HomeMy WebLinkAboutKetchikan Appendix v2
Ketchikan Gateway Borough :
Grant Application Appendices
Contents
Appendix A – Resumes
A1 – Ketchikan PM and Key Staff
A2 – Tetra Tech
Appendix B - Letters of Support
Appendix B1 – KGB
Appendix B2 – KPU
Appendix C – Fuel Invoice
Appendix D - Governing Body Resolution
Appendix E - Supporting Documentation – Feasibility Studies
E1 – Airport Biomass Heating FS
E2 – SD Biomass Heating FS
E3 – Pellet Quote (Tongass)
E4 – Airport Energy Audit
E5 – High School Energy Audit
E6 – Tt Engineering Cost Estimate
Appendix F – Tt Construction Costing Calculations
A2 – Tetra Tech
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Conventional &
Renewable Energy
Construction Services
Conventional & Renewable Energy Construction Services
Tetra Tech is a premiere full-service, project lifecycle provider to the electric
power industry. For the past ten years, we have provided environmental,
design, and construction services (bundled or a la carte) to support project
execution, development, and operations on more than 1,000 power projects
around the world. We offer services for coal, natural gas, biomass sources
and other renewables. Our experience includes new natural gas and
renewable energy power plants, and associated transmission and distribution
facilities. We also offer energy waste system design-build services for fly ash,
manufactured gas plants, and other remediation needs. We have expert
knowledge and experience in decommissioning and demolition services, as
well. With financial strength totaling more than $2.6 billion in annual revenue,
Tetra Tech has the experience and resources to support large EPC, balance of
plant, and construction projects for conventional power plants – while keeping
safety at the forefront of every project.
Services
DEVELOPMENT STAGE
Environmental
– Critical Issues (Fatal Flaw) Analysis
– Permit Strategy Development
– GIS Services
– Site Selection and Alternative Site
Identification
– ASTM Standard Phase I and II Environmental
Assessments
– Public Involvement
– Regulatory Compliance and Permitting
Air, Water and Waste Permits
Environmental Review Statue Compliance and
Third-Party Environmental Impact Statements
State Energy Facility Siting and Utility
Commission Approvals – Resource Surveys
Assessments and Plans
Biological Studies - Wildlife, Vegetation and
Wetlands
Cultural Resources
Socioeconomic, Land Use and Recreation
Visual and Noise
Engineering
– Feasibility Studies
– Power Process Engineering
– Fuel Supply and Electric Transmission
Considerations in Site Selection
– Generation Connection Studies
– Conceptual Design
– Geotechnical and Seismic Studies
– System Planning and Electrical System Studies
– Transmission Line and Cable Studies
Construction
– Constructability Review & Planning
– Construction Permits
– Vendor Review and Selection
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Environmental
– Construction Compliance Planning,
Training and Inspection
Engineering – Owner’s Engineer – Major
Equipment Selection and Specifications
Diesel and Gas Turbine-Generators
Fuel Tanks and Auxiliary Systems
Electrical Distribution and Switchgear –
Detailed Design
Mechanical Systems
HVAC
Fire Suppression System for Electrical
Substations and Auxiliary Builders
Plumbing and Domestic Water System
Electrical Design
Substation Design
Civil/Structural Design
Computer Aided Drafting and Design
(CADD)
– Subcontractor/Vendor Submittals Reviews
– Response to Requests for Information and
Field Change Requests
– Management of Construction and
Design Changes
– As-Built Drawings
– Field Services
OPERATION STAGE
Environmental
– Compliance Planning, Training and Inspection
– Permit Modifications
– Air Permit Source Testing, Monitoring,
Record-keeping, Reporting
– Wastewater Discharge Monitoring and
Reporting
– Acoustic Equipment Acceptance Testing,
Operational Sound Surveys, and Noise
Compliant Resolution
– Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA Title III)
– Emergency Planning Community Right To
Know (EPCRA) Reports
Engineering
– Energy Waste System Design
Construction
– Energy Waste System Construction
Coal Ash Landfills and Other Related
Impoundments
MGP
Demolition
Remediation
Construction
– Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC)
– Balance of Plant (BOP)
– Construction Management
– Construction Philosophy
Project Management
Health and Safety Planning and Training
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
WATER NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ENERGY
Performance Highlights
Power Generation Heritage
Tetra Tech has a long and rich history in power plant construction. Tetra Tech’s construction organization was built around t he acquisition of
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation in 2003, a firm that had its roots in The Electric Bond and Share Compan y (EBASCO). Tetra Tech’s
construction organization is shaped by this legacy; the safety culture, business practices, and quality procedures of our con struction
organization have their roots in major power plant construction projects. Many of our current co nstruction staff began their careers at EBASCO,
and are experienced in EPC execution of historic thermal and nuclear power plants, such as the Oxnard Cogeneration Facility (46 MW); the
Eagle Point Project (225 MW facility) in New Jersey, which has been sup plying steam to an adjacent refinery since 1991; and the Allegheny
Lock & Dam #8, 9 (voestalpine pit turbine generators 13, 17 MW, respectively.)
Recent Power Generation Construction Experience
Over the past decade, with the boom of renewable energy construction in North America, Tetra Tech has provided construction s ervices for
power plants, totaling over 3,500 MWs of installed capacity. We have provided full EPC, as well as Balance of Plant (BO P) and Construction
Management (CM) services to the largest renewable energy companies in the world, including PacifiCorp, EDP Renewables North A merica,
Iberdrola Renewables, Acciona Energy, Invenergy, Competitive Power Ventures, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, FirstWind, and many others. We
have built projects in diverse and challenging locations ranging from Kodiak Island, Alaska to Lameque Island, in New Brunswi ck, Canada. We
have built wind farms in Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massa chusetts. We have performed CM on wind farms in
the Pacific Northwest and the Midwestern US. In addition to wind energy, we have recently provided construction services to h ydroelectric
power, bioenergy, and solar power facilities.
Recent Energy Waste System Construction Experience
Our recent design/ build projects include power plant energy waste systems. The coal ash market is under siege and the Bevill Exemption
under scrutiny with the possible promulgation of the USEPA Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule. These rules have forced US power
companies to rethink and re-strategize their business futures to meet burdensome regulatory demands. Our design/build services include
disposal pond closure; permitting; environmental and safety plans; preliminary and detail design engineering; Engineering, Procurement, and
Construction (EPC); commissioning and testing; civil construction, demolition, utility engineering, and earth moving; impound ments; roadway
repair; pipelines and intake structures; water treatment p lants; compressor stations; construction management; and quality assurance/quality
control. Recent projects include the Stanton Energy Center Coal Combustion Product Landfill Design/Build Program for the Orla ndo Utilities
Commission where Tetra Tech is expanding a coal combustion product landfill in Orlando, Florida, and Fly Ash Landfill Cover Design -Build
Services for a confidential client in New Martinsville, West Virginia.
