HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRC-ATK-RSA Meade River School 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive, Investment Grade Energy Audit
of
Meade River School
Project # ASRC-ATK-RSA-02
Prepared for:
North Slope School District
December 29, 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 11
3. Acknowledgements 12
4. Building Description & Function 13
5. Historic Energy Consumption 15
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 16
7. Loan Program 16
Appendix A: Photos 17
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 21
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 28
Appendix D: Building Plan 39
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 42
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 47
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 50
Appendix H: Specifications supporting EEM’s 57
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, 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.
4
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s Retrofit
Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program.
Subject Building:
Meade River School
4001 Kippi St
Atqasuk, AK 99791
Building Owner:
North Slope Borough School District
829 Aikik Street
Barrow, AK 99723
Building contacts:
Mel Wong, Plant Manager
907-633-6315 school
907-633-0102 mobile
mel.wong@nsbsd.org
Kathy Blizard, Principal
907-633-6315
Kathy.blizard@nsbsd.org
The site visit to subject building occurred on October 25th and 26th, 2011.
Atqasuk is a small village of approximately 250 residents. As is typical, the school is
the largest building in the village; it was constructed in stages over a 30 year period.
The North Slope Borough School District (NSBSD) retained Johnson Controls to
perform a Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) controls audit during the
summer of 2011. As a result, a dozen or more components (valves, thermostats,
actuators, etc.) were ordered but had not been installed at the time of the audit;
more detailed results were not available. The HVAC controls might be performing
optimally after the components are installed, but an EEM is recommended to confirm
this (Appendix B, item 11).
The original school was built in 1982. An addition and remodel were incorporated in
1992, the pool, shops and storage added in 1995 and two additional rooms (now
used by the middle and high schools) were added in 2001.
The school has a gymnasium used year round, a natatorium used during and after
school hours, a home sciences room which appears little used, a wood and metal
shop which has been unused for lack of an itinerant teacher, and a moderately
equipped commercial kitchen with walk-in refrigerator and freezers.
Overall the interior of this building is very well maintained, and in above average
condition. The exterior is less well maintained, and in average condition. According
to the plant manager, the school is scheduled for a “facelift” renovation in 2014.
5
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 school heat exchanger. The energy provided by
waste heat is included in the AKWarm model and in the EUI and ECI calculations
below.
Fuel oil benchmark data - annual consumption only – was provided by the NSBSD.
The two annual data points provided were distributed across 12 months by the
auditor to estimate a seasonal curve and reasonable monthly usage. 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 401,400 $ 138,082 378,960 $ 130,362
Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 35,550 $ 222,187 53,215 $ 159,113
Waste Heat ‐
MMBTU 1,369 $ ‐ 1,369 $ ‐
Totals 7,432 MMBTU $ 360,625 9,687 MMBTU $ 289,475
The auditor attributes the 50% increase in fuel oil usage from 2009 to 2010 to either
a decrease in waste heat quality and quantity, or malfunctioning HVAC controls;
both possibilities are discussed in more detail, later in this report. The fuel oil cost
difference between 2009 and 2010 does not reflect the usage difference because
the cost of fuel oil went from $6.26/gallon in 2009 to $2.99/gallon in 2010. This
dramatic difference in fuel oil cost over one year also skews (reduces) the average
ECI in Table 2 below.
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.
6
Table 2
Average of 2009 and 2010
Subject
Building
Wainwright Alak
School
Nuiqsut Trapper School
(before NG, no waste heat)
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 224 209 180
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $8.52 $9.07 $7.86
As observed above, the EUI is 24% and 7% higher than two very comparable
buildings, the Trapper School in Nuiqsut and the Alak School in Wainwright,
respectively. The ECI is slightly “less high” (proportionally) due to the zero cost
associated with 1,369 MMBTU of annual waste heat (18% & 14% of the total
consumption in 2009 and 2010). This is an indicator of three possible situations, or
a combination thereof. The first and largest contributor is suspected to be excessive
energy consumption by the HVAC system due to non-optimized or mal-functioning
controls (discussed in Appendix B, item 11), a second possibility is an
overestimation (calculations are based on a “snapshot” taken during the audit, 2
years of data were not available) of waste heat being provided by the power
generation station, and a third contributor might be poorer quality roof insulation in
this building. This third possibility is discussed under “building shell” in section 4.h.
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 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.
Specific EEMs recommended for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm
Energy Audit Report in Appendix B. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated
installation costs and estimated energy savings. The higher priority items are
summarized below:
Interior Lighting Upgrades: Although much of this building has
been upgraded, there are several areas that have not, and there
are significant energy savings and a higher level of color
rendering (i.e. similar color lamps from fixture to fixture and
room to room) to be obtained. The gymnasium and natatorium
7
have metal halide lamps and fixtures that should be replaced
with high output T5 fixtures controlled by dual technology
occupancy sensors. There is a 10-15% 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 total 30-60% energy
savings. Additionally, 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 less than a 4% reduction in light output,
but a 12% reduction in energy consumption. See Appendix B
for cost estimates, savings and paybacks on the specific lighting
retrofits recommended
Lighting Control Upgrades: 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, the
kitchen, gymnasium, natatorium, and some storage areas. The
second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on
sound. It is recommended to install step-dim occupancy
sensors in the classrooms already wired with a two-switch
system which allows 1/3, 2/3 or ½ of the lights to be turned on
by one switch - depending on how the lights are wired. A step-
dim occupancy sensor turns on the first set of lights
automatically, and allows the occupant to turn on the second set
manually if more light is desired. 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.
