HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRC-ATK-RSA USDW Building 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive, Investment Grade Energy Audit
of
USDW Building (aka Public Works or DMS Building)
Project # ASRC-ATK-RSA-03
Prepared for:
North Slope Borough
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 15
7. Loan Program 16
Appendix A: Photos 17
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 21
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 27
Appendix D: Building Floor Plan 30
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 32
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 34
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 37
Appendix H: Specifications supporting EEM’s 41
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:
USDW Shops, also called Public Works Building and DMS Building
801 Tikigluk St
Atqasuk, AK 99791
Building Owner:
North Slope Borough
P.O Box 69
Barrow, AK 99723
Building contacts:
Richard Bordeaux, Village Supervisor
907-633-6321 office
907-633-1512 mobile
richard.bordeaux@north-slope.org
The site visit to subject building occurred on October 26th, 2011.
Atqasuk is a small village of approximately 250 residents. The subject building
houses the utilities, public works and street maintenance departments, and is nearly
identical to the Public works buildings in Nuiqsut and several other villages.
The building was constructed in 1988. There appear to have been no significant
modifications, other than a remodel of the upstairs into itinerant residences (at some
date after the original plans were drawn up) and a window upgrade. The itinerant
residences have been unused for several years.
The building has several offices, a break room, significant storage and warehouse
space and vehicle warm storage for the water and sewage trucks, as well as a light
duty shop for public works vehicles and a second light duty shop and storage used
by the North Slope Borough (NSB) School District.
Overall the interior and exterior of this building are in average condition, considering
its age.
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
5
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
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, 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 somewhat random 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 137,280 $ 43,782 131,600 $ 40,421
Fuel Oil ‐ gallons not available 11,212 $ 51,805
Waste Heat ‐ MMBtu not available 683 ‐
Totals ‐ $ 92,226
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
Nuiqsut USDW
Bldg
Meade River
School ‐ Atqasuk
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 150 159 224
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $5.29 $2.31 $9.46
6
As observed in Table 2 above, the EUI – as it should be - is very similar to the same
building in Nuiqsut. It is 33% lower than the school, 3 blocks away, in Atqasuk. The
auditor feels that this is indicative of inefficiencies in the school, rather than unusual
efficiencies in the USDW building. The ECI is substantially higher than the same
building in Nuiqsut – this is a result of the very low cost of natural gas in Nuiqsut
versus the high cost of fuel oil in Atqasuk; this difference would be higher were it not
for the waste heat used by the USDW building. The very high ECI of the school
again reflects the higher than expected energy consumption at the school, as
compared to the USDW building. Both the USDW building and the school use waste
heat.
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 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 mixed use, vehicle maintenance and storage facilities such as the
subject building, it is typical that the overhead doors are opened and
left open for long periods of time, even during the winter months. One
overhead door was observed to be left open for the entire 6 hours this
audit occurred. A single overhead door left open for 1 hour can result
in up to 5 air changes in the vehicle bay, which translates to $54 in fuel
7
oil heating costs per hour, per open door (calculation based on 90F
inside to outside temperature difference, 3250 sq foot bay x 24’ high).
It is recommended to add automatic door closers with integral
personnel safety sensors, set to close the (7) overhead 1-3 minutes
after opening. This increased frequency of door opening and closings
will increase energy usage by the door openers, this offset is included
in the summary below. See Appendix B, item 3 and item 26. Item 26
reflects the higher energy use by the door openers (hence it’s negative
savings value). Appendix H contains a product specification for
industrial grade personnel/vehicle/motion sensing safety devices for
automatic overhead door closers.
Combined air Infiltration EEM’s (including additional energy used by
higher frequency of door opening/closings):
Estimated cost $ 4,200
Annual Savings $12,280
Payback 4 months
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, 2, 7, & 8.
They reflect the incorporation of unoccupied setback temperatures of
55 deg F in all appropriate rooms.
Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s:
Estimated cost $3,600
Annual Savings $7,457
Payback 6 months
C.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS
Interior Lighting - This building has inconsistent lighting, which adds to
maintenance and inventory costs as well as occupant discomfort. It
appears that fixtures have been upgraded from magnetic to electronic
ballasts, and from T12 to T8 lamps as the original fixtures and lamps
burned out. Consequently, there is a large potential savings, from both
energy consumption and maintenance standpoints. It is recommended
that the vehicle bay lighting be retrofitted from High Pressure Sodium
(HPS) to high bay, high output T5 florescent fixtures controlled by dual
8
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 energy and building management
efficiency and occupant comfort, 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.
