HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRC-ATK-RSA Fire Station 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive, Investment Grade Energy Audit
of the
Atqasuk Fire Station
Project # ASRC-ATK-RSA-01
Prepared for:
North Slope Borough
December 31, 2011
Prepared by:
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6
Anchorage, AK 99501
and
Energy Audits of Alaska
P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 98522
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Performed by: __________________________
James Fowler, PE, CEA
CEA #1705
Reviewed by: __________________________
Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM
CEA #178, CEM #13557
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Audit and Analysis Background 10
3. Acknowledgements 11
4. Building Description & Function 12
5. Historic Energy Consumption 13
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 14
7. Loan Program 14
Appendix A: Photos 15
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 20
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 25
Appendix D: Building Floor Plan 27
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 28
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 29
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 32
Appendix H: Specifications supporting EEM’s 35
3
REPORT DISCLAIMERS
The information contained in this report, including any attachments, is intended
solely for use by the building owner and the AHFC. No others are authorized to
disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or part, without written
authorization from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6,
Anchorage, AK 99501. Additionally, this report contains recommendations that,
in the opinion of the auditor, will cause the owner to realize energy savings over
time. All recommendations must be designed by a registered engineer, licensed
in the State of Alaska, in the appropriate discipline. Lighting recommendations
should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the
recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statue as well
as IES recommendations.
Payback periods may vary from those forecast due to the uncertainty of the final
installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of
recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules
and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically
interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from
another EEM. Neither the auditor, Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), or any other party involved in preparation
of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the
forecasted payback periods.
This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the
Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of
the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the
AHFC.
IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the
Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information
system.
AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by
AHFC.
4
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s Retrofit
Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program.
Subject Building:
Fire Station
5006 Shugluk St
Atqasuk, AK 99791
Building Owner:
North Slope Borough
P.O Box 69
Barrow, AK 99723
Building contacts:
David Ivanoff, Fire Chief
907-633-6814 office
david.ivanoff@north-slope.org
The site visit to subject building occurred on October 27th, 2011.
Atqasuk is a small village of approximately 250 residents. The subject building
houses the fire department and is nearly identical to the Fire Station in Wainwright,
Nuiqsut and several other villages.
The building was constructed in 1982. There was a HVAC renovation in 1995 and a
floor replacement in 2009. At some unknown date, the windows and overhead
doors were replaced with upgraded units.
The building houses the fire chief’s office, a day room used for breaks and training, a
small amount of storage and warehouse space and vehicle, or apparatus bay.
The interior of this building is very well maintained and in above-average condition,
exterior is in average condition.
Energy Consumption, waste heat and benchmark data
In addition to fuel oil and electricity, this building utilizes waste heat produced by the
village power generators. The auditor toured the power plant and had discussions
with the mayor (who is also the village handyman and most knowledgeable about
the waste heat system) and the power generation station lead operator. The energy
contributed to this building by waste heat has been calculated based on flow rates
and temperature differentials observed and calculated at the generation station and
temperature differentials at the building heat exchanger. The energy provided by
waste heat is included in the AkWarm-C model and in the EUI and ECI calculations
below.
Fuel oil benchmark data was provided by the NSB. Fuel oil consumption was based
on oil delivery receipts obtained from NSB records for the period July 2010 through
June 2011. These delivery receipts are inconsistent and typically poorly
5
documented and it is often unclear which building is receiving the oil delivery. The
auditor met with the oil delivery truck driver and reviewed the receipts in an attempt
to obtain the most accurate fuel oil consumption data. Despite these efforts, and
because the starting and ending fuel levels (in the 5000 gallon tank) are unknown,
there is still some question as to the accuracy of the fuel oil consumption data used
in the AkWarm-C software model, and in Table 1 below. The fuel delivery’s were
normalized into a seasonal distribution curve to obtain reasonable monthly usage
figures, which were then used in the AkWarm-C model. Electrical benchmark data
was provided by Nortech Engineering, and contains two years of monthly data
points.