Successfully permitted, licensed, and/or engineered over 100 conventional power
plants using a wide variety of fuels: coal, oil, natural gas, syngas, petroleum coke,
hydro, biomass, municipal solid waste, and refuse-derived fuel
Successfully completed domestic and international power projects ranging i n size from
5 to 3,200 megawatts (MW)
Provided construction services for renewable energy power plants, totaling over 3,500
MW of installed capacity
The numerous Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(BACT/LAER) analyses performed by Tetra Tech have led to the development of
extensive emission estimation databases acceptable for BACT/LAER demonstrations
Tetra Tech is a leading provider of consulting, engineering, remediation, and construction services
worldwide. Tetra Tech, Inc. is a publicly traded company with annual revenues in excess of $2.6 billion and more
than 13,000 employees in 330 offices, including 3,500 employees in 50 Canadian offices.
Phone: +1 (518) 661-5304
Fax: +1 (518) 661-5818
- 2 -
Recent Decommissioning and Demolition Expertise
We have significant experience in decommissioning and demolition and can be a one-stop contractor for these services. Our full project
lifecycle offerings allow us to conduct prior, cultural and environmental assessments to evaluate demolition impacts and deve lop mitigation
measures, and document any historic and archaeological resources. Tetra Tech has experience preparing Work Plans, Health & Sa fety Plans,
and Quality Control Plans (QCP) along with overseeing all field operations, demolition crews, and onsite subcontractor s to conduct demolition,
and partial demolition of buildings, slabs, and structures. Tetra Tech has performed post -demolition surveys, asbestos abatement, demolition,
and remediation of storm drain and sanitary sewer lines, including lines within and surro unding buildings and structures. Our goal is to work
closely with our clients to ensure all safety precautions and risks are mitigated and that all project deli verables are met – or exceeded.
Recent Wind Energy Construction Experience
Within the last few years, Tetra Tech has worked on over 200 wind projects (in more than half of the United States), totaling more than
15,000 MW. Of that, over 12,000 MW of wind generation is in operation or scheduled for construction. We have provided support to 20 of the
top 25 wind power project developers and owners in the U.S. Tetra Tech is the number one provider of front end services to the U.S. wind
industry and also has extensive experience in wind construction. We are providing or have provided construction services to clients on more
than 15 projects, totaling more than 1,500 MW.
Recent Solar Energy Construction Experience
Tetra Tech helps its clients to develop solar projects that are cost -
efficient and constructible. We are able to provide this service because
our environmental and engineering teams are integrated with our
construction team. As a design-build company, we provide the right detail
and information in our construction drawings to allow our constructors
the necessary flexibility during execution. Tetra Tech has the capability
and experience to provide construction drawings for civil site work,
structural design for solar foundations, and electrical components for
solar energy projects. Our construction experts review the project site
and proposed developmental designs in order to ensure that the
practicality, cost, and ease of construction are built into the project layout
that is ultimately permitted. Our construction experts can assist project
developers by providing conceptual stage construction schedules and
budgets.
Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC)
Tetra Tech provides EPC services to the power industry. In the last
several years, Tetra Tech has helped developers finance and install
nearly $6 billion of generation assets. Success is achieved through
clear communication and integration of the engineering and
procurement scopes to support our construction schedule. Success
is also supported by Tetra Tech’s strong balance sheet and bank -
ability. Upon Notice to Proceed, we form a team of dedicated
individuals with construction and project management
backgrounds to work with the owner and our engineering and
procurement teams to shepherd the preconstruction process. We
then mobilize that same crew to manage the project’s safe and
timely installation.
This implementation model means Tetra Tech carries and man ages
the inherent risks associated with such a complex project in every
decision at every stage. Through our experience, we have a
pragmatic understanding of all the various factors that can affect a
power project, along with the data and expertise in the required
disciplines. The owner benefits from the single point of contact
that facilitates the ease of monitoring the project’s progress, a
single contract to administrate, and a fixed contract value that is
not affected by changes in the market. Through o ur experience,
the EPC model has proven to be an effective and efficient manner
to execute a project for all stakeholders.
Balance of Plant (BOP)
If the client has chosen a design/bid/build implement ation model,
Tetra Tech can fully support the client in the role of General
Contractor (GC) or Owner’s Engineer (OE). We are happy to
individually take on the civil, mechanical, electrical, piping, and
equipment setting scopes of work on power projects.
With the hands-on role of GC, we provide oversight and
management for the multiple trades required to perform the various
works—full responsibility for subcontractor performance, contract
administration, budget control, and contract compliance. We
maintain a safe working environment, provide issue/conflict
resolution, as well as oversight and QA on materials and
subcontractor procurement.
Through our established relationships within the industry, we can
confidently stand behind our stated proposal cost. In the role of OE,
we advocate on behalf of the client and coordinate with the owner,
designers, and contractors so everyone understands each other and
maintains a balance of design integrity, cost savings, and construction
schedule.
Construction Management
Construction management services can include full, general contract
supervision of subcontractors during the execution of a primary
construction contract. It can also include acting as the owner’s
representative for on-site monitoring of construction activities. Our
EPC experience adds measurable value for our clients in the way we
approach construction management. Our approach includes a certified
quality program, a proven safety program, strong project controls,
consideration of long-lead items in construction scheduling and
planning, subcontractor qualification and selection, status reporting,
and an effective methodology for managing materials, equipment, and
labor.
Construction Philosophy
Project Management: It is one thing to say you can do something; it is
another to deliver. And it is something entirely different to be able to
manage, communicate, and instill confidence that you are delivering
Construction Services
ENERGY | CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANT SERVICES - 4 - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Health and Safety Planning and Training
Health and Safety (H&S) is not just another program at Tetra
Tech—it is integral to our culture and incorporated into all facets of
our work. We believe all behaviors are manageable on site, and
therefore, all incidents are preventable through our tenets, of “Do It
Right” and “Zero Incident Performance.” Our past year’s
performance has brought us industry recognition as one of the 40
Safest Firms in the Heavy Construction Industry as we approach
several million hours worked without a lost time injury. We firmly
believe, and demonstrate daily, it is possible to conduct work injury
and incident free. Tetra Tech’s H&S program exceeds compliance
with United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and Canadian Provincial Worksafe statutes and jurisdictiona l
regulations. Our H&S program has received OSHA VPP status on
project-specific bases and cooperates regionally on informal
partnerships with OSHA, Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and
joint provincial industry safety and health committees. We also wo rk
closely with working task groups in Canada and the US, and have
been recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Department of Defense (DoD), and federal agencies for excellence.
Additionally, we work with North American trade associations a nd
industry groups, such as the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), to drive construction industry safety standards in North
America, improving working environments for labor and results for
contractors as well.