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.
This EEM combines Appendix B, items 5, 6, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and
22-25. 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 $49,204
Annual Savings $11,174
Payback 4.4 years
C.) WASTE HEAT AND HVAC SYSTEM
Waste Heat system: This building is supplied with heat generated at
the nearby village power generation plant. This is essentially free
energy (excluding capital and maintenance costs) but the system is
producing poor quality waste heat and is not working at optimal
9
efficiency – this according to on-site personnel and the auditor’s
observations. It is recommended that an engineer evaluate the system,
make necessary system adjustments, put a set of operating
procedures in place and add BTU meters to assure optimal
performance of the system over a period of time and through different
seasonal conditions. It is estimated that waste heat currently provides
683 MMBTU of energy, which translates to an offset of $23,900 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%
should easily be attainable if the system were operating optimally. See
Appendix G-4 and Appendix B, item 11 for additional detail.
HVAC System:
This recommendation for the HVAC system is included in the executive
summary for planning & budgetary purposes since the expenditure is
so large. Although there are energy savings resulting from this EEM,
this capital investment does not provide a high return.
Cast iron sectional boilers typically have a life expectancy of 25-35
years. As their end of life approaches, they become less efficient, and
require more maintenance. The boilers in this building are 24 years
old, are 80% efficient, and will be approaching their end of life (EOL) in
the next few years. Normally in a remote village like Atqasuk,
engineers design the boilers to be redundant – so that if one boiler
stops functioning, the other can carry the entire heat load of the
building by itself. It is recommended to replace all of the boilers with
higher efficiency, (88%) units. Replace the B-1 boiler (1,941 MBH)
with two smaller, 800 MBH units and replace the B-2 boiler with a
higher efficiency 1,600 MBH unit. This allows more efficient
modulation of the boiler heat output to the building in the summer and
“shoulder” seasons (early and late summer). i.e. rather than cycling a
1920 MBH boiler to produce a very limited amount of heat (and hot
water) during the warm season, run a 800 MBH boiler to achieve the
same results; the control system would bring the second unit on-line as
the heating demand increases. See Appendix C, item 11 and
Appendix G-5 for detail.
Waste Heat EEM:
Estimated total cost for the engineering work is $25,000, but this could
be shared (proportionately) with the 8 other buildings utilizing waste
heat. For simplicity, the full $25,000 is included in the Combined Waste
Heat/HVAC EEM summary below.
Annual savings $5.975
Payback less than 1 year
HVAC EEM:
Estimated incremental cost $40,000
Annual Savings $ 5,069
10
Payback 7.9 years
Combined Waste Heat/HVAC EEM’s:
Estimated (incremental) cost $65,000
Annual Savings $11,044
Payback 5.9 years
Table 3
Combined total of priority, high‐ROI,
strategically recommended EEM’s listed above:
Estimated total cost $ 122,004
Annual Savings $ 41,955
Simple payback 2.9 years
Does not include design or construction management
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 the vehicle bay.
The total of all 31 recommendations in this report estimate to save $43,382/year,
with an installed cost of $125,630. The combined payback on this investment is 2.9
years. This does not include design or construction management services,
Some of the costs totaling $125,630 are incremental costs for higher efficiency
replacements, so actual budgetary costs for unit replacements will be higher. See
individual EEM’s for further detail.
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
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 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 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 Borough (NSB) and
entered that data into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit
Information System (ARIS).
13
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 26th, 2011. This
building has 9880 square feet on its first floor, consisting of offices, warm storage for
water and sewage trucks, and high bay vehicle light maintenance bays. The second
floor has 7544 square feet, and consists of warehouse and storage space, itinerant
residence (no longer in use) and a mezzanine also utilized for storage. In total, the
building has 17,424 square feet.