Exterior Lighting Upgrades: The exterior high pressure sodium
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. See Appendix B-13,
17 and 22 for specific cost estimates, savings and paybacks.
Setback Thermostats: With a few exceptions, all rooms have
temperature sensors which provide room and zone temperature
data to the HVAC digital control (DDC) system. It is
recommended that the control system be checked to assure that
night temperature setbacks are programmed and are
functioning properly. The Akwarm retrofits in Appendix B reflect
the incorporation of un-occupied setback temperatures of 55
8
deg F in all appropriate rooms. This has an estimated payback
in this building of between 2 months and 1.5 years, depending
on the size of the zone. Un-occupied temperature setbacks are
not recommended for the Natatorium due to condensation
concerns.
Plumbing fixtures: It appears that all showers, toilets and urinals
currently installed are post 1992 fixtures (1.6 or 1.4 gallons/flush
toilets, 1 gpf urinals and 2.6 gpm shower heads). It is
recommended to install touchless controls on all fixtures. Water
usage for toilets and urinals will not be significantly reduced with
touchless controls, but they are more hygienic and reduce
maintenance resulting from abuse of manual fixtures. This audit
does not include water usage and AKWarm does not allow for
the modeling of it, but a typical touchless, low flow faucet retrofit
will result in 30% water savings and will payback in less than 3
years. At the end of life (EOL) of a urinal, low flow urinals
should be installed, which require 1 pint of water per flush.
Payback on the incremental cost difference for this retrofit is
less than 1 year. See Appendix G-1 for additional detail.
Assuming that the water supply line is properly insulated (it is
believed to be in the utilidor), the water supply re-circulation
pump should either be turned off with the summer school
shutdown (since there are no capital costs, payback period is 0),
or retrofitted with a seasonal timer to enable shut down during
the summer months (payback period 8 years). See Appendix
G-3.
Hot Water Generation: It is recommended that the two electric
hot water heaters be replaced with indirect fired hot water
generators. Savings is estimated at $990/yr, payback in 4.6
years including the required piping changes. See Appendix G-
2.
Motor Upgrades: It is recommended to upgrade large (3HP and
above) continuously, or near continuously operating, single
speed motors to premium efficiency models at their end of life
(EOL). Replacing an operating motor with a premium efficiency
model typically results in a payback of 3-10 years, but
replacement at the motor’s EOL, i.e. at “burnout”, typically has a
payback of less than 2 years. See Appendix G-6 and Table 3
for cost, savings and payback figures for specific motors in this
building.
Building Shell: The overhead (OH) doors on the north side of
the school have a very low insulation value and appear to be at
EOL. They should be replaced with a nominal R-14.5 door
(independent testing has shown actual insulation value of
9
nominal R-14.5 door to be R-7). While the full cost to replace
the 2 doors is estimated at $10,000, the incremental cost
(difference between another R-2 door and a nominal R-14.5
door) is estimated at $1500. The annual savings for these
higher efficiency doors are estimated to be $356 with a payback
on the incremental difference in cost of 4.2 years.
The 1982 building plans show 12” of rigid foam roof insulation,
with a value of R-44; the 1995 and 2001 additions show 14” of
rigid insulation, which is approximately R-58. It is recommended
to remove the roofing, add at least 6” of rigid insulation to
achieve better than R-70, and re-install the roofing. Due to the
very high expense, the payback is estimated to be 46 years, see
Appendix B, items 30 and 33 for additional detail. This should
also rectify the sprinkler pipe freezing problem described in
Appendix G-4. It was stated the building is slated for a “facelift”
in 2014, it is suggested that this recommendation be
incorporated during that renovation to save cost.
HVAC System: The HVAC system controls in this building do
not appear to be functioning properly. This conclusion is based
on 3 observations: First, the design heating load per square
foot, with distribution losses, is 73 Btu/sq ft. while it should be
closer to 40-50 Btu/sq ft. Second, the building EUI is 27%
higher than Nuiqsut’s Trapper School, and third, an additional
3900 MMBTU had to be added to the AKwarm model to
reconcile actual fuel oil/waste heat use with modeled use. An
HVAC re-commissioning is recommended. If the boilers are to
be replaced as recommended (they are near EOL), it would be
a natural time to re-commission the entire HVAC system,
otherwise, it should be performed on the old system. Estimated
cost and annual savings are included in Appendix B, item 7.