Project-specific, comprehensive, H&S programs are implemented for
all project scopes. We maintain detailed procedures for conducting
risk assessments and Activity Hazard Analyses to ensure hazards are
proactively eliminated or minimized. Project Safety Officers are
appointed to coordinate all H&S activities and training. All field
employees receive thorough orientation and ongoing training
throughout project execution and as conditions change or warrant.
Daily Activity Plans incorporate safety planning with work flow and
tool box talks performed for further emphasis. Weekly Quality Circle
meetings further integrate our tenets to provide a forum in which to
review substandard behaviors resulting in near misses of safety or
quality, as both are integral to overall success. Risk assessment and
hazard identification ultimately become the responsibility of every
individual on site in “Shared Vision” and responsibility as all benefit
in the results.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
On our projects, managing quality is not one person’s jo b...it is
everyone’s job. At Tetra Tech, we believe our success can only be
measured by client satisfaction of the quality of our services. We
strategically manage quality through planning, execution, and
closeout to satisfy the requirements and expectatio ns of our clients,
communities (or stakeholders), and (the toughest customer of all)
ourselves. Our QA/QC standards are based on ANSI/American
Society for Quality (ASQ) E-4 - Specifications and Guidelines for
Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and
Environmental Technology Programs, and International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 9001-2008 programs. Aligned with these
QA/QC models, our quality standards are established at the highest
levels of management to deliver projects that are w ithin scope,
defect-free, on time, within budget, regulation-compliant, and offer
the greatest value to our project owners.
We administer these standards by dedicating skilled and
experienced QA/QC Officers to our projects. The QA/QC Officers
implement Tetra Tech’s well-defined Quality Control Program on
site, overseeing and measuring it against the performance of the
project team. The Officers are responsible for developing and
enforcing project-specific QA/QC Plans which meet project
requirements. They conduct quality inspections, project quality
training orientation sessions, and on site meetings to reinforce
QA/QC procedures throughout the construction process. They
document and work diligently to resolve any and all quality
concerns. They work closely w ith the rest of the project
management team to ensure every person working on a Tetra Tech
renewable energy project knows what to do, how to do it, and the
processes for correction of deficient work to ensure the quality we
demand for our clients. Routine project audits are performed by
senior quality management staff to ensure the proper
implementation of corporate and project procedures.
what was promised. Quality project management is a combination of
processes, tools, and talented people who understand the full scope
of commitment—an integrated schedule with overlapping
milestones, fixed budget, and clearly defined deliverables. Tetra
Tech employs established tools to provide real-time information for
schedule and budget analysis; utilizes proven processes for
document control, change management, and project management
controls; and prepares comprehensive reports and communications
so the client is fully aware of the project status. But it is our project
managers, with their practical and reputable experience managing
power projects, that make it all happen.
Energy Waste System Construction
Coal Ash Landfills and Other Related Impoundments Coal ash
landfills and ash ponds are unique in their design approach,
construction, and construction quality assurance. Tetra Tech has
combined success in designing, permitting, constructing, and
providing operational support for RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D
landfills across the country.
In anticipation of the USEPA Coal Combustion Rule, Tetra Tech was
the first firm to design/build a new Subtitle D ash landfill in the
United States.
Tetra Tech also has design and design/build experience with the
following project types:
Ash Ponds (New)
Ash Pond (Closures)
Ash Remediation
Cut-Off Walls (i.e., soil-bentonite, cement-bentonite, etc.)
Liner System Evaluations and Recommendations
Waste Pond Operations and Maintenance
Sediment Control Systems
Slope Stability Analyses and Corrections
Vertical Landfill Expansions
Water Quality and Water Balance Studies
MGP Tetra Tech has assisted numerous utility clients in addressing
issues at more than 100 former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites
throughout the United States. We have extensive experience
planning, managing, and implementing both front-end remedial
investigative work and back-end remedial planning, design, and
remedial action work for MGP sites. Our services range from
regulatory negotiation, risk assessment, remedial investigation, data
management, and feasibility studies, to development of remediation
approaches, site restoration, and case closure. Also noteworthy is
our expertise in developing and implementing strategies for MGP
sites with contaminated sediment concerns, as well as MGP sites that
are targeted for redevelopment as part of our clients’ Brownfields
initiatives.
Our clients’ business and regulatory issues/ concerns regarding MGP
sites have changed over time and our approach has evolved to
effectively meet client requirements. In the past, emphasis was often
placed on innovative investigation methods and extensive site
characterization programs.
Now, we are more focused on remediation implementation of
sediments and Brownfields redevelopment as an integral part of MGP
remediation, when possible, and successfully achieving MGP site
closures through mechanisms such as development of risk-based
cleanup standards, implementation of “common sense” site closure
strategies, and limited “hot spot” remediation. With many of our
clients facing the challenges of deregulation and increased
competition, Tetra Tech is well positioned to assist them in reducing
and recovering life cycle costs and providing expert testimony,
litigation support, and insurance and rate recovery support.
Combining our in-house risk assessment capabilities with our proven
investigation, design, and construction capabilities, Tetra Tech offers
unique integrated services. This integration allows us to evaluate
potential risk issues during ongoing site characterization/ remediation
programs. As a result, appropriate interim measures can be
implemented, and supplemental sampling can be incorporated into an
existing investigation, in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this full-service
capability can save the client resources, time, and money.
Tetra Tech’s MGP team includes scientists, engineers, and
construction personnel. Our scientists continue to identify and
implement cost-effective technically sound investigative and analytical
techniques, and focus on appropriate and creative application of risk
assessment to achieve site closure. We use our substantial modeling
capabilities to optimize solutions for our clients. Our engineers are
focused on the application of proven and, as appropriate, innovative,
cost-effective remedial technologies/solutions, such as bioremediation
(e.g., bioslurping), containment systems (e.g., polywalls and capping),
advanced ChemOx and “combination” technologies, in -situ
remediation, and natural attenuation, in addition to conventional “dig
and haul.” Our construction personnel have the capabilities to cost
effectively implement selected remedial technologies.
Operation Services
Key Personnel
LEVERAGING KEY PERSONNEL & POWER PLANT
CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE
At Tetra Tech, we believe our people are what set us apart. T etra
Tech’s construction staff, from our executive leadership to our
project managers and site superintendents, has extensive expertise
and knowledge in the construction of thermal power plants.
Bob Finkle, PE
With more than 28 years of experience in the heavy highway and
infrastructure industry, Mr. Finkle has served as Tetra Tech
Construction’s vice president of operations for the past 14 years. He
directs daily operations, provides executive leadership to various
corporate divisions, and implements corporate policies and procedures
within the company’s organizational structure. Mr. Finkle also ensures
compliance with operational goals and provides guidance and
direction to division managers, as well as field operation units. His
recent oversight of the four-year $94 million Route 17 Parksville
Bypass for NYSDOT led to a successful project, despite considerable
environmental hurdles on this complex highway infrastructure bypass
project.