Summarized values for electrical, fuel oil and waste heat consumption are shown in
Table 1 below:
Table 1
2009 2010
Consumption Cost Consumption Cost
Electricity ‐ kWh 58,959 $ 18,708 58,521 $ 18,181
Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 2,905 $ 11,911 2,905 $ 11,911
Waste Heat ‐ MMBTU 250 $ ‐ 250 $ ‐
Totals $ 30,619 $ 30,092
Total of 2 years of fuel oil deliveries were summed then averaged between 2009 and 2010.
Waste heat calculations assume same amount of energy is delivered each year.
A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings in the
area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the
facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in
terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it
is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy
Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of
building area. The comparative values for the subject building are shown in Table 2
below.
Table 2
Subject
Building
Atqasuk
USDW
building
Barrow Fire
Station #1
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 181 150 207
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $6.64 $5.29 $1.92
As observed in Table 2 above, the EUI is 20% higher than the USDW building 3
blocks away. The ECI is correspondingly high. The ECI is substantially higher than
a similar building in Barrow; this is mostly due to the fact that fuel oil in Atqasuk
costs ten times as much (per BTU) as natural gas in Barrow. This difference would
be higher were it not for the waste heat used by the Fire Station.
6
Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to
determine if they would be applicable for energy savings with reasonably good
payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a
reasonably good payback period, 2.) for code compliance, 3.) end of life (EOL)
replacement, or 4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management strategy,
operations, maintenance and/or safety. For example, in Appendix B, several lighting
upgrade recommendations are ranked quite low (i.e. long payback periods), but the
entire facility should be upgraded, re-lamped and re-ballasted to maintain consistent
lighting and standard lighting parts inventory, regardless of the payback. Individual
rooms that are infrequently used may not show a very good payback for a lighting
upgrade, but consistency and ease of maintenance dictate a total upgrade.
All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C
Energy Audit Report in Appendix B. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated
installation costs and estimated energy savings.
The four summary EEM’s that follow are a distillation of the highest priority
recommendations from three perspectives: overall efficiency of building
management, reduction in energy consumption and return on investment (ROI).
Efficient building management dictates, for example, that all lights be upgraded, that
lamp inventory variations be minimized, that all appropriate rooms have similar
occupancy controls and setback thermometers, etc. These EEM’s are grouped by
type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single upgrade,
all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a single upgrade,
etc.) and are prioritized with the highest ROI (shortest payback) listed first. Table 3
at the end of this section summarizes these EEM’s.
A.) AIR INFILTRATION
In fire stations, it is typical that the overhead doors have remote closing
capability (e.g. from the fire truck cab). It is not known whether this
capability still exists in the subject building (it was shown on original
building plans). If this door closing capability is no longer in service, it
should be repaired or replaced. A single overhead door left open for 1
hour can result in up to 5 air changes in the vehicle bay, which
translates to $30 in fuel oil heating costs per hour, per open door
(calculation based on 90F inside to outside temperature difference,
2560 sq foot bay x 20’ high). It is recommended to add automatic door
closers that include integral personnel safety sensors, set to close the
(2) overhead doors 1-3 minutes after opening. Appendix H contains a
product specification for industrial grade personnel/vehicle/motion
sensing safety device for automatic overhead door closers. The
annual savings below is based on 2 open doors for 3 hours/month and
a 50% reduction in air infiltration using the automatic door closers.
Air Infiltration EEM:
Estimated cost $ 2,400
Annual Savings $ 2,231
Payback 1.1 years
7
B.) SETBACK THERMOSTATS
With a few exceptions, all rooms in this building have thermostats
which control room and/or zone temperatures. It is recommended that
setback thermostats be installed and programmed to reduce room
temperatures to 55F during unoccupied periods. This EEM combines
the AkWarm-C retrofits detailed in Appendix B, items 1 & 5. They
reflect the incorporation of unoccupied setback temperatures of 55 deg
F in all appropriate rooms.
Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s:
Estimated cost $1,600
Annual Savings $1,459
Payback 1.1 years
C.) WASTE HEAT
This building is supplied with heat generated at the nearby village
power generation plant. During this audit, the waste heat system was
not in use, and the boilers were in use. Waste heat is essentially free
energy (excluding capital and maintenance costs) but the system, in
addition to being turned off, is producing poor quality waste heat and is
not working at optimal efficiency – this according to on-site personnel
and the auditor’s observations. It is recommended that the system be
turned on in this building, and an engineer evaluate the system, make
necessary system adjustments, put a set of operating procedures in
place. It is also recommended to install BTU meters at the generation
plant and at each building to monitor and assure optimal performance
of the system over a period of time and through different seasonal
conditions. It is estimated that the current waste heat system, when in
use provides 250 MMBTU of energy each year, which translates to an
offset of $7,427 of fuel oil annually, for this building alone (it provides 8
other buildings with heat). It is further estimated that an increase in
output of 25% ($1857 in additional savings) should easily be attainable
if the system were operating optimally. See Appendix G-4 for
additional detail.
Waste Heat EEM (not included in AkWarm-C model & Appendix B):
Estimated total cost for the engineering work is $25,000, but this
amount has also been used twice – once in the USDW building audit
and again in the Meade River School audit. Assuming the waste heat
system-wide activity is completed and paid for through one of the other
audits, the dedicated amount to install BTU meters in this building is
estimated at $3000.
Estimated cost $3000
Annual savings $1857
8
Payback 1.6 years
This does not included the lost savings from not using the existing system in
this building.
D.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS
Interior Lighting - This building has a mix of lighting, which adds to
maintenance and inventory costs as well as inefficient energy use. It
appears that fixtures may have been upgraded from magnetic to
electronic ballasts, and from T12 to T8 lamps as the original fixtures
and lamps burned out. Consequently, there are still potential savings,
from both energy consumption and maintenance standpoints. It is
recommended that the vehicle bay lighting be retrofitted from Metal
Halide to high bay, high output T5 florescent fixtures controlled by dual
technology occupancy sensors. There is a negligible energy savings
resulting directly from the fixture/lamp change, but T5 fixtures, because
they have no warm-up time, allow the use of occupancy sensors,
which can result in a 30-60% energy savings.
Additionally, in the interest of occupant comfort and energy and
building management efficiency, at the next building re-lamp all the T8-
32 watt lamps should be replaced with T8-28 watt, energy saver lamps
which result in a 4% reduction in light output (typically not noticeable),
but a 12% reduction in energy consumption.
Exterior Lighting - The exterior high pressure sodium (HPS) lights
operate during periods of darkness, which is about half of the year. It is
estimated that the use of LED exterior lights can reduce the power
consumption by 60%-80% and extend bulb replacement frequency to
5-10 years, yielding an even better payback by reducing maintenance
costs. The two large wall packs over the overhead doors appear to be
Metal Halide. Even though their usage is low, for maintenance and
building management reasons it is recommended to change these to
LED’s also.
Lighting Controls: Occupant controls sense the presence of occupants,
turn the lights on at a pre-determined level, and then turn the lights off
after a programmed time period of no occupancy. It is recommended to
install motion sensing occupancy sensors in the existing duplex
switch boxes for all offices, corridors and stairwells, and to install
ceiling mounted, dual technology sensors where obstacles may
interfere with line-of-sight sensors, such as in lavatories, corridors,
vehicle bays, and storage areas. The second technology in these
sensors activates lighting based on sound. Occupancy sensors can
reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy
sensors range from 1 to 3 years, depending on the light fixture
consumption and occupancy of the room.