Annual savings were calculated by running an AKwarm model
with the correct outside air (OSA) and high use period settings,
and then running a second model with settings adjusted to
agree with actual Btu consumption. The difference was $69,622
in annual energy costs – even with “free” waste heat.
Waste Heat system: This building is supplied with heat
generated at the nearby village power generation plant. This is
essentially free energy (after capital and maintenance costs) but
the system is producing poor quality waste heat and is not
working at optimal efficiency – this according to on-site
personnel. It is recommended that an engineer evaluate the
system, make necessary system adjustments, and put a set of
procedures (including validation measurements and BTU
meters at each building) in place to assure optimal performance
of the system over a period of time and through different
seasonal conditions. It is estimated that waste heat currently
10
offsets 1369 MMBTU of energy, which translates to $45,834 of
fuel oil annually – for this building alone (it provides at least 8
other buildings with heat). It is further estimated that an increase
in output of 25% may be attainable if the system were operating
optimally. See Appendix G-8 and Appendix B-11 for additional
detail.
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. Pool cover should be installed after each use.
The 41 recommendations in this report estimate to save $142,920/year, with
an installed cost of $315,462. The combined payback on this investment is
2.2 years. This does not include design or construction management
services,
This savings does not include the estimated $11,500 in annual energy
savings that might be realized from a 25% increase the waste heat system
output if it was working at optimal efficiency.
Some of the costs totaling $315,462 are incremental costs for higher
efficiency replacements, so actual budgetary costs for unit replacements will
be higher.
11
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 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 electrical and gas meter numbers on the subject
building match the meters from which the energy consumption and
cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate 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.
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. Costs 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 Sales, Pioneer Door, and
J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage were consulted for some of the lighting,
12
boiler, overhead door and air handling (respectively) retrofit 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 return on investment (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 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
13
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 25th and
26th, 2011. This building has 33,794 square feet on its first floor, consisting of
classrooms, offices, a gymnasium, natatorium, corridors and common
spaces. The second floor has 4346 square feet, and consists of a mezzanine,
mechanical rooms and storage. In total, building has 38,140 square feet.
The 1982 building is constructed on pilings using 20” and 24” glue lam beams
to support the floor with fiberglass batting (R-60) in the 24” cavities and R-30
in the 20” cavities. Walls are also mixed construction, some are 2x12 stud
construction with R-38 fiberglass batting and others are 2x10 with R-30
batting. Sections of the 1982 roof utilize 12” structural insulated panels and
other sections utilize fiberglass batting, both call for R-44 per plans. The 1995
and 2001 additions are also constructed on pilings; they use 24” glue lam
beams and have an insulation rating of R-78. All walls in the additions are
2.x12 with an R value of 38. The roof on the 1982 building is constructed with
12” structural insulated panels (R-44) supported by 28” steel trusses (scaled
from plans). The additions are also constructed using 12” rigid insulation, but
have an additional 2” structural insulated panel installed on top. (total R-52).
The entire roof is finished with standing seam metal roofing. Plans show the
interior walls are finished with gypsum, exterior walls are finished with
14
plywood sheathing, a layer of gypsum and cedar. All windows are in
excellent condition and appear to be 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 to the school by (2) Parker, 1920
MBH boilers and a 806 sq ft, Graham Corp plate heat exchanger fed
by 4” diameter glycol supply line providing waste heat from the power
generation plant. The boilers are cast iron, 80% efficient, sectional
boilers. The boilers provide heat to rooms through a primary
circulation pump supplying finned tube baseboard heaters and (15)
unit heaters (UH). The UH’s are all running wild (i.e. glycol flow is
controlled only by the circulation pump at the boiler, with no secondary
control at the UH), fan-controlled by local, low voltage zone
thermostats. All rooms except those added in 2001 have temperature
sensors providing signal to the DDC control system which presumably
controls zone valves; the 2 newer rooms have adjustable, low voltage
thermostats which control local zone valves. All HVAC parameters are
managed by a Metasys DDC control system.
b. Ventilation: Ventilation, return air and make up air are provided by a
series of air handlers, return air blowers, and a single, retrofitted heat
recovery ventilator (HRV) located in the utilidor. All units (except the
HRV) are controlled by the Metasys control system. No controllers
were found to be in the “hand” position (ie. manually overridden to be
“on” 24/7/365). According to plans, AHU-5, 6 and 7 were designed
with oversized heating coils to allow up to 100% outside air to ventilate
the natatorium.
c. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains (13) toilets, (1) functional
urinal, (11) lavatory sinks and (13) showers. (8) of the sinks and all of
the toilets and urinal utilize touchless controls. The other 3 lavatory
sinks and all of the showers are manually operated. All fixtures appear
to be post-1992, so consume between 1.4 and 1.6 gpf (toilets) and 1
gpf (urinals) and 2.6 gpm (shower heads). See Appendix G-1 for EEM
recommendations.
d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided to showers and lavatories
by a 175 gallon PVI, indirect fired hot water generator located in the
boiler room. Hot water for the pool equipment room clothes washer is
provided by a local 53 gallon, GE electric water heater. Hot water for
the kitchen is provided by a local 30 gallon, American, electric water
heater as well as the booster which is integral to the industrial
dishwasher.