Frank C. Gross
Mr. Gross, Executive Vice President and President of Remediation and
Construction Management, has 34 years of experience in the power
generation industry. Mr. Gross leads Tetra Tech’s focus on program
management and construction services, including design-build and
design-bid-build services for energy, environmental remediation,
infrastructure, heavy civil, military transformation, ports and harbors,
and communications projects. Mr. Gross’ career is founded in the
Power industry, previously leading Washington Group International’s
Power Group, and then becoming the President of the Industrial/
Process Business Unit of URS Corporation’s Washington Division,
following an acquisition. Mr. Gross’ experience spans nuclear, fossil-
fuel, and thermal power plants with knowledge in steam, gas, and
combined cycle turbines. His project experience includes projects such
as the Forked River Nuclear Power Station in New Jersey, Holcombe
Coal-Fired Power Plant in Kansas, Oklaunion Power Station in Texas,
and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant in Alabama – the first nuclear power plant to generate more
than 1 billion watts of power.
John Stanich
Mr. Stanich has 45 years of experience in the heavy civil construction
industry and currently is the Executive Vice President of Operations
for Tetra Tech Construction. In his current role, Mr. Stanich has
overseen various critical projects at Tetra Tech, including the New
Orleans Levee Projects for the Army Corps of Engineers. He has an
acute knowledge of running large projects, managing subcontractors,
communicating with Owners, and ensuring compliance and
regulations are met for all parties involved.
Mr. Stanich previously served as the President of the Heavy
Industrial Division of Dick Corporation. Mr. Stanich’s nationwide
experience includes building power plants, steel mills, highways,
bridges, and industrial and water treatment facilities. In his t enure,
Mr. Stanich has been involved in the construction of projects in the
power industry including gas turbine power projects, natural gas -
fired power plants, resource recovery facilities, and cogeneration
facilities.
John De Feis
Mr. De Feis has 37 years of experience in corporate operations, new
company start-ups, construction company acquisitions, program and
project management, financial management, procurement, project
controls, planning, estimating, contract administration, change
management, equipment management, labor relations, performance
audits, negotiating and managing contracts for decontamination and
demolition, hazardous waste remediation, petrochemical, munitions
of explosive concern, government, facilities construction, quarries,
transmission lines, wind energy, cogeneration, wind energy and
power generation projects for government and commercial clients.
Throughout his career, he has worked/managed more than 20 power
plant projects, including the Austin Diesel Engines Cogeneration Plant
for IBM and a 1200 MW, $1B coal-fired facility for Jacksonville
Electric Authority.
Scott McManus
Mr. McManus works in construction and has more than nine years of
experience. His expertise includes the construction and project
management of wind power projects. He has managed over 900 MW
of wind farm construction and has experience in all phases of the
construction cycle, including: design development, geotechnical
investigations, estimating, scheduling, subcontract negotiations,
project mobilization, development of site safety-plans, site project
management, QA/QC implementation, contract and subcontract
management, and project closeout activities.
Jeff Kracum
Mr. Kracum brings 28 years of comprehensive experience in heavy
construction (power plants, steel mills, bridges, and water treatment
facilities) in a variety of responsible supervisory and management
positions. His areas of expertise include equipment installation, piping
installation, machinery alignment, structural steel erection, piling, and
heavy hauling and rigging. He has managed these activities on a
variety of industrial and infrastructure construction projects including
power generation facilities, steel mills, water treatment facilities, and
bridges. He has managed construction efforts with single project
values as high as $280 million. These projects have involved the
management of laborers and the management and integration of up
to multiple subcontractors on a single project.
Key Personnel
Floriano Ferreira
Mr. Ferreira has more than 14 years of domestic and international
experience. His project expertise includes waste-to-energy systems,
anaerobic digesters, and bioenergy utilization planning, design, and
construction. He has served as a construction manager and project
engineer, supporting and managing multiple plant engineering and
construction projects throughout his career. Mr. Ferreira has
supported the maintenance and monitoring of more than 600
anaerobic digesters installed in several Latin American countries and
his project experience includes serving as an operations manager,
overseeing a variety of projects, including the construction of nearly
200 new biogas plants.
Gary Hartley
Mr. Hartley has more than 35 years of multifaceted engineer ing
experience in plant environments for various companies. His
background includes process, project, and design engineering with an
emphasis on the cost-effectiveness, efficiency, operability, and
reliability of installations, including boilers. He has be en involved in
numerous design projects for various plants including several
proposed woody biomass plants.
Mark Sustarsic , PE
Mr. Sustarsic has more than 34 years of professional experience
specializing in project management, project and process engineeri ng,
and applications engineering. Throughout his career, he has
supported various plant engineering projects and since joining Tetra
Tech, has assisted in the design of various biomass and bioenergy
projects for planned facilities. In addition, Mr. Sustars ic has supported
conceptual design projects for renewable energy facilities utilizing
anaerobic digestion.
Ronald Frees
Mr. Frees is a mechanical engineer with more than 43 years of
experience in the design and drafting of mechanical systems for
renewable energy, chemical, and steel industries. His experience
includes equipment layout, piping design, and piping stress analy ses.
He has supported construction cost estimate packages for facilities,
including one for bioenergy and performed design for numerous
facilities. Mr. Frees’ experience also includes the installation of heat
recovery units for boiler houses and boiler installations.
Larry Sawchyn, P.Eng.
Mr. Sawchyn is a mechanical engineer and has more than 26 years of
experience in the management, assessment, upgrading, design, and
construction of a wide variety of projects in the water and wastewater
industry. He has vast experience in designing several plants including
a biowaste recovery plant and wastewater treatment plants. Mr.
Sawchyn’s expertise also includes the startup and supply and
commissioning of plants.
Bill Stonebraker
Mr. Stonebraker is an electrical engineer with more than 26 years of
professional experience performing electrical and instrumentation
design. His responsibilities have included construction specification
writing, electrical equipment selection and specification writing,
control panel design, electrical classification of process areas, detailing
instrument loop diagrams, and installations. He has experience
managing projects for plant Process and Instrument Diagrams and Mr.
Stonebraker also has experience in supporting renewable energy
projects.
