HomeMy WebLinkAboutSNP Machine Shop 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
Saint Paul Machine Shop
1032 Diamond Hill Road
Saint Paul, Alaska
Prepared for:
Ms. Wanda Melovidov
950 Girbash Street
Saint Paul, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Jeremy Spargur CEAIT
July 13, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
Managing Office
2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801
p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813
f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819
www.nortechengr.com
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY
Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915
Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694
Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819
info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description .......................................... 4
2.1.1 Building Use ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ............................................................. 4
2.1.3 Building Description ...................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 10
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 12
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 13
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Building Name ................................ 14
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 15
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 16
4.0 Building Operation and Maintenance (O & M) ..................................................... 17
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 17
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 19
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 25
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 27
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 28
Appendix E Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 29
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 30
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 31
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 32
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 33
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 34
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 35
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 36
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Machine Shop, a 21,990
square foot facility. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the
energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on September 9th, 2011
to obtain information about the lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling and other building energy
uses. The existing usage data and current systems were then used to develop a building
energy consumption model using AkWarm.
Once the model was calibrated, a number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) were
developed from review of the data and observations. EEMs were evaluated and ranked on the
basis of both energy savings and cost using a Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). While these
modeling techniques were successful in verifying that many of the EEMs would save energy,
not all of the identified EEMs were considered cost effective based on the hardware, installation,
and energy costs at the time of this audit.
While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, upgrading
specific systems often requires collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that
are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. The necessity and amount of design effort
and cost will vary depending on the scope of the specific EEMs planned and the sophistication
and capability of the entire design team, including the building owners and operators. During
the budgeting process for any major retrofit identified in this report, the building owner should
add administrative and supplemental design costs to cover the individual needs of their own
organization and the overall retrofit project.
The following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the Machine
Shop. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3. Details of each
individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs that were
evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in in Appendix B.
The costs for heating the building presented in this report represent the estimated cost to heat
the building with boilers using #2 heating fuel even though it is currently heated by waste heat
from the electric plant at no charge. The purpose is to allow determination of useful ways to
reduce heating energy. Therefore, the savings listed in EEMs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 16
below can only be realized if the building is no longer heated with a free source.
PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank
Feature
Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
1
Setback
Thermostat:
Storage
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Storage space.
$1,978 $200 130 0.1
2
Setback
Thermostat:
Garage
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Garage space.
$1,347 $200 90 0.1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
2
PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank
Feature
Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
3
Setback
Thermostat:
Shop
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Shop space.
$953 $200 64 0.2
4 HVAC And DHW
replace pumps- $2000 per
magna pump, $2000 labor per
magna pump, $200 for alpha
pump, $200 labor for alpha
pump
$8,807 $8,400 18 1.0
5
Setback
Thermostat:
Bathrooms
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Bathrooms space.
$184 $200 12 1.1
6
Setback
Thermostat:
Break room
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Break room space.
$172 $200 12 1.2
7 Lighting: Break
room
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor $127 $100 8.1 0.8
8 Lighting: auto
shop
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4)
17W Module StdElectronic $293 $400 4.6 1.4
9 Garage Door:
auto shop
Add R-5 insulating blanket to
garage door $190 $624 4.1 3.3
10 Garage Door:
Garage
Add R-5 insulating blanket to
garage door $2,259 $7,426 4.1 3.3
11 Lighting: office
100
Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Program StdElectronic
$46 $90 3.2 2.0
12
Lighting:
equipment
storage
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$10 $25 2.4 2.6
13 Lighting: auto
shop
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T5
45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen
(3050 L) StdElectronic
$141 $400 2.2 2.8
14 Lighting: Garage
109
Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard
StdElectronic
$2,635 $7,500 2.2 2.8
15
Lighting:
machine shop
111
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $73 $310 1.5 4.3
16
On- or Below-
Grade Floor,
Perimeter: entire
floor
Install 2' of R-10 rigid board
insulation around perimeter of
Slab (vertical or horizontal).