e. Head Bolt Heaters: There are 2 head bolt heaters attached to this
building, which are suitable for retrofit, and 6 others that are hard-wired
from junction boxes and not retro-fittable. Employee’s generally walk
or are driven to work; the heaters are typically used by the
maintenance crew.
f. Interior Lighting: This building, almost entirely, has been upgraded to
T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The noteworthy exceptions are the
gymnasium and natatorium, a few storage rooms, the boiler room, and
15
vestibules which still have T12 lamps with magnetic ballasts and
incandescent bulbs. The Gymnasium and Natatorium are using 400
watt metal halide lamps, also with magnetic ballasts. All exit signs
except one are self luminous. Completion of a full lighting upgrade is
recommended in the AKwarm report in appendix B.
g. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 70, 100 and 250 watt
High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall packs and pole mounted walkway
lighting. All are supposed to be enabled by the building’s Metasys
DDC control system, and switched via photocell sensors. There is a
malfunction in the control system, and power to the lights is currently
switched manually by maintenance staff at the OL control box shown in
photos in Appendix A. This should be repaired, as inevitably, the
exterior lights will be left on occasionally. Several wall packs are in
need of replacement, see Appendix G-5.
h. Building Shell: The 1982 building shell appears, at least in
comparison to the Trapper and Alak School building plans, to have an
under-insulated roof. This is believed to explain a (small) portion of the
higher EUI when compared to the Trapper and Alak Schools, and the
freezing sprinkler lines described in Appendix G-4; see also Appendix
B-11 for details and recommendations.
i. Wood and Metal shops: It was indicated that neither shop has been
in use for any significant time over the last 2 years, due to a lack of an
itinerant shop teacher. In AKwarm, a usage schedule was created,
called “Weld and Wood shops” with no high or low usage periods. All
equipment and exhaust fans were entered as electrical loads, so that if
the shops are used in the future, the AKwarm model will be accurate
after the user updates the “Weld and Wood shops” usage schedule.
j. Natatorium: The pool has a cover, which was in use during the site
visit. Despite a recently locked out de-humidifying unit (maintenance
crew is sourcing a replacement drive belt), there was no condensation
on the natatorium walls. Pool heat is supplied by a small shell and
tube heat exchanger which utilized a flow indicator, but no temperature
readings. The pool heat load used in the AKwarm model is based on
calculated evaporative losses from the pool and deck, and calculated
re-heat of the dehumidifier return water. Radiation and conductive
heat losses are considered negligible.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes twelve months of data. Because
only two data points (two years) of annual utility benchmark data was
provided, this data was graphed into a reasonable seasonal curves to create
two years of twelve monthly data points, which were then averaged and input
into AKWarm-C.
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 $9.46/SF, the average ECI for similar
16
buildings in Wainwright is $9.07, and in Nuiqsut, $7.86. Reasons for the
higher ECI 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 224 kBTU/SF; the average EUI for
similar buildings in Wainwright and Nuiqsut are 209kBTU/SF and 180
kBTU/SF, respectively. Again, reasons for the higher EUI 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.
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 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.
17
Appendix A
Photos
Natatorium – well maintained and covered; no condensation despite locked out de-
humidifier under repair (as indicated by plant manager). Metal halide lighting in use.
One of the two new classrooms added in 2001; note upgraded lighting.
18
Gymnasium, with metal halide lighting.
Entrance Lobby with simulated skylight utilizing T8 lamps
19
Outside lighting control panel, switch in “Hand” position due to malfunctioning relay
(maintenance staff is aware)
20
Aerial View of Atqasuk and the buildings audited
Waste Heat Public Works
main supply line building
Fire Station feeds all 3 bldgs
NORTH
Power Generation
Plant To Airport
Meade River School
(subject building)
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 12/18/2011 11:25 AM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: Meade River School Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 4001 Kippi st Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Atqasuk Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522
Client Name: Mel Wong
Client Address: 4001 Kippi St
Atqasuk, AK 99791
Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614
Auditor FAX: ( ) ‐
Client Phone: (907) 633‐6315 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 38,140 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 2,509,393
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 2,788,214 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and
25% Safety Margin: 4,250,327 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,
if served.
Typical Occupancy: 95 people Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average)
Actual City: Atqasuk Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐41 deg F
Weather/Fuel City: Atqasuk Heating Degree Days: 20,370 deg F‐days
Utility Information
Electric Utility: North Slope Borough Utilities ‐
Commercial ‐ Lg
Natural Gas Provider: None
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.333/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting Refrige
ration
Other
Elec‐
trical
Cookin
g
Clothes
Drying
Vent‐
ilation
Fans
Service
Fees Total Cost
Existing
Building
$187,902 $0 $26,402 $41,539 $6,283 $63,355 $0 $0 $8,238 $180 $333,898
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$76,241 $0 $24,431 $21,203 $5,692 $57,952 $0 $0 $5,280 $180 $190,979
SAVINGS $111,661 $0 $1,971 $20,336 $591 $5,403 $0 $0 $2,958 $0 $142,920
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 2
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Refrigeration:
Refrigerators (not
in Kitchen)
Add new Seasonal Shutdown; empty and
shut down during summer months. No
cost, use $1.
