric FREYA WISE ALICE MONCASTER

High Level Waste System Plan Revision 9 rates have greatly exceeded expectations. The production rate has averaged about 250 canisters per year since the 41h quarter of FY97. At the time of this System Plan, DWPF had poured 140 canisters vs. a pro-rated goal of 108 (based on pouring at a rate of 200 cans per year). Facility modifications are in progress to support processing of Sludge Batch #1 B sludge, which is expected to begin in July 1998. Glass Waste Storage Building (GWSB): At the time of this System Plan, 308 glass canisters are stored in GWSB #l. This represents approximately 14% of GWSB#l available 2,159 canister capacity. Activities are underway to repair the shield plugs for approximately 450 (presently unused) canister storage locations. Saltstone: Saltstone will process approximately 300,000 gallons of Tank 50 waste in FY98. In FY99, Saltstone will be placed in partial lay-up mode, pending resumption of salt processing. Key Saltstone personnel will be cross-trained to perform tasks at other SRS facilities while Saltstone is in lay-up. Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF): The available waste in Tank 50 (approximately 300,000 gallons) will be fed to Saltstone and processed in FY98. This will create sufficient space in Tank 50 to store approximately 4-5 years' worth of ETF evaporator concentrate, pending resumption of salt processing. Consolidated Incinerator Facility (CIF): CIF began radioactive operations in April 1998 and is currently processing backlogged non-PUREX legacy wastes in support of a Site Treatment Plan commitment to treat 50% of the non-PUREX legacy mixed wastes by 4Q FY98. 1.0 This Plan describes the strategy for the integrated startup and operation of the HLW System based on allocation of available and projected resources in support of processing 250 canisters per year. The text of the System Plan and Appendices C-G support the 250 canister case. In addition, this System Plan includes pertinent production planning data in Appendix J in support of a reduced production rate of 200 canisters per year. This System Plan is developed in conjunction with the budget planning process. This revision supports the FYOO Outyear Budget and will be used as a basis for the next update of the "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure" document. HLW-OVP-98-0037 High Level Waste System Plan Revision 9 4.0 Key HLW facilities and supporting projects are grouped by function in the "Accelerating C1eanup:Paths to Closure" and FYOO Outyear Budget documents as shown below. The Effluent Treatment Facility and the Consotidated Incineration Facility are included because of the supporting roles they play for the HLW System. Hiah Level Waste Svstem Scope 0 HLW-OVP-98-0037 High Level Waste System Plan Revision 9 Receipt and burning of offsite wastes will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and requests will be filed with SCDHEC as required by Consent Order 95-22-HW. Offsite quantities are expected to be small, and thus their incorporation should have negligible impact on the treatment schedule for SRS mixed waste. 6.0 P...

Approximately 20% of UK buildings can be defined as ‘heritage buildings’, offering unique values that should be preserved. They tend to use more energy than newer buildings, creating a strong case for energy retrofits to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve thermal comfort. However, few studies of heritage retrofits examine embodied impacts, which are the energy and carbon impacts required to manufacture, transport and construct materials and components. This study considers the whole life (embodied plus operational) impacts of retrofitting heritage buildings, through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis. It concludes that; both embodied and operational impacts should be considered in retrofitting projects, retrofitting is better than demolish and rebuild in lifecycle terms, there is a lack of policy mandating for the measurement of lifecycle impacts and low impact retrofitting can be better for conserving heritage values and reducing embodied carbon.

Reducing energy and associated carbon emissions from the built environment is fundamental to meeting our climate goals. Retrofit of existing buildings is therefore a key strategy. Heritage buildings present particular challenges for retrofitting because of their traditional construction and need to retain historic values. Replacing windows is often a critical element of a low energy retrofit, but for heritage buildings this can be problematic.This paper explores the values that residents invest in their windows, and the opportunities and challenges for retrofitting heritage fenestration. Qualitative data from 16 case studies of heritage buildings in the county of Cumbria, UK, is examined to gain a greater understanding of residents’ views, which are often neglected in policy approaches. Findings show that residents, in both designated and undesignated heritage buildings, value their original windows and appreciate the thermal benefits of traditional features such as shutters or curtains. Residents generally considered complete window replacement unacceptable but were more positive about options such as secondary glazing or internal shutters. Challenges, including costs and finding skilled tradespeople to produce shutters or undertake restoration were identified. The paper concludes with the implications of these findings for retrofitting heritage fenestration for carbon reduction.