Project Experience
A representative list of project experience – a more comprehensive list is available upon request
CLIENT / OWNER STATE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
OPERATIONS
SERVICES
Cogentrix CA Quail Brush
Dominion VA Virginia City
IBM Austin Diesel Engines
Cogeneration Plant
Jacksonville Electric
Authority
JEA 1200 MW Plant
Florida Power and
Light
FL St. Lucie 1 and 2 Plants
Houston Lighting
and Power
TX South Texas Project
Northeast Utilities Millstone 1
Louisiana Power and
Light
LA Waterford 3
TVA Watts Bar Plant
TVA Brown’s Ferry
Taiwan Power
Company
Chin Shan, Kuosheng,
Mannshan
Pacific Gas and
Electric
Trojan Plant
Georgia Power GA Vogtle Nuclear
Florida Power and
Light/JEA
St. John’s River Power
Park
Orlando Utilities
Commission
FL Stanton Energy Center
Design/Build Program
PacifiCorp WY Naughton Plant Design
and Construction Phase
Services
PacifiCorp WY Ash Disposal and Clear
Water Reservoirs
Construction Phase
Services
Ontario Power
Generation
ON Remote Emergency
Power Generator
Manitoba Hydro MB Diesel Generating
Capacity Upgrade
CLIENT / OWNER STATE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
OPERATIONS
SERVICES
Manitoba Hydro MB Shamattawa Generating
Station
Ontario Power
Generation
ON Emergency Power
Generator Load Bank
Access Energy VT Ludlow Biomass Plant
Berkshire Power MA Berkshire
Constellation MA Mystic
Burlington Electric VT McNeil Biomass Plant
Constellation MA Fore River
Calpine SC Columbia
Calpine NY Bethpage
Calpine CT Towantic
Concord Municipal MA Concord
Dominion IL Elwood
Dominion IL Kincaid
Dominion MA Brayton Point
Dominion MA Salem Harbor
Dominion VA Altavista Biomass Plant
Dominion VA Bremo
Dominion VA Hopewell Biomass Plant
Dominion VA Southampton Biomass Plant
Energy Investors
Funds
MA Russell
FPLE / Nextera US Confidential
GDF Suez MA Distrigas Cogen
GDF Suez MA Mt. Tom
GDF Suez CT Waterbury
Indeck Energy NH Alexandria Biomass Plant
Indeck Energy IL Elwood
Mass Munic
Wholesale Electric
MA Stony Brook Unit 3
GenOn MA Canal
GenOn MA Kendall
CLIENT / OWNER STATE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
OPERATIONS
SERVICES
Acciona Enegy North
America
CA Lompoc Wind Energy
Cook Inlet Region
(CIRI)
AD Fire Island Wind Energy
CPV Renewable Energy
Company
OK
Keenan Wind Energy
EDP NY Maple Ridge Wind Energy
EDP NY Marble River Wind Energy
Clearwater County ID Proposed Biomass CHP
Plant
City of Kotzebue AK Proposed Biomass Plant
Whitefish School District MT Prop osed Biomass Facility
Village of Orleans and
Village of Barton
VT Proposed Wood -Biomass
Electric Plant
Confidential Client CA Biodigester Methane Gas
Treatment Plant
Dominion VA St. Paul Biomass Plant
City of Toledo OH Collins Park Solar Energy
NextEra Energy
Resources
CA Genesis Solar Energy
Recurrent Energy CA Kaiser Permanente Solar
Energy
Recurrent Energy CA Sunset Reservoir Solar
Energy
Appendix B - Letters of Support
B1 – KGB
B2 – KPU
Appendix C – Fuel Invoice
Appendix D - Governing Body Resolution
Appendix E - Supporting Documentation – Feasibility Studies
E1 – Airport Biomass Heating FS
Ketchikan Airport
Wood Heat Pre-Feasibility Assessment
Prepared by: Devany Plentovich
Site Visit: June 11, 2012
Report Date: September 10, 2012
Background
Dan Bockhurst and Mike Carney with the Ketchikan Borough invited Alaska Energy Authority to
Ketchikan to evaluate the potential of heating the Ketchikan Airport Complex with wood heat. Mike
Carney escorted Devany Plentovich on a tour of the facility on Monday, June 11 , 2012.
Assessment Objectives
Inspect the Ketchikan Airport Facility as a potential candidate for heating with wood.
Evaluate the suitability of the facility for siting a wood-fired boiler.
Estimate the capital costs of a suitable wood-fired system.
Estimate the annual operating and maintenance costs of a wood-fired system
Estimate the potential economic benefits.
Current Heating System
The current heating system in the main airport complex (32,000 sq. ft.) consists of 2 Cleaver Brooks oil
fired boilers installed in 1971. They supply heating and domestic hot water to the facility. According to
Mr. Carney, the HVAC system, including the oil-fired boilers, is at the end of its economic life and is
scheduled for replacement. Two quotes were received to replace the oil boilers with similar units along
with an electric boiler back-up, and the quotes ranged from $700,000 to $800,000.
The existing Cleaver Brooks boilers are model CB-100-80 with serial numbers L-55120 and L-55119. The
manufacturer has been contacted to identify the design specifications of the existing system, but no
information has been received yet. The estimates for this assessment will be based on boilers sized for
the annual fuel usage. A more extensive engineering analysis should be completed in the design phase
to understand the exact loading needs of the complex.
Photo #1 shows the existing boiler room and Cleaver Brooks boilers.
Photo 1 – existing boiler room with 1971 Cleaver Brooks Boilers.
Current Fuel Usage
In the last 2 years, the fuel oil boiler system has used an average of 22,700 gallons of #2 diesel with the
following monthly breakdown (based on purchase receipts):
Ketchikan Terminal Fuel Usage
(gallons)
2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012
July 978.1 914.2
August 1,006.4 1,190.8
September 700.0 905.3
October 1,986.9 2,907.4
November 1,647.1 2,824.0
December 2,225.0 1,593.7
January 3,323.4 3,274.4
February 2,132.2 3,244.3
March 1,857.6 1,261.0
April 2,328.3 2,348.7
May 2,654.3 1,180.4
June 620.8 2,279.0
Total 21,460.1 23,923.2
The Borough is currently paying $2.94 per gallon for #2 diesel.
Proposed Heating System
Given the high cost of diesel and expected continued escalation, the Ketchikan Borough is interested in
investigating other heating options for the airport complex. The Borough has considered electric
heating and various other forms of biomass. The local utility, SEAPA, is discouraging the conversion of
primary heating needs to electric resistance heating due to the rapid reduction in excess hydro power.
Both the Ketchikan Federal Building and the Discovery Building have recently been converted to wood
pellet heating. Initial responses from the operation and maintenance personnel on these systems have
been positive. The Ketchikan Building has installed an ACT Bioenergy Boiler, and the Discovery Center
has installed a Hurst Model. The Discovery Center has encountered a few issues with the infeed system
plugging and is working with the manufacturer and pellet supplier to resolve the plugging.
As a result of the positive impressions of the operating pellet heating systems and the ease of
operations and maintenance, the Ketchikan Borough has asked Alaska Energy Authority to investigate
the opportunity of installing similar systems in the airport complex.