$149 $1 906.50 0
2 Refrigeration:
Freezers (not in
Kitchen)
Add new Seasonal Shutdown; empty and
shut down during summer months. No
cost, use $1.
$100 $1 604.75 0
3 Setback
Thermostat:
Gymnasium
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
Gymnasium space.
$8,237 $400 308.92 0
4 Refrigeration:
Student Store
Add new Seasonal Shutdown; empty and
shut down during summer months. No
cost, use $1.
$37 $1 227.00 0
5 Setback
Thermostat: Metal
and Wood Shops
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
Metal and Wood Shops space.
$3,337 $400 125.16 0.1
6 Setback
Thermostat:
Classrooms and
Offices (24 rooms)
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
Classrooms and Offices (24 rooms) space.
$16,109 $4,800 50.35 0.3
7 Ventilation RE‐COMMISSION THE HVAC SYSTEM. ///
The heating BTU/square foot are very
high for this school. In order to reconcile
modeled fuel oil/waste heat
consumption with actual consumption,
HVAC schedules had to be modified from
a 7:30‐5:30, 5 day/wk, plus 8:00‐2:00
weekend high usage period, to a 7:30‐
9:30, 7 day/wk high usage period.
Additionally, Natatorium OSA had to be
increased from 50% to 100% and AHU‐1
OSA was increased from 20% to 100%.
These changes only approximate the
auditors best guess at the kinds of HVAC
functions that might be wrong with the
system to result in such a high
BTU/square foot consumption.
Estimated cost for re‐commissioning the
system is $45,000.
$69,622 $45,000 23.03 0.6
8 Lighting:
Incandescent ‐ (5
rooms)
Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $170 $120 8.80 0.7
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 4
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
9 Other Electrical:
Head Bolt Heaters ‐
Duplex
Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Other Controls; retrofit with
microprocessor controlled duplex outlets
that cycle power depending on outside
air temperature.
$357 $300 7.60 0.8
10 Lighting: T8‐4lamp,
(add OS, 3 rooms)
At next re‐lamp, replace existing 32W
lamps with 19 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W
Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$468 $428 6.79 0.9
11
and
Appe
ndix
G‐8
HVAC And DHW Boilers are near end of life (EOL), the
system should be evaluated by a licensed
engineer for two options: 1) replace with
straight across similar units, but with 88%
efficiency (requiring only 1700 MBH each)
or replace one large boiler with two
smaller ones and replace second large
boiler with similar sized unit ‐ all 88%
efficient. Option 2 allows more efficient
modulation in "shoulder" and summer
seasons when less heat is required.
Incremental cost difference between
either option and straight across
replacement is estimated to be $40,000.
Additionally, this retrofit bundles a
$25,000 cost to evaluate and optimize
the waste heat system, which is
estimated to yield an additional 25% or
79,000 BTU/hr if optimized (this savings is
not in the annual savings figure
immediately to the right of this box) An
estimated maintenance savings of $5000
is added since the 30 year old boilers will
be replaced with new units.
$16,514 $65,000 6.05 3.9
12 Lighting: T8‐3lamp
(add OS, 12 rooms)
At next re‐lamp, replace existing 32W
lamps with 157 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$3,021 $4,321 4.36 1.4
13 Lighting: Exterior ‐
Wall packs
Replace with 8 LED 72W Module
StdElectronic
$2,528 $4,000 4.04 1.6
14 Lighting: T8‐single
lamp (no OS)
At next re‐lamp, replace existing 32W
lamps with 69 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W
Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic
$130 $207 3.91 1.6
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 5
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
15 Other Electrical:
Personal
Computers
Replace with 30 Laptops $3,064 $7,500 2.54 2.4
16 Lighting:
Gymnasium
Replace with 25 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2"
F54W/T5 HO Standard HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$5,173 $14,000 2.29 2.7
17 Lighting: Exterior
Lighting ‐ Wall
packs
Replace with 3 LED 34W Module
StdElectronic
$391 $1,200 2.08 3.1
18 Lighting: T8‐4lamp,
magnetic ballast
(add OS, 1 room)
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$111 $334 2.07 3
19 Lighting: Freezer
Incandescent
Replace with 3 LED 10W Module
StdElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Clock Timer or
Other Scheduling Control
$86 $275 1.94 3.2
20 Lighting:
Natatorium
Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2"
F54W/T5 HO Standard HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$2,399 $7,800 1.91 3.3
21 Lighting: T8‐single
lamp (add OS, 3
rooms)
At next re‐lamp, replace existing 32W
lamps with 28 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W
Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$250 $984 1.58 3.9
22 Lighting: Exterior
Lighting ‐ walkway
Replace with 2 LED 25W Module
StdElectronic
$191 $800 1.53 4.2
23 Lighting: T8‐2lamp
(add OS, 32 rooms)
At next re‐lamp, replace existing 32W
lamps with 204 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$2,566 $10,874 1.46 4.2
24 Lighting:
Incandescent ‐ add
OS (mezzanine and
utilidor)
Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W
and Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$80 $345 1.43 4.3
25 Lighting: T12‐
Utube‐Mag ballast
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W
U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic
$64 $300 1.33 4.7
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 6
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
26 Garage Door:
Overhead Doors
Replace existing garage doors with R‐7
(nominally R‐14.5), 2" polyurethane core
replacement door. Full replacement cost
estimated at $10,000, replacement at
EOL estimated to be $1500, which is
incremental cost for an R‐14.5 vs another
R‐2 door.