$427 $7,594 1.3 18
17
Lighting:
equipment
storage
Replace with 16 FLUOR (6) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard
StdElectronic
$1,400 $8,000 1.1 5.7
18
Lighting:
Machine shop
108
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor $17 $100 1.1 5.9
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
3
PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank
Feature
Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
19
Lighting:
machine shop
111
Replace with 8 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $225 $1,350 1.0 6.0
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $21,283 $43,319 6.6 2.0
TOTAL, lighting retrofit only $4,967 $18,275 2.1 3.7
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level
II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings of
the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications, and
building use changes that are expected to save energy and money.
The report is organized into sections covering:
description of the facility,
the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking),
estimating energy use through energy use modeling,
evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and
recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings.
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description
2.1.1 Building Use
This metal-framed building is utilized to store and maintain city vehicles. The largest open area
of the building is the vehicle storage area consisting of 10,000 square feet.
The most occupied parts of the building are the 3,150 SF main garage and the 1,100 SF auto
shop where the city workers perform maintenance on the city vehicles. In addition, 7,540 SF
serves as storage space and a single 200 SF room serves as an office for the maintenance
supervisor.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
Approximately four people occupy the building during the day from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday
through Friday with occasional after-hours use.
2.1.3 Building Description
The Machine Shop is primarily a one-story steel-framed metal building with mezzanines above
several rooms, sitting on an un-insulated, on-grade, concrete slab. Man-doors and several
garage doors allow access into the building for vehicles and workers. Only the office has a
window.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Metal-framed, with 8” metal purlins,
spaced 24-inches on center
R-19 fiberglass batt with
plastic facing Minor weather damage
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
5
Heating and Ventilation Systems
A flat plate Heat Exchanger is used to transfer heat from district heat lines to the Machine Shop.
The auto shop and the main shop have in-slab heat.
The office is heated with baseboard fin tubes.
Six unit heaters heat the vehicle storage area.
An inoperable Air Handling Unit (AHU) is designed to heat and ventilate all portions of
the building except the vehicle storage area.
Air Conditioning System
No air conditioning system is installed in the building.
Energy Management
No energy management systems are installed in the building.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
On Grade Floor Un-insulated slab None None
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs Hot roof, framed with
metal purlins. R-22 Fiberglass Batt Minor weather damage
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
9 Garage Doors 2” insulated sectional doors 3 Some of these doors
are leaky
Man Doors Insulated Metal Doors 5 Severe Weather
Corrosion
Office Window Double Pane Vinyl 2 None
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
6
Lighting Systems
There are a variety of lighting types in this facility. The majority of the occupied rooms have
ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T8 lamps (1” diameter, 4’ long, 32 W). The shop areas
are equipped with pendant fixtures containing 1,000 W metal halide lamps. Scattered
throughout the inside and outside of the building are fixtures containing metal halide lamps of
various wattages and ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with old style T12 bulbs (1.5”
diameter, 4’ long, 40W).
Domestic Hot Water
The water in the Machine Shop is provided by a 60 gallon indirect fired water heater.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
7
2.2 Benchmarking
Benchmarking building energy use consists of obtaining and then analyzing two years of energy
bills. The original utility bills are necessary to determine the raw usage and charges as well as
to evaluate the utility’s rate structure. The metered usage of electrical and natural gas
consumption is measured monthly, but heating oil, propane, wood, and other energy sources
are normally billed upon delivery and provide similar information. During benchmarking,
information is compiled in a way that standardizes the units of energy and creates energy use
and billing rate information statistics for the building on a square foot basis. The objectives of
benchmarking are:
to understand patterns of use,
to understand building operational characteristics,
for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and
to offer insight in to potential energy savings.
The results of the benchmarking, including the energy use statistics and comparisons to other
areas, are discussed in the following sections.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
8
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Use Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated from
the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by the
building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use for
the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into British
Thermal Units (BTUs). This total usage is then divided by the number of square feet of the
building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The estimated amount of BTUs per square foot per year as space heating energy is based on a
model created in AkWarm using schedules, heating set points, electrical loads, and building
envelope components.
The benchmark analysis found that the Machine Shop has an estimated EUI of 61,000 BTUs
per square foot per year which includes metered electrical energy usage and modeled space
heating energy usage.