There appears to be sufficient real estate and structure in the existing boiler room to install a pellet
boiler system. The dimensions of the ACT Bioenergy boiler were used for the preliminary analysis.
There appears to be ample room for piping tie-ins, air feed, heat exchangers, and pellet conveyors. It is
proposed that the pellet silo be located through the southeast wall in the existing parking area. See
Photo #2.
Photo #2 – proposed location for the pellet silo.
The capital estimate for the Ketchikan Airport Pellet Boiler was based on the Brown Elementary School,
North Pole, Alaska estimate developed by Paul Weisner, CE2 Engineers. Because the annual amounts of
fuel displaced in each project are very similar, the assumption was made that the boiler sizes would be
similar. This conservative capital estimate is based on the assumption that the pellet boiler will fit into
the existing airport boiler room with no structural changes. The pellet boiler and silo are budgetary
quotes from ACT Bioenergy for a 450 kW system. The sizing of the boiler is roughly based on annual fuel
displacement and must be re-evaluated with actual building loading requirements. Line items that
might not be required for construction in Ketchikan are equipment rentals, room and board for
construction crews, and some auxiliary equipment that might not need replacement. It is
recommended that this preliminary budget be reviewed and updated by the project manager.
Ketchikan Airport Capital Estimate
Description Unit Cost Quantity Budget
Construction Management $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000
Labor $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000
Pellet Silo and auger $ 18,000 1 $ 18,000
Pellet Foundation $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000
Pellet Boiler - installed in existing building $ 119,000 1 $ 119,000
Demolition of Existing Boilers $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000
Back-up electric heater (360 KW) $ 60,000 1 $ 60,000
Biomass Circulating Pump Assembly $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000
Mixing Valve $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000
Building Circulating Pump Assembly $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000
Hydronic Thermal Expansion Tank $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000
Piping and insulation $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000
Valves and instruments $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500
Pipe hangers $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000
Heat Exchanger $ 7,600 1 $ 7,600
Misc (hardware, room/board/fuel/rent) $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000
Freight $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000
Equipment rental $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000
Electrical $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000
Total $ 412,100
Contingency 15% $ 61,815
Engineering 10% $ 41,210
Grand Total $ 515,125
Pellet Fuel Supply
Tongass Forest Enterprises in Ketchikan is the supplier to the Federal Building and the Discovery Center.
They have recently started manufacturing pellets with sawmill waste. There are pellet plants in
Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and numerous pellet plants in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho,
Montana, Alberta and British Columbia. Sealaska Corporation is importing pellets from the lower 48 to
supply the Sealaska Building in Juneau and is investigating the opportunities to supply other pellet users
in Southeast.
Pinnacle Pellets in Prince Rupert, British Columbia are breaking ground this summer for a large scale
pellet export port facility and would be able to easily supply many times the current Alaska pellet
demand if current supplies do not remain viable. Pinnacle alone is currently exporting 100,000 tons to
Europe out of the Vancouver, BC port.
Economic Analysis and Recommendations
Assumptions used in the Economic Analysis:
Annual Fuel Usage 22,700 gallons
Current Fuel Oil price $2.94/gallon
Existing Boiler Efficiency 72%
Energy Content of #2 Diesel 138,800 Btu/gallon
Percentage of fuel displacement with new system 100%
Efficiency of Pellet Boiler 80%
Energy Content of Pellets 8000 Btu/lb
Pellet Fuel Price $300/ton
Annual additional maintenance costs $1000
Maintenance labor will utilize existing employees same as current
Simple Payback Period Analysis for a Medium Size Pellet Heating
System
Ketchikan Airport Facility
(22,700 gpy, 177 tpy)
Fuel oil cost
($ per year @ $2.94 per gallon $66,700
Pellet fuel
($ per year @ $300 per ton) $53,100
Annual Fuel Cost Savings ($) $13,600
Total Investment Costs ($) $250,000 $400,000 $515,000
Simple Payback (yrs)a 19.9 31.8 41.0
a Simple Payback equals Total Investment Costs divided by Annual Fuel Cost Savings
Based upon the current fuel prices for wood pellets and #2 diesel, the pellet system will save
approximately $13,600 annually over the cost of diesel. Historically, the cost of pellets has been more
stable when compared to petroleum-based fuels, so this amount of savings should increase in future
years. The simple payback for the capital costs of the pellet system is not stellar based on current fuel
oil prices, and the project would not support implementation as a stand-alone replacement. However,
the fuel oil boilers are at the end of their useful life and must be replaced. Capital costs for pellets and
fuel oil systems are similar, so the fuel savings and potential local fuel supply should be major factors in
the decision-making process. The Borough of Ketchikan should consider applying for
Feasibility/Conceptual Design, Final Design, and Construction funds through the Renewable Energy Fund
grant program – Round 6. Also, evaluating opportunities to reduce the capital costs could greatly
improve the economic analysis of the system.
The following chart illustrates the sensitive of fuel costs for 3 different scenarios and quantifies the
potential savings of the system in high, medium, and low fuel cost scenarios. #2 diesel fuel costs of
$4.00 per gallon coupled with the local manufacture of pellets at $250 per ton could result in annual fuel
savings of $41,000.
Summary of Potential Savings
Table 5-3 summarizes the findings thus far: annual fuel oil usage, range of annual fuel oil costs, estimated annual pellet fuel requirement, range
of estimated annual pellet fuel costs, and potential gross annual savings for the airport facility. [Note: potential gross annual fuel cost savings do
not consider capital costs and non-fuel operation, maintenance and repair (OM&R) costs.]
Table 5-3. Estimate of Total Wood Consumption, Comparative Costs and Potential Savings
Fuel Oil Used
gal/year
Annual Fuel Oil Cost
(@ $ ___ /gal)
Approximate
Wood Pellet
Requirement a
Annual Wood Pellet Cost
(@ $ ___ /ton)
Potential Gross Annual
Fuel Cost Savings
($)
FACILITY 3.00/gal 3.50/gal 4.00/gal Wood pellets, MC7, 250/ton 300/ton 350/ton Low Medium High
Ketchikan Airport 22,700 66,500 76,000 85,500 177 tons 44,308 53,167 62,031 4,469 22,833 41,192
Assumes 72% boiler efficiency, 80% pellet boiler efficiency, #2 diesel at 138,000 Btu/gal, and pellets at 8000 Btu/lb.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION - EVALUATION CRITERIA, IMPLEMENTATION, WOOD HEATING
SYSTEMS
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY DAN PARRENT OF THE US FOREST SERVICE.
