Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBSNC-OME-RSA City hall 2012-EE1 Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Comprehensive Energy Audit of Nome City Hall and XYZ Senior Center Project # BSNC-OME-RSA-01 Prepared for: The City of Nome October 24, 2011 Prepared by: Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6 Anchorage, AK 99501 and Energy Audits of Alaska P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 98522 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Performed by: __________________________ James Fowler, PE, CEA CEA #1705 Reviewed by: __________________________ Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM CEA #178, CEM #13557 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Audit and Analysis Background 10 3. Acknowledgements 11 4. Building Description & Function 12 5. Historic Energy Consumption 14 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 15 7. Loan Program 15 Appendix A: Photos 17 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 21 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 27 Appendix D: Building Plan 31 Appendix E: Lighting Plan 35 Appendix F: Mechanical Schematics 39 Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 44 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: Nome City Hall and XYZ Senior Center 102-104 Division St Nome, AK 99762 Building Owner: The City of Nome 102 Division Street Nome, AK 99762 Building contacts: City Hall: Josie Bahnke, City Manager 907-443-6600 jbahnke@nomealaska.org XYZ Senior Center: Norma Niclas, Sr. Center Manager 907-443-5238 nccxyz@alaska.com Alan Maxwell, Building Inspector 907-304-3399 mobile amaxwell@nomealaska.org Jerry Krier, Maintenance supervisor 907-304-3398 mobile The site visit to subject building occurred on September 9th, 2011. Buildings The City Hall (CH) was constructed in 1976, it has offices on the first and second floors. The XYZ Senior Center (SC) was constructed in 1981, it is also a two story building consisting of a number of day rooms, 2 offices, what was formerly an apartment with a small kitchen and bathroom, a commercial kitchen and a commercial laundry facility. The two buildings share boilers located in the CH, and an electric meter. In this report, the building specifics are discussed separately as appropriate, and in AKWarm they are considered one building. Original plans were available for both buildings, but they lack mechanical and equipment schedules, and were not current regarding some building details; the schedules found in Appendix C were constructed from on-site observations of the auditor. Building shell details including roof and floor construction, insulation values and structural configuration were pieced together from a plan review, observations of the auditor, and 5 conversations with the building Maintenance Lead. The CH was originally a steel framed building with insulated structural wall panels. It appears that additional rigid insulation, sheathing and wood siding were added at an unknown later date. The SC is a typical stud construction with wood roof trusses and second floor joists, fiberglass batting is used for insulation. Both buildings are built on a concrete slab poured over 2” of rigid insulation on an un-cooled gravel bed. The windows all appear to be original, double pane, wood frame; the CH windows are in poor condition, the SC windows are in average condition, although several were inoperable (which is a possible code violation). Overall the interior and exterior of these buildings are in average condition, considering their age. HVAC The boilers and air handlers (all located in CH) appear to be original equipment, and therefore nearing their end of life (EOL). Based on conversations with the building Maintenance Lead, office workers, and on- site observations, it is recommended that a controls analysis and code compliance inspection be undertaken, followed by an HVAC upgrade. The goal being to identify and rectify the reported maintenance challenges (e.g. parts no longer available for the air handlers), building discomfort (“it’s always cold in here”, “we’re told not to touch the thermostats”, and most workers have a personal heater under their desks), and poor air quality in the SC. See Appendix G-3 for details. Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data Benchmark data - annual consumption only – for electricity and fuel oil was provided by Central Alaska Engineering Company. The two annual data points provided, were distributed across 12 months by the auditor, to estimate a seasonal curve and reasonable monthly usage. Summarized values for energy consumption are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1    2009 2010    Consumption Cost Consumption Cost  Electricity ‐ kWh 173,220  $  28,841 175,520  $  29,224  Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 7,991  $  36,359 8,306  $  37,792  Totals     $  65,200     $  67,016  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. As observed, they are close to similar buildings in Nome. 6                                             Table 2       Subject Building  Average of (4) similar  buildings in Nome  Nome Volunteer Fire  Station Building  Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐  kBTU/SF 125 124 111  Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐  $/SF $4.89  $4.38 $3.63   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.) life cycle replacement or 4.) reasons pertaining to operations, maintenance and/or safety. For example, where a lighting upgrade is recommended from T-12 lamps with magnetic ballasts to T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts, then the entire facility should be re-lamped and re-ballasted to maintain a standard lighting parts inventory, regardless of the payback. An individual storage room that is infrequently used may not show a very good payback for a lighting upgrade, but consistency and ease of maintenance dictates 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: Lighting Upgrades: As part of a lighting upgrade conducted by the city of Nome, all but one room in this facility has T8- 32 watt lamps and electronic ballasts. The old woodworking room in the SC still has T12 lamps, which should be replaced with T8, 28 watt, and electronic ballasts. At the next re-lamp, all the T8-32 watt lamps should be replaced with 28 watt, high efficiency lamps which result in a 4% reduction in light output, but a 12% reduction in energy consumption. There are several rooms in the CH which are seriously over-lit (typical office light levels are 50 ft candles, these rooms varied from 85 to 215 ft candles with all fixtures lit). See lighting control upgrades regarding these over-lit rooms. Lighting Control Upgrades: Occupant controls can sense the presence of workers, and turn the lights on at a pre- determined level, and then turn the lights off after a 7 programmed time period of no occupancy. It is recommended to install occupancy sensors in the existing duplex switch boxes for 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. This could reduce power consumption by 60- 90%. In the 5 rooms that are over-lit it is recommended to install a step-dim occupancy sensor wired so that only 50% of the fixtures come on automatically. Occupants can turn on the other 50% manually if desired. Exterior Lighting Upgrades: All but 1 of the exterior high pressure sodium (HPS) lights have been retrofitted with what appear to be compact florescent lamps (CFL) installed in HPS fixtures. CFL’s are not rated for subfreezing temperatures, and if they are indeed, retrofitted into HPS fixtures, there is a significant energy loss due to the magnetic ballast and the lamps are being run at frequencies they are not designed for. All the exterior fixtures should be replaced with LED lighting. Payback is difficult to calculate given the questions regarding existing lighting. Setback Thermostats in vehicle bays and offices. It is recommended that lockable setback thermostats be installed and programmed for occupied temperatures of 72 deg F, and unoccupied temperatures of 55 deg F. This has an estimated payback of between 1 an 8 years, depending on the size of the zone. Headbolt Heater Controls: There are retrofit headbolt heater receptacles that replace standard duplex receptacles. They contain an integrated microprocessor and thermometer that cycles power on and off in response to the outside air temperature. Energy savings is typically 50%. The (5) headbolt heaters around the subject buildings utilize duplex receptacles, and are therefore retrofit-able. Plumbing fixtures: All toilets, urinals and faucets should be retrofitted or be replaced with energy efficient models. This audit does not include water usage and AKWarm does not allow for the modeling of this, but a typical low flow plumbing fixture retrofit will result in 30%-66% water savings over a pre-1992 fixture, and will payback in less than 3 years. See Appendix G-1. 8 HVAC: As mentioned above, an HVAC controls analysis and code compliance inspection should be performed. At EOL of the boilers, the 82% efficient units should be replaced with a modular system utilizing (3) smaller, higher efficiency (87%), boilers that can be modulated to respond to building heat load requirements. The upgrade should also include temperature resets that respond to changes in outside air temperature. An HVAC upgrade should include ventilation considerations including retrofitting the air handlers with DDC controlled fanwalls which can vary air flow based on occupancy, time of day and outside air temperature. They would also eliminate the difficulty in obtaining obsolete replacement parts. On-site feedback and the auditor’s experience of the air quality in the SC, suggests that there are poor air quality concerns in that building due to a lack of ventilation. In order to maintain healthy indoor air, building codes require either a minimum amount of fresh air supply per occupant, or