The building was constructed in 1988 on pilings using 24” glue lam beams to support
the floor with 9” of field applied, sprayed-in insulation (approximately R-58) on the
underside. Walls are pre-fabbed, 8” structural insulated panels with metal siding and
finished with gypsum inside. The roof is also constructed of 8” pre-fabbed structural
insulated panels supported by steel trusses on 8’ centers, also finished with exterior
metal roofing and gypsum on the interior. All windows are in excellent condition,
vinyl, double pane, and appear to have been upgraded from their original 1988
installation.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating System: Heat is supplied by (2) Burnham 1941 MBH
dual fuel, 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 24V zone thermostats. Heat is
provided to storage spaces and vehicle bays via hydronic unit
heaters which are valve and fan controlled by low voltage zone
thermostats. Additionally, there are (8) hydronic heating
ventilators with small (60-100W) fans in the stairwells and vehicle
14
bays, also valve and fan controlled by 24V zone thermostats, with
what appears to be a manual over-ride switch. (2) air handlers
utilizing hydronic coils heat the large, high bay vehicle bays in the
building. In addition to the boiler, there are (3) baseboard electric
heaters, each with an integral thermostat, but none are in use.
b. Ventilation: Ventilation is provided to the high bay spaces
through the (2) Trane air handlers. Air handler heat is provided
by hydronic coils valve-controlled by zone thermostats. There is a
vehicle exhaust fan in the equipment bay. Each toilet room has
an exhaust fan assumed to be approximately 85 CFM.
c. Appliances: A clothes washer and clothes dryer are located on
the second floor of the building. The set appears to be 10-15
years old, in poor condition, and not in use. A second stacked
washer and dryer is located in a first floor janitor closet, appears
to be 5 years old, in good condition and used to wash employee
coveralls. A refrigerator and microwave are located in the break
room.
d. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains (4) toilets, (1) urinal,
(7) lavatory sinks and (1) shower. All fixtures are manually
operated and 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.
e. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided to shower, lavatories
and clothes washers by a 26 gallon, Amtrol indirect fired hot water
generator and an A.O. Smith, 82 gallon electric hot water heater,
both located in the boiler room.
f. Head Bolt Heaters: There are 7 head bolt heaters on a “bull rail”
on the south side of this building, all of which are suitable for
retrofit. They are typically used by employees during working
hours.
g. Interior Lighting & Controls: This building has an inconsistent
mix of interior lighting which includes magnetic and electronic
ballasts, T12 and T8 lamps, high pressure sodium (HPS) fixtures,
compact florescent and incandescent bulbs. All exit signs are
either unlit or self luminous. The unlit signs do not appear to
have sufficient ambient lighting to meet code requirements.
Completion of a full lighting upgrade is recommended in the
AkWarm-C report in appendix B.
h. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 50, 100 and 250
watt HPS wall packs. All are controlled by photo-sensors.
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. Upstairs Living Quarters: These quarters have not been used
for a number of years; they were formerly used as itinerant
housing.
15
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data. A
single year’s worth of somewhat random fuel oil delivery receipts were used to
identify fuel oil consumption, this data was 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 USDW building
heat exchanger.
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 $5.29/SF, the ECI for the same building in Nuiqsut is $2.31, and the ECI
for the Meade River School in Atqasuk is $9.46. 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 150 kBTU/SF; the average EUI for the same
building in Nuiqsut is 159 kBTU/SF and 224 kBTU/SF for the School 3 blocks away.
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-C.
16
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
Building elevation looking from the west. Note HPS lighting and good condition of
the overhead doors
Waste heat entry into the building and utilidor heat trace control panel.
18
Un-used second floor itinerant quarters.
Typical valve and fan controlled unit heater; switch j-box should be repaired.
19
Pump 10 (sewage ejector pump, per plans) control panel, switch in “Hand” position –
this should energize the lift station and allow floats to activate pump as needed.
Must confirm that floats are working properly and pump is not running 24/7.
Appendix B, item 4 assumes worst case (that pump is running constantly)
20
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
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 12/28/2011 12:23 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: USDW Building (Public Works Building) Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 801 Tikigluk Street Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Atqasuk Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99520 Client Name: Richard Bordeaux
Client Address: 801 Tikigluk Street
Atqasuk, AK 99791
Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614
Auditor FAX:
Client Phone: (907) 633‐6321 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 17,424 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 438,263
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 486,959 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and
25% Safety Margin: 742,315 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,
if served.