This report agrees with the approach recommended by the Biomass Energy Resource Center (BERC),
which suggests that, “[T]he most cost-effective approach to studying the feasibility for a biomass energy
project is to approach the study in stages.” Further, BERC advises “not spending too much time, effort,
or money on a full feasibility study before discovering whether the potential project makes basic
economic sense” and suggests, “[U]ndertaking a pre-feasibility study . . . a basic assessment, not yet at
the engineering level, to determine the project's apparent cost-effectiveness”. [Biomass Energy Resource
Center, Montpelier, Vermont. www.biomasscenter.org]
Successful Implementation
In general, four aspects of project implementation have been important to wood energy projects in the
past: 1) a project “champion”, 2) clear identification of a sponsoring entity, 3) dedication of and
commitment by facility personnel, and 4) a reliable and consistent supply of fuel.
Bulk fuel systems, though automated, generally require some attention on a daily basis, but pellet
systems are generally less troublesome than other types of bulk fuel systems. For this report it is
assumed that existing maintenance personnel would be trained to operate the system and would be
capable of performing routine maintenance as necessary.
The forest industry infrastructure in/around Seward is not well-developed and biomass fuels are not
readily available in appreciable quantities. For this report, it is assumed that wood pellets would be
shipped in from elsewhere in Alaska, the Lower 48 or Canada.
Classes of Wood Heating Systems
There are, essentially, two classes of wood heating systems: manual cordwood systems and automated
“bulk fuel” systems. Cordwood systems are generally appropriate for applications where the maximum
heating demand ranges from 100,000 to 1,000,000 Btu per hour, although smaller and larger
applications are possible. “Bulk fuel” systems are systems that burn wood chips, sawdust, bark/hog fuel,
shavings, pellets, etc. They are generally applicable for situations where the heating demand exceeds 1
million Btu per hour, although local conditions, especially fuel availability, can exert strong influences on
the feasibility of a bulk fuel system.
Usually, an automated bulk fuel boiler is tied-in directly to the existing oil-fired system. They can be
designed to replace 100% of the fuel oil used in the oil-fired boiler, although they are often designed to
meet about 90 percent of peak demand load. In either case, the existing oil-fired system would usually
remain in place and be available for peak demand or backup in the event of downtime in the wood
system.
THE NATURE OF WOOD FUELS
Wood Fuel Forms and Current Utilization
Currently, wood fuels in Ketchikan are generally available in cordwood, chips and pellets. Tongass
Forest Enterprises has started manufacturing pellets with sawmill waste. Chips are also available from
the same source. There are pellet plants in Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and numerous pellet plants in
Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Alberta and British Columbia. Sealaska Corporation is
importing pellets from the lower 48.
Pinnacle Pellets in Prince Rupert, British Columbia are breaking ground this summer for a large scale
pellet export port facility and would be able to easily supply many times the current Alaska pellet
demand if current supplies do not remain viable. Pinnacle alone is currently exporting 100,000 tons to
Europe out of the Vancouver, BC port. Pinnacle has expressed support for increasing the pellet demand
in Alaska and has asked a few questions about opportunities for a Pinnacle mill in Alaska.
Heating Value of Wood
Wood is a unique fuel whose heating value is variable, depending on moisture content, species of wood
and other factors. There are also several recognized heating values: high heating value (HHV), gross
heating value (GHV), and delivered heating value (DHV) that may be assigned to wood at various stages in
the calculations.
For this report, generic wood pellets with a HHV of 8,602 Btu per bone-dry pound (MC0) are used as the
benchmark. The GHV at 7% moisture content (MC7) is 8,000 Btu/lb or 16 million Btu per ton. DHV,
which is a function of boiler efficiency (assumed to be 80%), is 12.8 million Btu per ton. The delivered
heating value of 1 ton of generic wood pellets (MC7) equals the delivered heating value of 119.4 gallons
of #1 fuel oil when both the wood and oil are burned at 80% conversion efficiency.
WOOD-FUELED HEATING SYSTEMS
Low Efficiency Cordwood Boilers
This section omitted.
High Efficiency Low Emission Cordwood Boilers
This section omitted.
Bulk Fuel Boiler Systems
Industrial bulk fuel systems are generally efficient and meet typical federal and state air quality
standards. They have been around for a long time and there is little new technological ground to break
when installing one. Efficient bulk fuel boilers typically convert 70 to 80+ percent of the energy in the
wood fuel to hot water or low pressure steam when the fuel moisture content is 40 percent (MC40) or
less. Most boiler vendors provide systems that can burn various bulk fuels (wood chips, sawdust, wood
pellets and hog fuel), but each system, generally, has to be designed around the predominant fuel form. A
system designed to burn clean sawmill chips will not necessarily operate well on a diet of hogged fuel, for
example.
Large commercial pellet boilers are a fairly new addition to the alternatives available to institutional
facility operators. While most existing bulk fuel designs can be adapted to burn pellets, there are not
many systems that have been designed specifically for pellets, and there only a few North American
pellet boiler manufacturers or distributors. European firms have been building high efficiency pellet
boilers for years and that technology is just beginning to find its way into the U.S. market.
Pellets are a uniform fuel manufactured to consistent specifications and are nearly universally
interchangeable. ‘Combination’ or multi-fuel systems capable of burning pellets and chips are possible,
but with some fairly strict limitations.
Table 4-1 presents a partial list of bulk fuel boiler system vendors.
Table 4-1. Bulk Fuel Boiler System Vendors
Decton Iron Works, Inc
Butler, WI
(800) 246-1478
www.decton.com
New Horizon Corp.
Sutton, WV
(877) 202-5070
www.newhorizoncorp.com
Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc.
Bark River, MI
(906) 466-9010
www.burnchips.com
JMR Industrial Contractors
Columbus, MS
(662) 240-1247
www.jmric.com
Chiptec Wood Energy Systems
South Burlington, VT
(800) 244-4146
www.chiptec.com
Advanced Climate Technologies, LLC
Schenectady, NY
(518) 377-2349
www.actbioenergy.com
Note: Listing of any manufacturer, distributor or service provider does not constitute an endorsement.
Bulk fuel systems are available in a range of sizes between 300,000 and 60,000,000 Btu/hr. However, the
majority of the installations range from about 1 MMBtu/hr to 20 MMBtu/hr. Bulk fuel systems with their
automated storage and fuel handling conveyances are generally not cost-effective for small applications.
Large energy consumers (i.e., consuming at least 40,000 gallons of fuel oil per year) have the best
potential for installing chip-fired boilers. Pellet-fired systems, with lower initial costs than chip-fired
systems, are fairly scalable. They can be used in applications ranging from residential to industrial.
However, given the higher cost of pellets versus other bulk fuels, economic returns are more sensitive to
the price of the fossil fuel alternative.
For pellets, there are several delivery options. Bulk pellets can be delivered in a self-unloading tractor-
trailer van, a shipping container attached to a dump body, or a specialized delivery truck equipped with
an auger-elevator or pneumatic delivery system. On-site storage and the delivery system must be
compatible, and storage capacity should be 1½ to 2 times greater than the delivery truck’s capacity. For
destinations in Alaska, additional consideration should also be given to the barge or train delivery
schedule(s). (NOTE: pellets must be protected from rain, snow, sea spray, etc. at all times. Pellets that
get wet deteriorate quickly.)