a minimum number and size of operable windows per square foot of room size. Code also requires that make up air (MUA) be provided when the kitchen hood is operating. The existence of these two required sources of ventilation could not be confirmed during this site survey – hence the recommendation for an in depth code inspection. See Appendix G-3 for additional detail. Some of the hydronic piping is un-insulated, and although it is in conditioned space, it should be insulated – especially after set-back thermostats are installed. See Appendix G-2. Exit Signs: The exit signs in the building should be converted to LED-lit signs which require no bulb changes for 10 years, and consume 50% less energy than florescent versions and 10x less than incandescent versions Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is supplied to SC by an indirect hot water generator (HWG), and to the CH by an electric hot water heater. Since a boiler has to be running to supply the HWG (which supplies the coin operated laundry public laundry facility in the SC, estimated to use 300-400 gallons of hot water per day in the summer months), plumbing should be modified to eliminate the electric hot water heater and supply CH from the HWG. The payback on the estimated plumbing costs is less than 1 year. Building Shell: The roof in the CH is poorly insulated (4” vinyl clad fiberglass batting pinched between steel roof 9 trusses and roof underlayment). It is recommended that the metal roofing be removed, 6” (R-30) of rigid foam insulation be added on top of the roof trusses, and the metal roofing re- installed. This will result in an annual energy savings of $1494 and a payback of 10.1 years. See Appendix B, item 21. The windows in SC are in average condition, although 2 were broken and not operable (code requires certain windows be operable if there is no mechanical ventilation); it is not recommended that they be replaced at this time, although the 2 non-operable ones should be repaired or replaced. The windows in the CH are in poor condition, clearly reflect their 35 year age, and should be replaced with triple pane, low e, vinyl windows. In AKWarm, the full cost of window replacement is used ($19,275 cost, with a 31 year payback). Payback on this window replacement could also be viewed from the perspective of the incremental cost of a triple pane, low e, window versus a straight across replacement with a double pane, air filled, wood framed window. From this viewpoint, the payback on the incremental difference (estimated at $3800) is 6.1 years. 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. The 33 recommendations in the detailed report estimate to save $25,835/year, with an installed cost of $73,565. The combined payback on this investment is 2.8 years. This does not include design or construction management services, 10 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, other electrical systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Measures were based on their payback period, life cycle replacement or for reasons pertaining to 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 at 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 11 publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales and Pioneer Door, all in Anchorage were consulted for some of the lighting, boiler and overhead door (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 City of Nome (Owner): The City of Nome provided building sizing information, two years energy billing data, building schedules and functions, as well as building age. 12 c. Central Alaska Engineering Company (Benchmark TSP): Central Alaska Engineering Company compiled the data received from the City of Nome 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 Central Alaska Engineering Company, 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 September 9th, 2011. The City Hall (CH) has 3417 square feet on each of two floors, consisting primarily of offices for the various city departments. There is also a council chamber used several evenings per month, small break room kitchen and several small storage rooms. The CH is also used as the hub for press and logistical coverage of the annual Iditarod. The Senior Center (SC) was built directly north of the CH, shares a roof awning and small portion of a second floor wall. It is also a two story building, with 3256 square feet on each floor. The first floor has a large day room, commercial kitchen, coin operated public laundry facility and two offices. The second floor has a small residence which is now used as an activities room and for occasional breakfasts, a former woodshop which is now used as storage, and 4 other rooms used for various 13 activities. There is an elevator serving both floors. The total square footage of both buildings is 13,346 square feet. The SC is used by 40-50 seniors and support staff for daytime activities, a hot lunch service and an occasional Saturday breakfast service. There are also 1-2 