9
This EEM combines Appendix B, items 4 & 6-12. See these items for
detailed cost estimates, savings and paybacks on the specific lighting
retrofits recommended
Combined Lighting and Lighting Control EEM’s:
Estimated cost $15,215
Annual Savings $ 4,977
Payback 3 years
Table 3
Combined total of priority, high‐ROI,
strategically recommended EEM’s listed above:
Estimated total cost $ 22,215
Annual Savings $ 10,524
Simple payback 2.1 years
Does not include design or construction management expenses.
In addition to EEMs, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) are
recommended since they are policies or procedures that are followed by
management and employees that require no capital outlay. Examples of
recommended ECMs for this facility include:
1. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an
occupancy sensor.
2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly
maintained and adjusted to close and function properly.
3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office.
4. Close overhead doors immediately after entering or exiting the vehicle
bay.
The total of all 15 recommendations in this report estimate to save $11,517/year,
with an installed cost of $23,165. The combined payback on this investment is 2
years. This does not include design or construction management services,
Some of the costs totaling $23,165 are incremental costs for higher efficiency
replacements, so actual budgetary costs for unit replacements will be higher. See
individual EEM’s for further detail.
10
2. Audit and Analysis Background
Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and
evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of
this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, other electrical
systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
Measures were based on their payback period, life cycle replacement or for
reasons pertaining to optimizing building management, building maintenance,
operations and/or safety.
a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was
gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility
consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules,
where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate
the actual building condition, including:
i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc)
ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
iii. Lighting systems and controls
iv. Building specific equipment
v. Plumbing Systems
b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided
through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated,
confirming that meter numbers on the subject building match the meters
from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the
data is inaccurate or missing, new benchmark data is obtained. In the
event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data
is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. Waste heat, if it is
in use, is calculated and/or estimated based on available data.
c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and
during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling
software program developed specifically for Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) to identify forecasted energy consumption which can
then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has
some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with
projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates,
building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and
climatic data uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the
building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is
calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information.
Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs
for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment
required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction
management costs are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level
of audit, and are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost
Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors
and/or equipment suppliers. Brown Electric, Haakensen Electric, Proctor
11
Sales, Pioneer Door, and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted
for some of the lighting, boiler, overhead door and air handling
(respectively) retrofit and/or replacement costs. Maintenance savings are
calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for
each EEM.
The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and
ROI is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of
years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net
Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM
recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference
between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency
equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback
calculation. The SIR found in the AkWarm-C report is the Savings to
Investment Ratio, defined as the breakeven cost divided by the initial
installed cost.
A simple life-time calculation is shown for each EEM. The life-time for
each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being
replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the
life-time of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total
life-time multiplied by the yearly savings.
d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input
data provided, and may only act as an approximation. In some instances,
several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not
intended as a final design document. A design professional, licensed to
practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the
recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the
results. Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects
in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but
these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work.
3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who
have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including:
a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the
grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction
for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list
of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical
Service Provider (TSP).
b. The North Slope Borough School District (Owner): The NSBSD
provided building sizing information, two years fuel oil usage data, building
schedules and functions, as well as building age.
c. Nortech Engineering (Benchmark TSP): Nortech Engineering
Company compiled the electrical data received from the North Slope
12
Borough (NSB) and entered that data into the statewide building
database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS).
d. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP who was
awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Bering
Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm gathered all relevant
benchmark information provided to them by Nortech Engineering,
cataloged which buildings would have the greatest potential payback, and
with the building owner, prioritized buildings to be audited based on
numerous factors, including the Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost
Index (ECI), the age of the building, the size of the building, the location of
the building, the function of the building, and the availability of plans for
the building. They also trained and assigned their selected sub-
contractors to the selected buildings, and performed quality control
reviews of the resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs
that each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the
individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S.
Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure current
knowledge of existing conditions.
e. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected
to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical
engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and
has also received additional training from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and
potential EEM applications.
4. Building Description and Function:
The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on October 27th, 2011. This
building has 4608 square feet on one floor, consisting of offices, day room, bunk
room, mechanical rooms and a vehicle or “apparatus” bay.