The EUI is useful in comparing this building’s energy use to that of other similar buildings in
Alaska and in the Continental United States. The EUI can be compared to average energy use
in 2003 found in a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of commercial buildings
(abbreviated CBECS, 2006). That report found an overall average energy use of about 90,000
BTUs per square foot per year while studying about 6,000 commercial buildings of all sizes,
types, and uses that were located all over the Continental U.S. (see Table C3 in Appendix I).
In a recent and unpublished state-wide benchmarking study sponsored by the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, schools in Fairbanks averaged 62,000 BTUs per square foot and schools
in Anchorage averaged 123,000 BTUs per square foot annual energy use. The chart below
shows the Machine Shop relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in
Appendix H.
61,000 62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtEstimated Annual Energy Use Index
(Total Energy/ SF)
Machine Shop Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
9
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010
Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost
for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the
cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost
even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating
and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity,
can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts
of the country.
The utility company that provides the waste heat to the machine shop and other city buildings is
owned by the city, and the heat is provided at no charge. In order to create a meaningful CUI
the waste heat cost was equated to local #2 fuel oil price, on the basis of energy content. This
price represents the operational price if the boilers in the building were still running.
The CUI for Weller Modular is about $3.37. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the
following rates:
Electricity at $0.54 / kWh ($15.82 / Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $4.95 / gallon ($3.54 / Therm)
The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS,
2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the
Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average
cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square
foot. The chart below shows the Machine Shop relative to these values. More details are
included in Appendix H.
$3.37
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
Estimated Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Machine Shop Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
10
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns
Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The
graphs below show the electric and district heat consumption of this building over the course of
two years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often
reflects year round lighting consumption. The District Heat Consumption graph is based on
space heating requirements from the AkWarm model and prorated based on Heating Degree
Days.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10KWHElectrical Consumption
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10mmBtuDistrict Heat Consumption
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
11
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring
Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for
the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each
month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and
aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy
accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed
by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then
the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They
display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are
several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
It is recommended that a BTU meter be installed at the Heat Exchanger to be able to monitor
heat use of the building. Regular monthly readings should be made and recorded in order to
track heat use over time. This will establish a baseline energy use and enable the city to
determine if the building heat cost is increasing or decreasing.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
12
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS
After benchmarking of a building is complete and the site visit has identified the specific systems
in the building, a number of different methods are available for quantifying the overall energy
consumption and to model the energy use. These range from relatively simple spreadsheets to
commercially available modeling software capable of handling complex building systems.
NORTECH has used several of these programs and uses the worksheets and software that
best matches the complexity of the building and specific energy use that is being evaluated.
Modeling of an energy efficiency measure (EEM) requires an estimate of the current energy
used by the specific feature, the estimated energy use of the proposed EEM and its installed
cost. EEMs can range from a single simple upgrade, such as light bulb type or type of motor, to
reprogramming of the controls on more complex systems. While the need for a major retrofit
can typically be identified by an energy audit, the specific system upgrades often require
collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the
Level II energy audit.
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. Common EEMs that could apply to almost
every older building include:
Reduce the envelope heat losses through:
o increased building insulation, and
o better windows and doors
Reduce temperature difference between inside and outside using setback thermostats
Upgrade inefficient:
o lights,
o motors,
o refrigeration units, and
o other appliances
Reduce running time of lights/appliances through:
o motion sensors,
o on/off timers,
o light sensors, and
o other automatic/programmable systems
The objective of the following sections is to describe how the overall energy use of the building
was modeled and the potential for energy savings. The specific EEMs that provide these overall
energy savings are detailed in Appendix A of this report. While the energy savings of an EEM is
unlikely to change significantly over time, the cost savings of an EEM is highly dependent on the
current energy price and can vary significantly over time. An EEM that is not currently
recommended based on price may be more attractive at a later date or with higher energy
prices.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
13
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Saint Paul
Machine Shop. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling engine behind the
successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a number of years. In
the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for commercial buildings.
Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as:
• Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors, walls,
ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for each
component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference between the
inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library of temperature
profiles for villages and cities in Alaska.
• Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the
winter but north-facing windows do not.
• Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or
natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air, etc.
Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through
pumping.
• Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a
mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around.
• Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light; ultimately
all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may be useful in the
winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be required to remove the
excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational hours.
• Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some units
are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from inside a
compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the temperature
difference between the inside and outside of the unit.
• Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters,
monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption of the
building, as well as contributing to heat production.
• The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc is a critical component of
how much energy is used.
AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit
usage schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use
on both a yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most
recent 12 months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate
enough to make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
14
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Building Name
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
recommendation based the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the
savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are
better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the
energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended.
Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR.
A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table.
Description Space
Heating
Water
Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical
Clothes
Drying Total
Existing
Building $57,542 $864 $15,627 $530 $923 $13 $75,499
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$42,647 $853 $8,702 $530 $923 $13 $53,668
Savings $14,895 $11 $6,925 $0 $0 $0 $21,831
Space heating energy can be saved by installing the itemized EEMs but no real money can be
saved as long as the waste heat energy is provided free of charge.
Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the
savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved
in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
15
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in lighting and space
heating. The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field
inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly
measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the
projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposed energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
Existing Retrofit
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Clothes Drying
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
16
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm
The AkWarm program effectively models wood-framed and other buildings with standard
heating systems and relatively simple HVAC systems. AkWarm models of more complicated
mechanical systems are sometimes poor due to a number of simplifying assumptions and
limited input of some variables. Furthermore, AKWarm is unable to model complex HVAC
systems such as variable frequency motors, variable air volume (VAV) systems, those with
significant digital or pneumatic controls or significant heat recovery capacity. In addition, some
other building methods and occupancies are outside AkWarm capabilities.
This report section is included in order to identify benefits from modifications to those more
complex systems or changes in occupant behavior that cannot be addressed in AkWarm.
The Machine Shop could be modeled well in AKWarm and did not require additional
calculations.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
17
4.0 Building Operation and Maintenance (O & M)
4.1 Operations and Maintenance
A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind
energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative
maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the
building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the
proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional
benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early
indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of
overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment
well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems act within the design or
usage ranges. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction.
HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time due to incorrect maintenance,
improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or usage, changes in schedules, and
changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning of a building should occur every
five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets the potentially variable use with
the most efficient means.
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
The building could run more efficiently if the following issues were addressed:
The motor in the Air Handling Unit (AHU) has been damaged beyond repair and needs
to be replaced. A properly used AHU will help create a cleaner and more comfortable
work place.
Properly wire and close circulation pump junction boxes. Improperly wired equipment
can be a safety issue.
Repair broken zone valves and replace thermostats. This will help with the comfort of the
building as well as efficiency by allowing the occupants to have better control of the
building.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
18
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
19
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures
A number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) are available to reduce the energy use and
overall operating cost for the facility. The EEMs listed below are those recommended by
AkWarm based on the calculated savings/investment ration (SIR) as described in Appendix E.
AkWarm also provides a breakeven cost, which is the maximum initial cost of the EEM that will
still return a SIR of one or greater.
This section describes each recommended EEM and identifies the potential energy savings and
installation costs. This also details the calculation of breakeven costs, simple payback, and the
SIR for each recommendation. The recommended EEMs are grouped together generally by the
overall end use that will be impacted.
A.1 Temperature Control
Programmable thermostats should be installed and programmed in the storage areas, main
garage, shop, bathrooms, and the break room. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic
temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of
the nighttime temperature set point in these locations will decrease the energy usage.
An excessive amount of heat is being wasted in the main shop area of this building due to
malfunctioning valves and a broken thermostat. Fixing these problems and replacing other
thermostats with programmable thermostats will greatly decrease energy consumption.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 Storage
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Storage space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,978
Breakeven Cost $26,517 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 130 Simple Payback yrs 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
2 Garage
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Garage space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,347
Breakeven Cost $18,064 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 90 Simple Payback yrs 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
20
Rank Building Space Recommendation
3 Shop
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Shop space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $953
Breakeven Cost $12,772 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 64 Simple Payback yrs 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
5 Bathrooms
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Bathrooms space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $184
Breakeven Cost $2,473 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Building Space Recommendation
6 Break room
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Break room space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $173
Breakeven Cost $2,315 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12 Simple Payback yrs 1
A.2 Lighting
The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where
electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer
temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting
to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control
heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant
increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb
bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that
magnetic ballasts tend to make. Manual lighting controls can be replaced with occupancy
sensors in areas where manual switching results in lights remaining on without purpose.