community activities in the facility each month, typically on weekends or evenings. There are no longer any overnight activities or accommodations. Both buildings are constructed on a concrete slab, poured over 2” of rigid foam (R-10) on an un-cooled gravel bed. The CH walls were originally 2” insulated metal panels over steel columns, with full span (40’) steel floor and flat-roof trusses (1/4:12 pitch). At some later date, the metal siding was covered with another 2” of rigid insulation, plywood sheathing (see photo in Appendix A) and wood siding applied (achieving a total insulation value of R-23). The interior walls are furred out over the insulated metal panels, and finished with gypsum or paneling. The roof in the CH building has what appears to be 4” vinyl clad fiberglass batting (“blanket insulation”) pinched between the steel truss and the roof underlayment, resulting in an estimated insulation value of less than R-15. Additional sprayed-on foam has been applied to the inside of the first floor soffits. It could not be determined if there was a fire-code required barrier applied to the inside of the foam. The second floor is made from 2” of poured concrete over a corrugated metal subfloor supported by metal trusses. The SC was constructed using 2x6 stud walls (with R-19 fiberglass batting) with 1” insulation board, then plywood sheathing and wood siding on the exterior, and gypsum and/or paneling on the inside, resulting in an R-22 insulation value. Fabricated wood trusses were used for the roof (6:12 pitch) with an 8” lower cord (so assumed R-25 fiberglass batting), 18” joists were used to support the second floor. Exterior wood siding in both cases appears to be cedar. The second floor exterior siding on CH appears to be cedar shakes. Benchmark utility data, including fuel oil and electricity were provided by Central Alaska Engineering Company and the City of Nome utilities department. Building details are as follows: a. Heating System: Heat is supplied to both buildings by (2) Weil McLain 229 MBH, 82% efficient, oil fired, cast iron, sectional boilers. Heat is provided to rooms in both buildings by (4) circulation pumps supplying hydronic baseboard finned tube heaters that are valve-controlled by low voltage zone thermostats, as well as a single hydronic unit heater (UH) in the SC kitchen. The UH is running wild (i.e. fluid flow is controlled by circulation pump, with no secondary control at UH), fan-controlled by local, low voltage zone thermostats. b. Ventilation: Ventilation is provided to CH by (2) hydronic coil- supplied PACE air handler units (AHU), fed by (2) return air blowers. The return air blowers are de-coupled from the AHU’s, 14 thereby making the fan room a plenum. There is no mechanical ventilation in the SC and the poor air quality is immediately evident upon entering the building. c. Plumbing Fixtures: In both buildings there are a total of (10) toilets, (5) urinals, (11) sinks, (2) bathtubs and (2) showers. All fixtures are manually operated. See Appendix G-1 for EEM recommendations regarding plumbing. d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water for lavatories and bathrooms in the CH appears to be provided by a 50 gallon, electric, Rheem hot water heater located in a first floor storage closet. Hot water for the SC, which includes the coin operated laundry facility and kitchen, is generated by an indirect 41 gallon Amtrol unit. The circulation pump for this unit is on a retrofitted timer, restricting flow to 3.5 hours/day. It is estimated that the laundry requires 300-400 gallons per day of hot water during the high use, summer months. e. Appliances: In the SC, there are (3) commercial, coin operated clothes washers and electric dryers. These are used 4-6 hours/day during the summer months - primarily by the gold miners coming from the beach – and 1-2 loads per day for the balance of the year. There is a small kitchen in the former apartment on the SC second floor, with a range/oven combination, full size refrigerator, dishwasher and sink. There is also a second range/oven and refrigerator in the break room of the CH. See Appendix G-4 for EEM recommendations regarding clothes washing machine replacement. f. Kitchen: There is a sparsely equipped (with regards to power consuming equipment) commercial kitchen and two large walk-in freezers in the SC. Kitchen usage is one hot meal per week day, and an occasional meal on a weekend. The stove and oven use propane, which was not considered in this audit. There are two large refrigerators, but only one in use and a commercial dishwasher. There is a large exhaust hood, with no apparent make up air, see Appendix G-3 for EEM recommendations. g. Head Bolt Heaters: There are (5) duplex, head bolt heaters outside this building which are suitable for retrofit. h. Interior Lighting: Both buildings, with the exception of the former wood shop in the SC, use T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The wood shop still uses T-12 lamps with magnetic ballasts and should be retrofitted. There are a number of incandescent bulbs still in use which also should be retrofitted. There are no occupancy sensors in the building. A complete building retrofit with occupancy sensors is recommended in Appendix B. i. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of a single 100W High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall-pack light, and what appear to be CFL’s retrofitted into the HPS fixtures, all on photocell sensors. CFL’s are not rated to operate well below freezing temperatures, and if they are indeed, installed into HPS fixtures, the magnetic ballasts are driving the bulbs outside of their operating frequency range; this is a code violation and an energy sink. 15 j. Building Shell: The building shell is generally in good condition, with two noteworthy considerations. The insulation value in the roof of the CH is poor - additional insulation is recommended in Appendix B, item 21. The windows in the CH are also in poor condition, and are recommended to be replaced, also in Appendix B, items 24 and 25. 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes (12) months of data. Because only (2) data points (2 years) of annual utility benchmark data was provided, this data was graphed into a reasonable seasonal curves to create two years of (12) 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 2 years) and averages the cost, divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $4.89/SF, the average ECI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is $4.38/SF. 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 125 kBTU/SF; the average EUI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is 124 kBTU/SF. 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 16 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 Looking from the South, City Hall in foreground, Senior Center to right rear Senior Center looking from the Northeast, City Hall is far left 18 South side (back side) of Senior Center (looking from Southwest), back side of City Hall on right A 3” diameter hole through the wall looking out from inside City Hall; note metal SIP filled with foam, more foam applied to outside, and plywood and wood siding 19 Day room in Senior Center Council Chambers in City Hall Kitchen in Senior Center 20 Aerial View of downtown center of Nome and the (4) buildings audited Fire Station Recreation Center Public Works Building City Hall and Senior Center (subject buildings) NORTH Appendix B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 1     ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 10/24/2011 6:00 PM General Project Information  PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION  Building: Nome City Hall & Senior Center Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska  Address: 102‐104 Division Street Auditor  Name: James Fowler  City: Nome Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215    Anchorage, AK  99522  Client Name: Alan Maxwell  Client Address: 102 Division St  Nome, AK  Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614  Auditor FAX: (   )    ‐  Client Phone: (907) 304‐3399 Auditor Comment:   Client FAX:   Design Data  Building Area: 13,346 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:  546,041 Btu/hour  with Distribution Losses:  606,712 Btu/hour   Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25%  Safety Margin: 924,866 Btu/hour   Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if  served.  Typical Occupancy: 62 people  Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average)  Actual City: Nome Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐27 deg F  Weather/Fuel City: Nome Heating Degree Days: 14,371 deg F‐days     Utility Information  Electric Utility: Nome Joint Utilities Systems ‐  Commercial ‐ Lg  Natural Gas Provider: None  Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.357/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf     Annual Energy Cost Estimate  Description Space  Heating  Space  Cooling  Water  Heating Lighting Other  Electrical Cooking Clothes  Drying  Ventilation  Fans  Service  Fees Total Cost  Existing  Building  $35,533 $0 $3,648 $23,136 $30,055 $0 $0 $6,456 $36 $100,272  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $25,332 $0 $3,489 $11,106 $26,609 $0 $0 $6,456 $36 $74,436  SAVINGS $10,201 $0 $159 $12,030 $3,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,835    Appendix B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 2                        $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 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  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 3     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Exterior  Lighting  Replace with FLUOR CFL, A  Lamp 15W  $188 $25 47.92 0.1 2 Setback Thermostat:  Senior Center ‐  Kitchen  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the Senior Center ‐ Kitchen  space.  $570 $200 42.75 0.4 3 Setback Thermostat:  Senior Center ‐  offices and  classrooms  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the Senior Center ‐ offices  and classrooms space.  $3,373 $2,200 23.01 0.7 4 Other Electrical:  DHW‐2; Electric Hot  Water Heater  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Other  Controls  $1,590 $500 19.94 0.3 5 Setback Thermostat:  City Hall ‐ Offices  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the City Hall ‐ Offices  space.  $3,669 $2,800 19.67 0.8 6 Lighting: City Hall ‐  T8‐4 recess; Overlit  finance and  Accounting office,  second floor  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Step‐Dim  Occupancy Sensor; at next  re‐lamp, replace 32 watt  lamps with 28 watt energy  efficient lamps  $1,210 $444 17.14 0.4 7 Setback Thermostat:  City Hall ‐ corridors,  stairwells  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the City Hall ‐ corridors,  stairwells space.  $422 $400 15.82 0.9 8 Other Electrical:  Duplex Head bolt  heaters  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Other  Controls  $1,459 $1,000 9.17 0.7 9 Lighting: City Hall ‐  T8‐4 recess; Overlit  offices 106D, city  manager,  engineering, utilities  supervisor  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Step‐Dim  Occupancy Sensor; at next  re‐lamp, replace 32 watt  lamps with 28 watt energy  efficient lamps  $1,577 $1,264 7.83 0.8 10 Lighting: City Hall ‐  Incandescent lights  Replace with 7 FLUOR CFL,  A Lamp 15W and Remove  Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $335 $310 6.77 0.9 Appendix B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 4     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 11 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior existing T8  SM; add 2 occ  sensors per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps   $1,021 $948 6.75 0.9 12 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior existing T8  SM add 1 occ sensor  per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps   $491 $468 6.57 1 13 Lighting: City Hall ‐  T8‐2 SM; add 2 occ  sensors per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps  $196 $216 5.67 1.1 14 Lighting: Sr Center ‐  Freezer lighting  Replace with 4 LED 10W  Module StdElectronic  $90 $100 5.63 1.1 15 Lighting: City Hall ‐  T8‐4 SM; add 1 occ  sensor per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps   $974 $1,086 5.61 1.1 16 Lighting: City Hall ‐  T8‐4 recess; add 1  occ sensor per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps   $1,483 $2,316 4.00 1.6 17 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior T12; replace  with T8, add occ  sensor per room  Replace with 7 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant  EfficMagnetic and Remove  Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $635 $1,025 3.87 1.6 18 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior  incandescent lighting  Replace with 19 FLUOR  CFL, A Lamp 15W and  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $672 $1,170 3.58 1.7 Appendix B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 5     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 19 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior existing T8  recess; add 1 occ  sensor per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor; at next re‐lamp,  replace 32 watt lamps with  28 watt energy efficient  lamps   $1,215 $2,232 3.39 1.8 20  see  appe ndix  G‐3  HVAC And DHW  Retrofit B‐1 with (2)  100,000‐115,000 BTU  boilers, modulated to  provide heat as  demanded; retrofit B‐2  with same output as  existing (229,000 BTU);  incremental difference in  cost between straight  across replacement and  this retrofit is $15,000.   Total cost estimate for this  recommendation is  $105,000 including  refurbishing the CH  ventilation system.  See  Appendix G‐3 for  additional detail.  $2,215 $15,000 2.85 6.8 21 Cathedral Ceiling:  City Hall Roof  Remove metal roofing,  install 6” rigid foam (R‐30),  re‐install roofing.  $1,494 $15,136 2.66 10.1 22 Lighting: Exit signs Replace with 12 LED 4W  Module StdElectronic  $247 $600 2.52 2.4 23 Lighting: Exterior  lighting ‐ HPS  Replace with LED 20W  Module StdElectronic  $157 $400 2.51 2.5 24 Window/Skylight:  City Hall ‐ not south ‐  20 windows  Replace existing window  with triple pane, 2 low‐E,  argon window.  $503 $12,574 0.77 25 25 Window/Skylight:  City Hall ‐ South ‐ 8  windows  Replace existing window  with triple pane, 2 low‐E,  argon window.  $117 $6,701 0.34 57.1 26 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior existing  CFL's; add 1 occ  sensor  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $18 $450 0.25 25.2 27 Lighting: Sr. Center ‐  Interior existing  CFL's; add 2 occ  sensors per   Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $11 $300 0.22 28 Appendix B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nome City Hall & Senior Center Page 6     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 28 Lighting: City Hall ‐  existing CFL's, add 2  occ sensors  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $4 $300 0.07 84 29 Lighting: City Hall ‐  existing CFL's add 1  occ sensor per room  Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $4 $600 0.04 168.4 30 Lighting: Exterior ‐  existing CFL  Replace with 7 LED 20W  Module StdElectronic (not  an energy savings, CFL’s  not designed to operate  below freezing)  ‐$102 $2,800 ‐0.23 ‐27.5 Appe ndix  G‐1  Plumbing Fixtures:  (10) W.C., (11)  lavatories, (5) urinals  Replace all fixtures with  low flow versions with  proximity sensing on/off  valves  Appe ndix  G‐2  Heating pipe  insulation  Insulate all heating pipes  Appe ndix  G‐4  Clothes Washing  Machines  Replace (3) working  machines with high  efficiency, front loading  machines    TOTAL $25,835 $73,565 4.08 2.8               27 Appendix C – Mechanical Equipment Schedules ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION ‐ WHERE ACCESSIBLE  AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE  SYMB OL MFGR/MODEL  estimated  FAN CFM  estimated  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  AH‐1 Pace A14/11F 3000 3/208/3 Supplies City Hall only  AH‐2 Pace A14/11F 3000 3/208/3 Supplies City Hall only  RA‐1 Pace U15‐F 2000 1.5/208/1 Return air blower  RA‐2 Pace U15‐F 2000 1.5/208/1 Return air blower  EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE  SYMB OL  MOTOR  MFGR/MODEL  estimated  CFM  estimated  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  EF‐1 unknown 85 60W/115/1 CH‐first floor toilet room  EF‐2 unknown 85 60W/115/1 CH‐first floor toilet room  EF‐3 unknown 85 60W/115/1 CH‐first floor toilet room  EF‐4 unknown 2000 1/115/1 Kitchen exhaust fan  EF‐5 unknown 85 60W/115/1 CH‐second floor toilet room  EF‐6 unknown 85 60W/115/1 CH‐second floor toilet room  EF‐7 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr‐first floor toilet room  EF‐8 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr‐first floor toilet room  EF‐9 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr‐second floor bathroom  EF‐10 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr‐second floor bathroom  EF‐11 unknown 500 .25/115/1  SrCtr ‐old woodworking shop  (always on)  EF‐12 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr ‐ sewing room  EF‐13 unknown 45 30W/115/1 CH kitchen hood  EF‐14 unknown 85 60W/115/1 SrCtr ‐ old apartment bathroom                      28 PUMP SCHEDULE   SYMB OL MFGR/MODEL  estimated  GPM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  CP‐1  Grunfos UP‐25‐64  SF 8 1.55A/115/1 City Hall  CP‐2  Grunfos UPS‐50‐ 160 C 20 3.98A/115/1 City Hall  CP‐3  Grunfos UPS‐50‐ 160 C 20 3.98A/115/1 City Hall  CP‐4  Grunfos UPC‐50‐ 160 A 20 3.98A/115/1 City Hall  CP‐5 Baldor 84.201024 10 .5/115/1  Sr. Center supply water circ pump;  68% FL efficiency  CP‐6  Grundfos UP‐15‐42  SF 2 .74A/115/1  Sr. Center DHW generator circ  pump; on timer 3.5 hrs/day  BOILER SCHEDULE   SYMB OL MFGR/MODEL    MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  B‐1  Weil McLain ABL‐ 476S‐W   .14/115/1  oil fired, 229 MBH output, 82% efficient,  cast iron sectional  B‐2  Weil McLain ABL‐ 476S‐W   .14/115/1  oil fired, 229 MBH output, 82% efficient,  cast iron sectional  UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE  SYMB OL MFGR/MODEL CFM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  UH‐1  Beacon Morris  200B, 100R 815 .1/115/1 Kitchen, running wild, fan controlled  HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE   SYMB OL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS  NUMBER  OF  ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE  DHW‐ 1 Amtrol WH7LDW 41 n/a SrCtr ‐ Indirect Water generator  DHW‐ 2 Rheem 82V52‐2 50 2 4500 (4828 KWh/yr)  29 PLUMBING FIXTURES   SYMB OL FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS  P‐1 W.C. 3 4 CH ‐ manually operated  P‐2 W.C. 3 6 SrCtr ‐ manually operated  P‐3 Urinal 1.5 2 CH ‐ manually operated  P‐4 Urinal 1.5 3 SrCtr ‐ manually operated  P‐5 Lavatory ‐ 4 CH ‐ manually operated  P‐6 Lavatory ‐ 7 SrCtr ‐ manually operated  P‐7 Shower ‐ 1 CH  ‐ unused  P‐8 Shower ‐ 1 SrCtr ‐ unused  P‐9 Bathtub ‐ 2 SrCtr ‐ unused  P‐10 Clothes Washer ‐ 3 Commercial, coil operated  30 Appendix C – Lighting Schedule   LIGHTING FIXTURES SYMBOL FIXTURE DESCRIPTION MOUNTING LAMPS TYPE HEIGHT NUMBER WATTS A Surface Mount bare bulb, 96" Florescent, T12 lamps, magnetic ballast surface ceiling 2 75 B Surface Mount Incandescent, interior surface ceiling 1 60 C Surface Mount Compact Florescent surface ceiling 1 15 D Surface Mount Troffer, 24"x48"Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast surface ceiling 4 32 E Soffit lighting Incandescent, exterior surface soffit 4 32 F Surface Mount wrap, 12"x48" Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast surface ceiling 2 32 G Wall Pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast surface 16' 1 100 H Recess Troffer, 24"x48" Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast recess ceiling 4 32  31 Appendix D Building First Floor Plan – City Hall 32 Appendix D Building Second Floor Plan - City Hall 33 Appendix D Building First Floor Plan – Senior Center 34 Appendix D Building Second Floor Plan – Senior Center 35 Appendix E Lighting Plan – first floor – City Hall 36 Appendix E Lighting Plan - second floor – City Hall 37 Appendix E Lighting Plan – first floor – Senior Center 38 Appendix E Lighting Plan – second floor – Senior Center 39 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics City Hall HVAC Controls schematic 40 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics City Hall HVAC schematic 41 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics City Hall Heat piping schematic 42 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics City Hall – Heating and Ventilation Plan – first floor 43 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics City Hall – Heating and Ventilation Plan – Second Floor 44 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics Senior Center – Heating Plan 45 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. Installing 2-level flush toilets (.9 gallons per flush for liquids, 1.6 gallons for solids) typically saves 33% water, and pays back in under 2 years. Low flow urinals can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pay back within 3 years. G-2: Install pipe insulation: Even in conditioned spaces, heat delivery pipes should be insulated. This becomes more important after set-back thermostats are installed, as reduction in room temperatures create additional load on the boiler when piping is un- insulated. 46 G-3: HVAC system analysis and upgrade: As discussed in the Executive summary, on pages 7 and 8, the HVAC system for both buildings is reaching its EOL and is in need of a controls analysis and code inspection by a licensed, registered engineer, followed by an upgrade. The (2) boilers are 35 years old and there is no apparent mechanical ventilation or MUA in the SC. The systems are in need of ongoing maintenance and the comfort level in CH, as reported by workers, is low, as is air quality in the SC. When the kitchen hood in the SC is turned on, negative building pressure is created if the windows are not opened, which increases cold air infiltration and boiler heat load. If the windows are opened, the introduction of unheated outside air has the same affect. It is estimated that 2500 CFM of outside, unheated air has to be brought into the building to make up for the heated air being exhausted by the kitchen hood. This translates to an energy cost of approximately $7000/year. Any upgrade should include replacement of the (2) boilers with high efficiency models. (Possibly replacing the two boilers with three smaller ones – this would be determined by an engineer’s heat load and building analysis.) The upgrade would also include renovation of the ventilation system in CH, replacing the old fans and fan motors with DDC controls and direct drive fanwalls in the existing AHU’s, A heat recovery ventilator (HRV) could be added to the SC, interlocked to operate when the kitchen exhaust hood is operating, recovering up to 60% of the heat lost. An estimate of costs, savings and several perspectives on paybacks follows:   Payback from energy savings only, on incremental difference in boiler costs, boiler only replacement: 3.4 years Including maintenance savings: 1.8 years Payback from energy savings resulting from installation of HRV in SC 4.8 years Payback from energy savings and maintenance savings, on total equipment and installation cost of complete re-design and upgrade of HVAC ($125,000 not including design costs): 6.4 years    Straight  across  replacement  cost,  installed  Incremental  difference for  higher  efficiency  version  Annual  projected  energy  savings  Annual  projected  maintenance  savings  (2) 100 MBU and (1) 229 MBU Cast  Iron Sectional boilers  $         40,000  $            15,000  $          4,445    $                4,000  Refurbish AHU's  in CH, including  Fanwalls, DDC controls, ducting,  piping, etc.  $                    ‐   $           50,000  $                  ‐    $                7,000   Add HRV interlocked with Kitchen  exhaust hood   $            20,000   $          4,200    totals     $            85,000  $          8,645    $              11,000  47 Return air blower, RA-1, in fan room of CH, flammable objects should be removed from fan room, which is designed to be a return air plenum Appendix G-4: High efficiency clothes washers Typical top loading clothes washers (like those in the SC) use 40 gallons of water per load. Front loading machines use 20-25 gallons, as well as less electricity. The US Department of Energy found that front loading machines result in a 38% savings in water use and 56% savings in energy costs. Replacement at EOL results in a payback on the incremental cost difference, of less than 1 year. Replacement of still-operating machines, results in a 5-7 year payback.