$356 $1,500 4.2
27 Lighting: T8‐single
lamp, magnetic
ballast (add OS, 3
rooms)
Replace with 9 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W
Energy‐Saver Instant EfficMagnetic and
Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$105 $627 1.04 6
28 Lighting: T12‐one
and two lamp
fixtures (2 rooms)
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$53 $400 0.82 7.6
29
and
Appe
ndix
G‐3
Other Electrical:
Fresh water
recirculation pump
Improve Manual Switching; add seasonal
timer, see Appendix G‐3
$44 $350 0.77 8
30 Cathedral Ceiling:
Ceiling ‐ old
Remove roofing, add 6” rigid insulation
(R‐30), replace roofing.
$2,089 $90,417 0.62 43.3
31 Lighting: T12‐
Utube‐Electronic
ballast
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W
U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic
$23 $300 0.48 12.8
32 Lighting: T9‐Circline Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$23 $300 0.47 13.2
33 Cathedral Ceiling:
Ceiling new
Remove roofing, add 6” rigid insulation
(R‐30), replace roofing.
$693 $40,027 0.47 57.8
Appe
ndix
G‐1
Plumbing Fixtures:
12 WC’s, 11
lavatories, 1 urinal
(1 additional non‐
functional unit), 13
showers
At EOL, replace all manual fixtures with
lower flow fixtures with automatic
on/off valves utilizing proximity sensors
Appe
ndix
G‐2
Electric Hot water
heaters
Replace 2 electric hot water heaters in
Pool mechanical and Kitchen, with
indirect water generators.
$1,355 $5,600 4.1
Appe
ndix
G‐4
Freezing Sprinkler
pipes
See items 30 and 33 above and Appendix
G‐4 for detail
Maintena
nce item
Appe
ndix
G‐5
Building Shell
Maintenance
Repair outside wallpack lighting or
replace with LED wall packs per Items 13
and 17 above
Maintena
nce item
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Meade River School
Page 7
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
Appe
ndix
G‐6
Motors – 3HP and
above
At EOL, replace all motors 3HP and above
with premium efficiency versions. See
Table 3 in Appendix G‐6 for details.
$766 $800 1.1
Appe
ndix
G‐7
(2) Refrigerators –
residential type
At EOL, replace with Energy Star
equivalents units
$144 $150 1.1
Appe
ndix
G‐8
Waste Heat System
Optimization
See item 11 above
Appe
ndix
G‐9
De‐stratification
Fans in Gymnasium
and Natatorium
Install 6 destrat fans in gymnasium and 2
in natatorium
$2,115 $5,600 2.6
TOTAL $142,920 $315,462 6.67 2.2
28
Appendix C – Mechanical Equipment Schedule - equipment not found in plans
THESE SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION OF
ITEMS NOT IN PLAN SCHEDULES
AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL
FAN
CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
AH‐1 Pace A22/15 6000 3/230/3
Located in fan room 202 ‐
multipurpose room
AH‐2 Pace A‐14/8FC 900 .5/230/1 Located in fan room 202
AH‐3 Pace 900 .5/115/1
Located in fan room 202;
administration area
AH‐4 Pace A16/12FC 3250 1/230/3
Located in fan room 202; acedemic
area
AH‐9
LaSalle LH100‐1 (?)