Occupancy sensors have the potential to save 30% or more of the total lighting costs for the
area.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Break room 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor
Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $127
Breakeven Cost $811 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.1 Simple Payback yrs 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
21
The machine shop has over thirty 1,000 W metal halide bulbs contributing to the majority of the
electric bill. Replacing these fixtures with ceiling surface mounted fixtures containing high output
T5 bulbs will reduce this load. Replacing switches in areas that are not occupied for long
periods of time with occupancy sensors will reduce the time that the lights are on. Fixtures that
are already in place that contain T8 bulbs can be replaced with lower wattage fluorescent bulbs
or LEDs in highly occupied areas with low ceilings.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 auto shop 2 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $293
Breakeven Cost $1,833 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 office 100
6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Program StdElectronic
Installation Cost $90 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $46
Breakeven Cost $285 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.2 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 equipment storage FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $10
Breakeven Cost $60 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
13 auto shop 2 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T5
45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen
(3050 L) StdElectronic
Installation Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $141
Breakeven Cost $881 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
14 Garage 109 15 MH 1000 Watt StdElectronic with
Manual Switching
Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $7,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,633
Breakeven Cost $16,476 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback yrs 3
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
22
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
There are no recommended EEM’s in this category. Increasing insulation levels is not
economical at this time.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
15 machine shop 111 2 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W
Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $310 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $72
Breakeven Cost $453 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback yrs 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
17 equipment storage 16 MH 1000 Watt Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 16 FLUOR (6) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $8,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings
(/yr) $1,399
Breakeven Cost $8,753 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
18 Machine shop 108 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor
Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $17
Breakeven Cost $106 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
19 machine shop 111 2 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W
Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 8'
F96T8 54W Energy-Saver
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1350 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $225
Breakeven Cost $1406 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
23
A.3.2 Foundation
Adding insulation to the perimeter of the slab will greatly decrease energy use. In buildings
where slab heat is present, the addition of perimeter insulation is beneficial.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
There are no recommended EEM’s in this category. Increasing insulation levels in the ceiling is
not economical at this time.
A.3.4 Windows
This building has only one window and there is no improvement recommended for it. The cost to
replace this window will is too high to justify the energy savings.
A.3.5 Doors
Insulating the garage doors with an insulated blanket is an inexpensive way to decrease the
energy usage in the Machine Shop. It is recommended that all sectional garage doors be
insulated this way.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
16
On- or Below-Grade
Floor, Perimeter:
entire floor
Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None
Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None
Modeled R-Value: 6.7
Install 2' of R-10 rigid board
insulation around perimeter of
Slab (vertical or horizontal).
Installation Cost $7,594 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $428
Breakeven Cost $9,899 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback yrs 18
Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation
9 Garage Door: auto
shop
Door Type: 2" sectional door, EPS core, no
thermal break
Insulating Blanket: None
Modeled R-Value: 3
Add R-5 insulating blanket to
garage door
Installation Cost $624 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings
(/yr) $190
Breakeven Cost $2,552 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.1 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation
10 Garage Door: Garage
Door Type: 2" sectional door, EPS core,
no thermal break
Insulating Blanket: None
Modeled R-Value: 3
Add R-5 insulating blanket to
garage door
Installation Cost $7,426 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,271
Breakeven Cost $30,357 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4 Simple Payback yrs 3
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
24
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
Changing the existing pumps to variable speed pumps will greatly reduce energy consumption
and cost. The Grundfos pumps save at least 50% of the energy required due to their
construction.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
There are no recommended EEM’s in this category. The building is not equipped with an air
conditioning system.