Typical Occupancy: 8 people Design Indoor Temperature: 69.7 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: $0.301/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting Refrige
ration
Other
Electric
al
Cooking Clothes
Drying
Ventilatio
n Fans
Service
Fees Total Cost
Existing
Building
$64,572 $0 $1,355 $18,620 $0 $5,677 $0 $250 $2,009 $180 $92,663
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$37,126 $0 $0 $5,719 $0 $4,085 $0 $240 $1,931 $180 $49,551
SAVINGS $27,446 $0 $1,355 $12,900 $0 $1,592 $0 $10 $78 $0 $43,382
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 2
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
Existing Retrofit
Hot Wtr District Ht
#2 Oil
Electricity
Annual Energy Costs by Fuel
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Setback
Thermostat:
Equipment bays
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Equipment bays space.
$3,083 $600 77.11 0.2
2 Setback
Thermostat:
Storage and
warehouse
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Storage and warehouse space.
$3,335 $1,200 41.70 0.4
3 Air Tightening Add timer‐based automatic overhead
door closers, reduce air infiltration by
50%. See Appendix H for safety device
to prevent inadvertent closings on
personnel or vehicles.
$12,367 $4,200 30.31 0.3
4 Other Electrical:
Pump 10 ‐ sewage
ejector
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling
Control (this is worst case; need to
verify that lift floats are operating
properly)
$286 $100 17.51 0.3
5 Lighting: Interior
lighting ‐
incandescent bulbs
Replace with 9 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $218 $90 14.89 0.4
6 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ NSBSD
highbay ‐ 250W
HPS fixtures
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2"
F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$1,345 $1,201 14.11 0.9
7 Setback
Thermostat:
Offices, corridors,
stairwells
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Offices, corridors, stairwells space.
$783 $1,200 9.80 1.5
8 Setback
Thermostat:
Overnight
residences
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Overnight residences space.
$256 $600 6.39 2.3
9 Other Electrical:
Refrigerators
Replace with Energy Saver refrigerators
at EOL
$56 $75 4.55 1.3
10 Lighting: T8‐4 lamp
Interior lighting;
add OS
At next re‐lamp, replace 13 FLUOR (4)
T8 4' F32T8 32W lamps with 28W
Energy‐Saver lamps Instant
StdElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$428 $606 4.33 1.4
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 4
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
11
see
also
Appe
ndix
G‐5
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 20,000 BTU/hr
($5865/yr) if optimized. An estimated
maintenance savings of $5000 is added
since the 24 year old boilers will be
replaced with new units. For budgetary
and planning purposes, full cost of
replacement of two boilers is $150,000
to $200,000. ($5865 annual energy
savings is added to the $5000
maintenance savings in AKwarm)
$11,044
(added
$5000)
$65,000 4.00 5.9
12 Lighting: T8‐1 lamp
Magnetic ballast
Interior lighting;
add OS
Replace with 11 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$197 $333 3.64 1.7
13 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ 250W HPS
wall packs
Replace with 6 LED 72W Module
StdElectronic
$3,698 $6,600 3.58 1.8
14 Lighting: Interior
lighting ‐ high bay
Public Works bay ‐
250W HPS fixtures
Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2"
F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$345 $6,401 3.06 18.6
15 Other Electrical:
Head bolt heaters ‐
4 of 7 typically in
use
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Other Controls
$554 $1,400 2.53 2.5
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 5
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
16 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ 50W HPS
door lights
Replace with 3 LED 17W Module
StdElectronic
$217 $600 2.31 2.8
17 Lighting: T12‐2
lamp Interior
lighting ‐
vestibules, offices,
bathrooms, storage
areas, etc; add OS
Replace with 54 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$2,544 $10,850 2.23 4.3
18 Other Electrical:
Computers
Replace with 3 Laptop $285 $900 1.92 3.2
19 Lighting: T12‐4
lamp Interior
lighting; add OS
Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$235 $750 1.91 3.2
20 Lighting: T8‐2 lamp
Interior lighting;
add OS
At next re‐lamp, replace 37 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 32W lamps with 28W
Energy‐Saver lamps Instant
StdElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$577 $1,972 1.78 3.4
21
Appe
ndix
G‐2
Other Electrical:
Hot Water Heater
Remove this unit, rely on existing
indirect hot water generator
$145 $500 1.77 3.4
22 Lighting: T8‐1 lamp
Interior lighting;
add OS
At next re‐lamp, replace 17 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 32W lamps with 28W Energy‐
Saver lamps Instant StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$125 $501 1.52 4
23 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ 100W HPS
wall packs
Replace with 5 LED 34W Module
StdElectronic
$126 $4,000 1.29 31.7
24 Lighting: T12‐1
lamp Interior
lighting ‐
vestibules, offices,
bathrooms, storage
areas, etc; add OS
Replace with 86 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$1,124 $15,000 1.04 13.3
25 Lighting: T8‐2 lamp
Magnetic Ballast
Interior lighting
Replace with FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W
Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$14 $300 0.28 21.4
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
USDW Building (Public Works Building)
Page 6
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
26 Other Electrical:
Overhead door
openers
Addition of automatic timer‐based
overhead door closers (Item 3 above)
will result in higher door opener use,
hence negative savings. Costs
associated with this EEM are included
in Item 3.