illegible nameplate 6000 3/230/3 Boiler room
RF‐2 Pace U‐12F 1120 .25/115/1 Located in fan room 202; return air
EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL
est
CFM
MOTOR
DATA
HP/VOLTS/
PH REMARKS
TEF‐1 Penn Z7 125 88w/115/1 girls locker room
EF‐1 Greenheck CSP‐158A 330 239w/115/1 pool equipment room P102
EF‐2 Greenheck 3000 2/208/3 weld room exhaust
EF‐3 Kenmore 50 30w/115/1 Home sciences range hood
EF‐4 Kenmore 50 30w/115/1 Home sciences range hood
EF‐5 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 120 office, on timer
EF‐6 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 Janitor
EF‐7 Unknown 1000 .5/115/1 202 storage
EF‐8 Unknown 2500 15A/120/1
Kitchen stove/oven hood on timer
with 30 min warm down delay
EF‐9 Unknown 1000 .5/115/1
201 storage, provides makeup air to
fan room
EF‐10 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 lav, on switch
EF‐13 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 room 114B on switch
EF‐14 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 lav, on switch
EF‐15 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 121 office, on switch
EF‐16 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 119 office, on switch
EF‐17 Unknown 85 60W/115/1 staff lav, on switch
29
PUMP SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GPM
MOTOR
DATA
HP/VOLTS/
PH REMARKS
CP‐1 B & G/Baldor 200 3/208/3 Main glycol circ ‐ off during audit
CP‐2 Marathon 200 3/200/3 Main glycol circ ‐ on during audit
CP‐3 B&G 20 1/12/115/1 Domestic Hot water circ
CP‐4 AO Smith 70 1.5/115/1 Pool Filter Circ pump
CP‐5 Marathon 30 .5/115/1 fuel oil transfer pump
CP‐6 Marathon 30 .5/115/1 fuel oil transfer pump
CP‐7 unknown 30 .5/115/1 sewage tank transfer pump
CP‐8 unknown 10 1/12/115/1 fresh water recirculation pump
UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL
est.
CFM
MOTOR
DATA
HP/VOLTS/
PH REMARKS
UH‐5
Trane UHSA 038 S8 AAAC
Hydronic 815 .1/115/1
no tag; running wild; located in tank
room, adjacent to Boiler room
UH‐6
Trane UHSA 038 S8 AAAC
Hydronic 815 .1/115/1
no tag; running wild; located in tank
room, adjacent to Boiler room
UH‐7
Trane UHSA 038 S8 AAAC
Hydronic 815 .1/115/1
no tag; running wild; located in Boiler
room
UH‐8
Trane UHSA 038 S8 AAAC
Hydronic 815 .1/115/1 running wild; located in storage 201
UH‐9
Trane UHSA 038 S8 AAAC
Hydronic 815 .1/115/1
no tag; running wild; located in
utilidor
UH‐10 Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1535 .1/115/1
no tag; nameplate not accessible;
located in wood shop
UH‐11 Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1535 .1/115/1
no tag; nameplate not accessible;
located in wood shop
UH‐12 Trane UHSA 60S Hydronic 1535 .1/115/1
no tag; nameplate not accessible;
located in metal shop
30
PLUMBING FIXTURES
SYMBOL FIXTURE GPF Quantity REMARKS
W.C. 1.6 13 proximity sensor on each
Lavatory ‐ 8 proximity sensor automatic on/off
Lavatory ‐ 3 manually operated
Urinal 1.5 1 proximity sensor
Showers
est
2.5 13 manually operated
Clothes Washer ‐ 2
residential type, (1) top loading, (1)
stacked
CFM, wattage and GPM are estimated if not available from nameplate data.
31
Appendix C – 1982 Lighting Schedule
32
Appendix C – 1982 Shop Equipment Schedules
33
Appendix C – 1982 Boiler Schedule (still current)
34
Appendix C – 1995 Addition - Lighting Schedule
35
Appendix C – 1995 Addition - Mechanical Schedule
36 Appendix C – 1995 Addition - Mechanical Schedule – (cont.)
37 Appendix C – 2001 Addition - Mechanical & Lighting Schedules
38 Appendix C 1982 Kitchen Equipment Schedule and updates (lined out items not found or incorrect) KITCHEN EQUIPMENT MISSING OR DIFFERENT FROM PLAN SCHEDULE ABOVE Item MFGR/MODEL POWER HP/Volts/PhaseASSUMED USAGE REMARKS Disposal Pro 333 .5/115/1 1 hr/day Dishwasher Hobart AM15VL 24.9A/208/3 1 hr/day Hot water booster 8.5Kw/208/3 1 hr/day integral part of dishwasher Microwave Amana 1000W/115/1 1 hr/day Food warming cabinet Metro C5 3 Series 2000W/120/1 6 hr/day Drink cooler Beverage‐air SM34N 4.5A/115/1 refrigeration Range ‐ cook Garland S686RC 15.55Kw/208/3 2.5 hr/day Range ‐ frytop Garland S686RC‐36 15.55Kw/208/3 1 hr/day Mixer Globe SP30 1HP/115/1 .5 hr/day
39 Appendix D 1982 Building Floor Plan
40 Appendix D 1995 Floor Plan 2001 Addition to Floor Plan
41 Appendix D Post 2001 (current) Floor Plan Mezzanine Second Floor
42 Appendix E 1982 First Floor Lighting Plan
43 Appendix E 1982 Second Floor Lighting Plan
44 Appendix E 1995 Addition Lighting Plan
45 Appendix E 1995 Addition – Corridor Lighting Plan
46 Appendix E 2001 Addition Lighting Plan
47 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic 1995 Pool Addition – Heating and Ventilation Plan
48 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics 2001 Addition - Heating Plan
49 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic 2001 Addition - Ventilation Plan
50
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Plumbing fixtures: All toilets, urinals and faucets should be retrofitted or be
replaced with energy efficient models. Faucet fixtures should have proximity sensing
on/off controls. This audit does not include water usage and AKWarm does not allow
for the modeling of it, but a typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and
will payback in under 3 years. Low flow urinals can save up to 66% of water used, and
typically pay back within 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.