The building was constructed in 1982 on pilings using what appear (in the plans) to
be 24” glue lam floor support beams. The original floor was surfaced with 4x6
tongue and groove decking. It was replaced in 2009 with fabricated metal and
concrete. 8” structural insulation sub-floor panels are used (R-35), with sprayed-in
foam to fill gaps. Walls are pre-fabbed 6” structural insulated panels with metal
siding and finished with gypsum inside. The roof is constructed of 8” pre-fabbed
structural insulated panels, also finished on the with exterior metal roofing and
gypsum on the interior. All windows, except one (see Appendix A photos) are in
excellent condition, vinyl, triple-pane, and appear to have been upgraded from their
original 1982 installation.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating System: Heat is supplied by (2) Weil McLain 295 MBH, oil
fired, 87% efficient, cast iron sectional boilers. Heat is provided by
hydronic baseboard fin tube heaters in perimeter rooms and interior
offices, all valve and fan controlled by zone thermostats. Heat is
13
provided to storage spaces and vehicle bays via hydronic unit
heaters which are fan controlled by low voltage zone thermostats.
b. Ventilation: Ventilation is provided to the offices through the a
Logicaire air handler. Air handler heat is provided by hydronic coils
valve-controlled by a zone thermostat. There are vehicle exhaust
fans in the equipment bay, as well as a make-up air unit and a large
supply fan in adjacent rooms (presumably interlocked to the
exhaust fans). The toilet room and shower room have exhaust fans
shown on plans to exhaust 170 CFM each.
c. Appliances: A commercial clothes washer and residential type
clothes dryer are located in the utility room. The set looks to be 10-
15 years old, in average condition, and appears to be heavily used
for both personal clothing and fire station related laundry. A ½ size
refrigerator, microwave and 2-burner electric range are located in
the day/break room, they support the itinerant housing in the
building.
d. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains one toilet, one lavatory
sink, one kitchen sink, one utility sink in the vehicle bay and two
showers. All fixtures are manually operated and appear to be post-
1992. The toilet consumes 1.4 gpf and the shower head’s at least
2.6 gpm. See Appendix G-1 for EEM recommendations.
e. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided to shower, lavatories
and clothes washers by a 41 gallon, Amtrol indirect fired hot water
generator located in the boiler room. The rheostat temperature
control is “pegged” to maximum, which is estimated to be 165F or
greater.
f. Head Bolt Heaters: There are 4 head bolt heaters on the south
side of the building, all of which are suitable for retrofit. They are
typically used by employees during working hours and for a second
emergency medical vehicle.
g. Interior Lighting & Controls: This building has an inconsistent mix
of interior lighting which includes magnetic and electronic ballasts,
T12 and T8 lamps, metal halide fixtures, compact florescent and
incandescent bulbs. All exit signs are either unlit or self luminous.
Completion of a full lighting upgrade is recommended in the
AkWarm-C report in appendix B.
h. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 250 watt HPS wall
packs controlled by photo-sensors and two, seldom used 400 watt
metal halide wall packs on a manual switch.
i. Building Shell: The building shell appears to be in good condition,
although by today’s standards, it is under-insulated. The high cost
and relatively low ROI on adding insulation, precludes any
recommendations to increase the insulation value of the shell at
this time.
j. Living Quarters: Itinerant living quarters (the “bunk room”) are
used regularly.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data. Two
14
year’s worth of somewhat random fuel oil delivery receipts were used to identify fuel
oil consumption, this data was summed, split in half and graphed into a reasonable
seasonal-use curve to create twelve months of data points, which were then input
into AKWarm-C. Waste heat consumption was based upon calculated glycol flow
rates exiting the village power generations station, piping capacity and friction loss
calculations and an assumed temperature difference in and out of the hot side of the
Fire Station heat exchanger (the waste heat system was not in use during this audit).
Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI)
and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The energy cost index takes the average cost of
gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (typically two years) and
averages the cost, divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this
building is $6.64/SF, the ECI for the USDW building 3 blocks away is $5.29. The
ECI for a similar fire station in Barrow is $1.92. Reasons for the ECI differences are
discussed earlier in this report.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total average electrical and heating energy
consumption per year expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The average of the 2009
and 2010 EUI for this building is 181 kBTU/SF; the average EUI for the USDW
building down the street is 150 kBTU/SF, while the EUI for a similar use building in
Barrow is 207 kBTU/SF. Again, reasons for the EUI differences are discussed
earlier in this report.
6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings
assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented. If some EEMs are not
implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases
positively, and in others, negatively. For example, if the fan motors are not replaced
with premium efficiency motors, then the savings for the project to install variable
speed drives (VFDs) on the fans will be increased.
In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings
associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. For
example, the night setback EEM was analyzed using the fan and heating load profile
that will be achieved after installation of the VFD project is completed. By modeling
the recommended projects sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects
between the EEMs and does not “double count” savings.
Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within
the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the overall
cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency improvements will
reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting
efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly.
Heating penalties are included in the lighting project analysis that is performed by
AkWarm-C.
7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy
Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by
the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy
Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy
15
efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan
System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy
efficiency improvements to buildings owned by:
a. Regional educational attendance areas;
b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal
governments;
c. The University of Alaska;
d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or
e. The State of Alaska
Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are
not eligible for loans under this program.
16
Appendix A
Photos
Apparatus bay. Note the metal halide lighting and excellent condition of the interior
Waste heat entry into the building and utilidor heat trace control panel on east side
of building.
17
“Bunk Room”, itinerant quarters.
Waste heat exchanger – not in use during audit.
18
Broken window on east side of building should be repaired.
Training, or day room. Note small kitchenette at far end.
19
Aerial View of Atqasuk and the buildings audited
Waste Heat Public Works
main supply line building
Fire Station feeds all 3 bldgs
(subject building)
NORTH
Power Generation
Plant To Airport
Meade River School
20
21
22
23
24
Appendix C – Mechanical Schedule - Equipment not in Plans
SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION ‐ WHERE
ACCESSIBLE
AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
AHU‐1 Logicaire 14CF‐800A 775 .5/208/3 located in southeast storage closet
MAU‐1 Logicaire MCF‐3650A 3700 2/230/1 located maintenance room
PUMP SCHEDULE
SYMBOL
(no tags) MFGR/MODEL est. GPM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
CP‐1 Grundfos UPC50‐160 45 980W/230/1 Boiler room, Glycol circ pump
CP‐2 Grundfos UPC50‐160 45 980W/230/1 Boiler room, Glycol circ pump
CP‐3 Grundfos UP26‐64 5 185W/115/1 Glycol circ to DHW generator
CP‐4 Grundfos UP15‐42 3 85W/115/1 DHW circulation
CP‐5 Grundfos UPS32‐80 15 280W/115/1 Glycol circ to Waste heat exchanger
BOILER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
B‐1 Weil McLain AB‐WGO‐9 .14/115/1
Oil fired, 295 MBH gross IBR, 255MBH
net IBR, 87% efficient, cast iron
sectional
B‐2 Weil McLain AB‐WGO‐9 .14/115/1
Oil fired, 295 MBH gross IBR, 255MBH
net IBR, 87% efficient, cast iron
sectional
UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL
est.
CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
UH ‐ no
tag Trane UHSA 42S Hydronic 668 .05/115/1 in maintenance room
UH ‐ no
tag Trane UHSA 42S Hydronic 668 .05/115/1 in storage room 11
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1800 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ large VUH
25
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1800 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ large VUH
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ small VUH
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ small VUH
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ small VUH
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 vehicle bay ‐ small VUH
UH‐9 Berko Electric 2024 800 300w/240/1 vehicle bay ‐ 20Kw heating coil
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 Boiler room ‐ small VUH
VUH ‐
no tag Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1200 .17/115/1 Storage room 12 ‐ small VUH
CUH‐1 Trane E46A002 220 .05/115/1 Vestibule ‐ east
CUH‐2 Trane E46A002 220 .05/115/1 Vestibule ‐ west
HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL
GALLO
NS
NUMBER
OF
ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE
HW‐2 Amtrol WH7PDW 41 Indirect water generator
PLUMBING FIXTURES
SYMBOL
(no tags) FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS
P‐1 W.C. 1.4 1 manually operated
P‐2 Lavatory ‐ 1 manually operated
P‐3 Kitchen sink ‐ 1 manually operated
P‐4 Showers 2.6 2 manually operated
P‐5
Commercial Clothes
Washer 1 Heavy duty, 2+ hr cycle
From Plans:
26
Appendix C – Lighting Schedule
27
Appendix D
Building Floor Plan
28
Appendix E
Lighting Plan
29
Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic
1982 Heating and Ventilation Plan
30
Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics
1982 Mechanical Schematic
31 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics 1995 Mechanical Schematic
32
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Plumbing fixtures: Faucets and fixtures should be retrofitted or be replaced with
energy efficient models. Faucet and toilet fixtures should have proximity sensing
on/off controls. This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow
for the modeling of it, but a typical faucet retrofit with proximity sensing controls will
result in 30% water savings and will payback in less than 3 years. These payback
periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture is replaced at its EOL rather than
while it’s still functioning. Then the cost used is the incremental difference in cost
between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a straight across replacement with the same
fixture.
33
G-2: Water supply re-circulation seasonal shut down: Most water supply re-
circulation pumps run 24/7/365. Assuming the water supply lines are in an adequately
insulated utilidor, shutting the pump down during the summer months will save 20%
energy, or approximately $44/year. It may also be retrofitted with a 365 day timer such
as the one shown below, to turn the pump off during the summer months, resulting in a
8 year payback.
34
G-3: Waste Heat System Optimization (for cost and payback see Appendix B,
item 11): The village power generation facility generates heat for the space heating of 9
buildings. The current quality of the waste heat is poor, resulting in problems in the buildings,
most notably, a reduction in boiler efficiency (and operating life) by forcing them to be run at
lower than optimal temperatures - otherwise they would be adding heat to the circulating glycol,
which is then circulated back and exhausted through the power plant radiators. During 2009-
2010, the glycol discharge temperature from the power plant ranged from 157F to 185F. Good
quality waste heat typically ranges from 195F-200F, which provides a 15F to 20F temperature
differential from a 180F boiler; and boilers running at 180F are more efficient and have a longer
life than cooler running systems.
Additionally, it was indicated by on-site personnel, that there are problems with Generator #3
cooling/heat exchange system such that a significant portion of generator heat is being shunted
to the outside radiators; so the generator is running cool, and little waste heat is utilized from
that generator.
It is recommended that an engineer be retained to evaluate the system and implement the
corrections required to utilize as much of the waste heat as possible. Typical
recommendations might include adjusting/replacing the generator thermostats to maintain
operating temperatures of 195F, reset engine pre-alarms to 210F, and generator shut down at
221F. Increase waste heat output temperature to 190-195F, and adjust the flow rate so the
return is 20F less, if possible; Replace relief valves in each building if they are too low, so that
proper line pressure and flow rates can be maintained. Install and monitor BTU meters (see
schematic below and Appendix H for product specification) at each building and at the power
plant, so system integrity (leaks will become evident through changing heat supply) and
efficiency can be monitored and maintained.
Theoretically, if the radiators at the power plant are in use at all, then waste heat is being
wasted, while it could be used to heat buildings.
It is estimated that the cost of an engineering evaluation and making the necessary
adjustments is $25,000. If this cost is spread across the 9 buildings, the payback in less than 6
months.
BTU Meter Installation Schematic
35
Appendix H - Duplex Head Bolt Heater Controls
36
Appendix H – Motion and presence-sensing overhead door safety controls