‐$87 $1 ‐530.88 0
Appe
ndix
G‐1
Plumbing Fixtures:
(4) W.C., (7)
lavatories, (1)
urinal, (1) shower
Replace shower head, urinal and
lavatory fixtures with low flow
versions; replace valves with proximity
sensing on/off controls
Appe
ndix
G‐2
Electric Hot Water
Heater
Item 21 above; see Appendix G‐2 for
additional explanation
Appe
ndix
G‐3
Fresh water supply
recirculation pump
Either manually shut down, or add
seasonal timer to shut down re‐circ
pump during summer months
$44 $350 8
Appe
ndix
G‐4
Waste Heat System
Optimization
See item 11 above and Appendix G‐4
for additional explanation
Included in
Item 11
Included
in Item
11
Appe
ndix
G‐5
Utility compressor
motors
At burnout (EOL) of these motors,
replace with premium efficiency
versions
$35 $300 8.5
TOTAL $43,382 $125,630 4.99 2.9
27
Appendix C – Mechanical Schedule - Equipment not in Plans
THESE SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION OF
ITEMS NOT IN PLAN SCHEDULES
BOILER SCHEDULE
SYM
BOL MFGR/MODEL
Effici
ency
BURNER
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
B‐1
Burnham, 4F‐
209‐45; oil fired 80% .5/115/1
Cast iron, 3‐pass, 1941 MBH Input, 1553 MBH
output, sectional boiler with Carlin Burner
B‐2
Burnham, 4F‐
209‐45; oil fired 80% .5/115/1
Cast iron, 3‐pass, 1941 MBH Input, 1553 MBH
output, sectional boiler with Carlin Burner
28 Appendix C – Mechanical Schedules
29
Appendix C – Lighting Schedule
30 Appendix D Building First Floor Plan
31 Appendix D Building Second Floor Plan
32 Appendix E First Floor Lighting Plan
33 Appendix E Second Floor Lighting Plan
34 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic First Floor - Heating and Ventilation Plan
35 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics Second Floor - Heating and VentilationPlan
36 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics Piping and Boiler Schematic
37
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals and faucets 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 will result in 30% water savings and
will payback in less than 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: De-commission Electric Hot Water Heaters, or replace with an indirect Hot
Water Generator: Considering that the there is a 26 gallon indirect hot water
generator, and considering the building occupancy and apparent hot water
requirements (lavatories, 1 shower and clothes washing), the 82 gallon electric hot
water heater appears to be extraneous. It is recommended that the electric hot water
heater be either eliminated or de-commissioned and left in place. De-commissioning
is estimated to cost $150 and save $145/year. Removal is estimated to cost $500 and
save $145/yr.
38
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.
39
G-4: 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
40
G-5: 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, but this is
heavily dependent on the annual usage. The payback on replacing a burnt-out motor
with a premium efficiency motor is generally less than 1-2 years – again, depending on
the usage. In this building, the only motors of sufficient size to consider replacement
with premium efficiency versions are the 10 HP utility compressor motors – but their
estimated usage is low (500 hrs/yr), so even the burnout payback period is long.
Nevertheless, it is recommended to replace them at burnout with premium efficiency
motors. See Table 4 below for details.
Table 4
Motor
use HP/Volts/Ph/RPM
Assumed
operating
hours per
year
Existing
name‐
plate
efficienc
y
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)
Utility
compr
essor 10/208/3/1725 500 87% 90.2% $35 $300 8.5 $1,500 42
Assume 66% load factor
41
Appendix H - Duplex Head Bolt Heater Controls
42
Appendix H – Motion and presence-sensing overhead door safety controls