G-2: Replace (2) Electric Hot Water Heaters with indirect Hot Water Generators:
41 Gallon indirect water generators cost approximately $1800 each, installed, and
there will be some plumbing of glycol piping to the hot water generator (in both cases,
glycol piping is already in the room) estimated at $1000 for each room, resulting in a
total cost of $5600. Together, the 2 electric hot water heaters use a total of
approximately 30 MMBTU of energy annually. Electricity costs $63.16/MMBTU, fuel oil
costs $33.48/MMBTU. Waste heat provides approximately 45% of the buildings
energy for heating, further reducing the effective cost of fuel oil blended with waste
heat to approximately $18/MMBTU. Based on the difference in cost between electricity
and blended fuel oil/waste heat ($63.16-$18=$45.16), the annual savings by converting
to indirect hot water generators is $1355. The payback for this EEM is 4.1 years.
51
G-3: 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. See also, Appendix B, item 29.
52
G-4: Insulation/design issue: due to either the shallow (1/2:12) roof pitch, improper
construction or poor design, there appears to be insufficient insulation to prevent
sprinkler lines from freezing in the two east classrooms (below); several attempts have
been made to rectify the problem but without complete success, so ceiling tiles are
removed each winter to allow room heat into sprinkler plumbing cavity. This adds
heating load, as well as maintenance labor and creates an unsightly situation in the
classrooms. Appendix B, items 30 and 33 detail EEM recommendations to add roof
insulation to reduce heat loss; these EEM’s should also resolve this pipe freezing
problem.
East facing (upwind)
wall/roof interface
where
freezing sprinkler
lines occur
53
G-5: Building Shell maintenance:
Several exterior lights are in need or maintenance; the plant manager is aware of, and
addressing this.
54
G-6:Motor replacements: Generally, the payback on replacing an operating 3 HP to
10 HP motor with a premium efficiency motor of the same size is 2-6 years, depending
on the annual usage. But the payback on replacing a burnt-out motor with a premium
efficiency motor is generally less than 1-2 years. It is recommended to replace all
AHU/ASU, RA and RF fan motors greater than 3 HP with premium efficiency motors as
they reach their EOL (burnout). Table 3 below shows specific examples of selected
motors in this building, their existing efficiencies (or an estimate thereof, if nameplate
data was not accessible) and paybacks for replacement with a premium efficiency
version at burn-out or, alternatively, while the current motor is still functional (ie
“replacement payback”).
Table 3
Motor
use HP/Volts/Ph/RPM
Assumed
operating
hours per
year
Existing
name‐
plate
efficiency
Premium
efficiency
Est‐
imated
annual
savings
Incre‐
mental
cost for
premiu
m motor
Burn‐
out
Payback
(yrs)
Replace‐
ment cost
of
premium
motor
Replace‐
ment
Payback (yrs)
Main
glycol
circu‐
lation
pump
CP‐1 3/208/3/1730
backup
to CP‐2 82.5% 87.5% $197 $200 1.0 $1,000 5.1
Main
glycol
circu‐
lation
pump
CP‐2 3/200/3/1730 8760 78.5% 87.5% $373 $200 0.5 $1,000 2.7
AHU‐1 3/460/3 4360
assumed
82.5% 87.5% $98 $200 2.0 $1,000 10.2
AHU‐9 3/460/3 4360
assumed
82.5% 87.5% $98 $200 2.0 $1,000 10.2
Assume 66% load factor in all cases
G-7: Refrigerator replacement: Replace (2) full size residential type refrigerators at
EOL, with Energy Star versions. Incremental cost difference is $75 or less (each),
average energy savings is $72/year (each), payback is less than 1.1 years.
G-8: 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
55
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 below and Appendix H) 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 will payback in less than 2 years.
BTU Meter Installation Schematic
56
G-9: De-Stratification Fans in Gymnasium and Natatorium: De-strat fans typically
save from 12%-23% in high-ceiling space-heating costs, depending on the temperature
difference at the ceiling and at floor level, and the ceiling height. For a 5 degree F
temperature difference between the floor and 26 foot ceiling (most high ceiling spaces
have a larger temperature difference), a 15% savings in energy cost for that space
should be realized. It is recommended that fans be installed in the gymnasium and
natatorium. Estimated cost for (6) fans in the gym and (2) in the natatorium is $5600. In
this audit the heating costs for the high bay areas are not available apart from the
overall building costs, but these two areas make up 18% of the total area of these
buildings. So a reasonable estimation of annual savings, based on proportional square
footage is 15% of 18% of the total of $78,356 (after retrofits) space heating energy
costs, this equals $2115/yr. Payback is 2.6 years.
57
Appendix H - Duplex Head Bolt Heater Controls