A.4.3 Ventilation
The ventilation system in this building has not operated in several years. It is recommended that
the faulty components such as the motor be replaced as needed by a qualified technician.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
Repairing the ventilation system, ensuring the weather strips remain undamaged, and keeping
all doors and windows closed will control the number of natural air changes. This is important to
the health of the employees and will increase the efficiency of the building.
Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation
4 replace pumps- $2000 per magna pump, $2000 labor per magna pump, $200 for alpha pump, $200
labor for alpha pump
Installation Cost $8,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings
(/yr) $8,807
Breakeven Cost $148,626 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 18 Simple Payback yrs 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
25
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that
were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not
currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a
small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of
these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer
operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases
in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential
EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would
warrant re-evaluation.
Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures,
hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered
when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing
window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a
window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the
incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient
replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback,
especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units.
THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WERE FOUND NOT TO BE COST-EFFECTIVE
Rank
Feature
Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
20 Lighting: Auto
Shop
Replace with 10 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $246 $1,550 0.99 6.3
21 Above-Grade
Wall: Walls
Install R-10 rigid foam
board to exterior and cover
with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$1,989 $48,003 0.96 24.1
22
Lighting:
equipment
storage
Replace with 4 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $89 $620 0.90 6.9
23 Cathedral
Ceiling: Ceiling
Install R-14 rigid board
insulation. No cost included
for covering insulation.
$2,361 $65,225 0.84 30
24 Lighting: Tire
Mezz
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$11 $100 0.70 8.9
25 Exterior Door:
garage 109
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
$26 $854 0.69 33
26 Lighting: Break
room
Replace with 8 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $112 $1,240 0.57 11
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
26
THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WERE FOUND NOT TO BE COST-EFFECTIVE
Rank
Feature
Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
27 Lighting:
Welding Room
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$9 $100 0.55 11
28 Lighting: parts
room 102
Replace with 4 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $26 $620 0.27 24
29 Lighting: Mens
room
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$4 $100 0.25 25
30 Window/Skylig
ht: office 100
Replace existing window
with triple pane, low-E,
argon window.
$15 $1,335 0.19 91
31
Lighting:
mechanical
room
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$3 $100 0.18 36
32 Exterior Door:
parts room 102
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
$5 $811 0.13 180
33
Exterior Door:
equipment
storage
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
$5 $854 0.13 180
34
Exterior Door:
equipment
storage
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
$6 $1,025 0.13 180
35 Exterior Door:
auto shop
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
$6 $1,025 0.13 180
36 Lighting: Mens
room
Replace with 2 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $3 $310 0.07 89
37
Lighting:
Machine shop
108
Replace with 12 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $15 $1,860 0.05 130
38
Lighting:
mechanical
room
Replace with 2 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $2 $310 0.05 130
39 Lighting:
Welding Room
Replace with 16 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $17 $2,480 0.04 150
40 Lighting:
womens room
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$0 $100 0.03 250
41 Lighting:
womens room
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $0 $155 0.01 440
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
27
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Notes
Heat Exchanger Ameridex n/a n/a
Circ Pump Motor Baldor VM3116 Electric 1 HP
Circ Pump Grundfos UP 15-42 Electric 85 W
Circ Pump Grundfos UP 26-96 F Electric 205 W
Circ Pump Grundfos UP 26-64 F Electric 185 W
Unit Heaters Dunham Bush n/a Electric 1/30 HP
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Garage 109 Metal Halide 1000 W 15 10,413 $ 5,623
Equipment Storage Metal Halide 1000 W 16 5,561 3,003
Exterior Metal Halide 250 W 9 4,039 2,181
Exterior Metal Halide 100 W 3 2,181 1,178
Auto Shop Metal Halide 250 W 2 1,208 652
Auto Shop Fluorescent T8 18 1,078 582
Break Room Fluorescent T8 8 958 517
Offices Fluorescent T12 1 180 97
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
Refrigerator Break Room n/a 1,000 $ 540
Microwave Break Room Panasonic 376 203
Air Compressor Storage 200 Campbell-Hausfeld 305 165
Coffee Maker Break room Bunn 207 112
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
28
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the
local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this
section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit.
Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated
rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates,
rate structures and utility pricing agreements.
City of St. Paul Rate Structure:
The City of St. Paul owns the electric company as well as the buildings that were audited
including the Polar Star, Public Works Building, City Maintenance Building, Fire Station, and
City Hall. The city has a method of internal billing. The building is charged $0.58 per kWh for
all kWh’s below 33,530 which is the amount that the city qualifies for assistance under the
power cost equalization program. After this mark, the electric rate increases.
The waste heat provided to the city buildings by the electric company is free and unmetered.
Utility Charge (kWh charge)
This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period.
It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires,
power poles and transformers.
Regulatory Charge
This charge of .000492 per kWh is set by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Since
November 1, 1992, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has been funded by a Regulatory
Charge to the utilities it regulates rather than through the State general fund. The charge,
labeled "Regulatory Cost Charge." on your bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail
kilowatt-hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
29
Appendix E Analysis Methods
Analysis Methodology
Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy
consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy
efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to
evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual
energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified
Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer.
EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate
conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions.
Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering
estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage
obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the
cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this
audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that
compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a
project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance
and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as
the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost,
which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one.
EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates
individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of
the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be
recommended by AkWarm. Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation
of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re-
evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested
EEMs have been evaluated.
Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated
based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the
implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later.
The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is
implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced
operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than
implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more
efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings.
Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact
the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower
energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only
so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount
of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage
light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule
or operational change at the facility.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
30
Appendix F Audit Limitations
The results of this audit are dependent on the input data provided and can only act as an
approximation. In some instances, several EEMs or installation methods may achieve the
identified potential savings. Actual savings will depend on the EEM selected, the price of
energy, and the final installation and implementation methodology. Competent tradesmen and
professional engineers may be required to design, install, or otherwise implement some of the
recommended EEMs. This document is an energy use audit report and is not intended as a
final design document, operation, and maintenance manual, or to take the place of any
document provided by a manufacturer or installer of any device described in this report.
Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each EEM. Estimated costs
include labor and equipment for the full up-front investment required to implement the EEM.
The listed installation costs within the report are conceptual budgetary estimates and should not
be used as design estimates. The estimated costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry
publications, local contractors and equipment suppliers, and the professional judgment of the
CEA writing the report and based on the conditions at the time of the audit.
Cost and energy savings are approximations and are not guaranteed.
Additional significant energy savings can usually be found with more detailed auditing
techniques that include actual measurements of electrical use, temperatures in the building and
HVAC ductwork, intake and exhaust temperatures, motor runtime and scheduling, and infrared,
air leakage to name just a few. Implementation of these techniques is the difference between a
Level III Energy Audit and the Level II Audit that has been conducted.
Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof."
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
31
Appendix G References
Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains
information and insights considered valuable to most buildings.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities.
(1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK: Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development.
Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC.
ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy
Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in
Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits. Atlanta,
GA: ASHRAE.
Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial
Press, Inc.
Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using CO2
Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf
Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines.
Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management Program:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/
Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Advanced Technology.
International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, IL:
International Code Council, Inc.
Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical Support
Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings. Retrieved 2011,
from National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf
Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010). Handbook of
Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
32
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage
This report provides data on typical energy costs and use on selected building in Fairbanks and
Anchorage, Alaska for comparative purposes only. The values provided by the US Energy
Information Administration CBECS study included a broader range of building types for the
Continental U.S. are not necessarily good comparatives for buildings and conditions in Alaska.
An assortment of values from CBECS may be found in Appendix I.
The Alaska data described in this report came from a benchmarking study NORTECH and other
Technical Services Providers (TSPs) completed on publicly owned buildings in Alaska under
contract with AHFC. This study acquired actual utility data for municipal buildings and schools
in Alaska for the two recent full years. The utility data included costs and quantities including
fuel oil, electricity, propane, wood, steam, and all other energy source usage. This resulted in a
database of approximately 900 buildings. During the course of the benchmarking study, the
comparisons made to the CBECS data appeared to be inappropriate for various reasons.
Therefore, this energy use audit report references the average energy use and energy cost of
Anchorage and Fairbanks buildings as described below.
The Alaska benchmarking data was evaluated in order to find valid comparison data. Buildings
with major energy use information missing were eliminated from the data pool. After detailed
scrutiny of the data, the most complete information was provided to NORTECH by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) and the Anchorage School District
(ASD). The data sets from these two sources included both the actual educational facilities as
well as the district administrative buildings and these are grouped together in this report as
Fairbanks and Anchorage schools. These two sources of information, being the most complete
and reasonable in-state information, have been used to identify an average annual energy
usage for Fairbanks and for Anchorage in order to provide a comparison for other facilities in
Alaska.
Several factors may limit the comparison of a specific facility to these regional indicators. In
Fairbanks, the FNSBSD generally uses number two fuel oil for heating needs and electricity is
provided by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). GVEA produces electricity from a coal
fired generation plant with additional oil generation upon demand. A few of the FNSBSD
buildings in this selection utilize district steam and hot water. The FNSBSD has recently (the
last ten years) invested significantly in envelope and other efficiency upgrades to reduce their
operating costs. Therefore a reader should be aware that this selection of Fairbanks buildings
has energy use at or below average for the entire Alaska benchmarking database.
Heating in Anchorage is through natural gas from the nearby natural gas fields. Electricity is
also provided using natural gas. As the source is nearby and the infrastructure for delivery is in
place, energy costs are relatively low in the area. As a result, the ASD buildings have lower
energy costs, but higher energy use, than the average for the entire benchmarking database.
These special circumstances should be considered when comparing the typical annual energy
use for particular buildings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
33
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),
published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was
expected to compare the annual energy consumption of the building to average national energy
usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison between one specific building and
the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this report uses a
comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An
abbreviated excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below.
Released: Dec 2006
Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007
Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption
Number of
Buildings
(thousand)
Floor
space
(million
square
feet)
Floor space
per Building
(thousand
square feet)
Total
(trillion
BTU)
per
Building
(million
BTU)
per
Square Foot
(thousand
BTU)
per
Worker
(million
BTU)
All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9
Building Floor space (Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6
5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7
10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0
25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8
50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0
100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3
200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3
Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6
Principal Building Activity
Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7
Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2
Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5
Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0
Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7
Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8
Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5
Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1
Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3
Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5
Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7
Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6
Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0
Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3
Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1
Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
34
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units
1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F°
1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts
1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to
melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU
1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU
1 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm
1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa)
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
GPM Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
Hz Hertz
kg Kilogram (1,000 grams)
kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts)
kVA Kilovolt-Amp
kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive
KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts)
KWH Kilowatt Hour
V Volt
W Watt
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
35
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
ACH Air Changes per Hour
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
Air Economizer A duct, damper, and automatic control system that
allows a cooling system to supply outside air to reduce
or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling.
Ambient Temperature Average temperature of the surrounding air
Ballast A device used with an electric discharge lamp to cause
the lamp to start and operate under the proper circuit
conditions of voltage, current, electrode heat, etc.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CUI Cost Utilization Index
CDD Cooling Degree Days
DDC Direct Digital Control
EEM Energy Efficiency Measure
EER Energy Efficient Ratio
EUI Energy Utilization Index
FLUOR Fluorescent
Grade The finished ground level adjoining a building at the
exterior walls
HDD Heating Degree Days
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning
INCAN Incandescent
NPV Net Present Value
R-value Thermal resistance measured in BTU/Hr-SF-̊F (Higher
value means better insulation)
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Savings over the life of the EEM divided by Investment
capital cost. Savings includes the total discounted dollar
savings considered over the life of the improvement.
Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and
materials required to install the measure.
Set Point Target temperature that a control system operates the
heating and cooling system
Simple payback A cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of
an EEM is divided by the first year’s savings of the EEM
to give the number of years required to recover the cost
of the investment.
.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Machine Shop
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-910 Saint Paul\50-914 Machine Shop\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC
Report SNP Machine Shop.Docx
36
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Plans by NORTECH from sketches made on site.
N
Second Floor
First Floor