There are several bulk fuel boilers installed in industrial applications in Alaska, but in recent years
several have been installed in institutional situations. The most recent were installed at the Tok School
in Tok, Delta School in Delta Junction, and Sealaska Corp. office building in downtown Juneau; both in
2010. A 3.6 MMBtu/hr pellet-fired system is under construction at the U.S. Coast Guard base in Sitka.
This system will replace more than 100,000 gallons of fuel oil per year. Two more have recently been
installed in Ketchikan; one at the Forest Service Discovery Center and the other at the Federal Building.
A chip-fired system has been heating the schools and pool in Craig, AK since 2008. It is similar in size to
boilers installed in several Montana schools.
SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEM
Selecting the appropriate heating system is, primarily, a function of heating demand. It is generally not
feasible to install automated bulk fuel systems in/at small facilities, and it is likely to be impractical to
install cordwood boilers at very large facilities. Other than demand, system choice can be limited by fuel
availability, fuel form, labor, financial resources, and limitations of the site.
The selection of a wood-fueled heating system has an impact on fuel economy. Potential savings in fuel
costs must be weighed against initial investment costs and ongoing operating, maintenance and repair
(OM&R) costs. Wood system costs include the initial capital costs of purchasing and installing the
equipment, non-capital costs (engineering, permitting, etc.), the cost of the fuel storage building and
boiler building (if required), the financial burden associated with loan interest, the fuel cost, and the
other costs associated with operating and maintaining the heating system, especially labor.
Comparative Costs of Fuels
Table 5-1 compares the cost of #1 fuel oil to generic wood pellets (MC7). In order to make reasonable
comparisons, costs are provided on a “per million Btu” (MMBtu) basis.
Table 5-1. Comparative Cost of Fuel Oil vs. Wood Pellets
FUEL
HHV
(Btu)
GHV
(Btu)
Conversion
Efficiency
DHV
(Btu)
Price per unit
($)
Cost per MMBtu
(DHV, ($))
Fuel oil, #1,
(per 1 gallon)
134,000 134,000 80% 107,200
3.50/gal 32.65
4.00 37.31
4.50 41.98
Wood pellets
(per 1 ton, MC7)
17.2
million
16.0
million
80%
12.8
million
250/ton 19.53
300 23.44
350 27.34
Cost per MMBtu Sensitivity – Pellets
Figure 5-1 illustrates the relationship between the price of wood pellets (MC7) and the cost of delivered
heat, (the slanted line). For each $10 per ton increase in the price of pellets, the cost per million Btu
increases by about $0.78. The chart assumes that the pellet boiler converts 80% of the GHV energy in
the wood to useful heat and that fuel oil is converted to heat at 80% efficiency. The dashed lines
represent #1 fuel oil at $3.50, $4.00 and $4.50 per gallon ($32.65, $37.31 and $41.98 per million Btu
respectively).
At high efficiency, heat from pellets (MC7) at $477.60 per ton is equal to the cost of #1 fuel oil at $4.00
per gallon, (i.e., $37.31 per MMBtu), before considering the investment and OM&R costs. At 80%
efficiency and $300/ton, an efficient pellet boiler will deliver heat at about 63% of the cost of #1 fuel oil
at $4.00 per gallon ($23.44 versus $37.31 per MMBtu), before considering the cost of the equipment
and OM&R. Figure 5-1 shows that, at a given efficiency, savings increase significantly with decreases in
the price of pellets and/or with increases in the price of fuel oil.
Fuel Oil at $4.50 per gallon
Fuel Oil at $4.00 per gallon
Fuel Oil at $3.50 per gallon
Figure 5-1. Effect of Pellet Price on Cost of Delivere d Heat
E2 – SD Biomass Heating FS
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems
Final Report
July 24, 2012
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District
Ketchikan High School
Ketchikan, Alaska
Presented by
CTA Architects Engineers
Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz
Lars Construction Management Services
Rex Goolsby
For
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School
Ketchikan Indian Association
In partnership with
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation
Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group
Funded by
Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service
306 W. Railroad, Suite 104
Missoula, MT 59802
406.728.9522
www.ctagroup.com
CTA Project: FEDC_KETCHCRAIG_KHS
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers i
July 24, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Existing Building Systems.......................................................................................... 3
4.0 Energy Use ............................................................................................................... 3
5.0 Biomass Boiler Size ................................................................................................... 3
6.0 Wood Fuel Use .......................................................................................................... 4
7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access ....................................................................... 5
8.0 Integration with Existing Heating Systems ................................................................. 5
9.0 Air Quality Permits ..................................................................................................... 5
10.0 Wood Heating Options .............................................................................................. 6
11.0 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 6
12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................... 6
13.0 Results of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 7
14.0 Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 7
15.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 8
16.0 Recommended Action ............................................................................................... 8
Appendixes
Appendix A: Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost .................................................. 1 page
Appendix B: Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................... 2 pages
Appendix C: Site Plan ................................................................................................. 1 page
Appendix D: Air Quality Report ............................................................................... 11 pages
Appendix E: Wood Fired Heating Technologies ........................................................ 3 pages
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 1 of 7
July 24, 2012
1.0 Executive Summary
The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and
economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High
School in Ketchikan, Alaska.
The following tables summarize the current fuel use and the potential wood fuel use:
Table 1.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual
Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost
High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230
Table 1.2 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary
Chipped/
Fuel Wood Ground
Oil Pellets Wood
(Gallons) (Tons) (Tons)
High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9
Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use.
Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground
fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options
reviewed were as follows:
Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options:
A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage.
Wood Pellet Boiler Options:
B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo.
The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option:
Table 1.3 - Economic Evaluation Summary
Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System
Year 1 NPV NPV
20
Yr
30
Yr
Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR
Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC
A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8
B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the
use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the
current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and
the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 2 of 8
July 24, 2012
Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be
recommended over the chip system.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 3 of 8
July 24, 2012
2.0 Introduction
The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and
economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High
School in Ketchikan, Alaska.
3.0 Existing Building Systems
The Ketchikan High School is a steel and concrete framed building originally constructed
in 1953 and expanded and remodeled extensively in mid 1990’s. The facility is
approximately 110,000 square feet and is heated by one 3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water
boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers. Domestic hot water is provided
by three 120 gallon indirect water heaters using the boiler water as a heating source.
These domestic water heaters then feed a single 1,500 gallon storage tank. The existing
boilers are original to the renovation work in the mid 1990’s and are in good condition.
Most of the heating system infrastructure was also updated in the mid 1990’s and is in
good condition.
Facilities Dropped from Feasibility Study
No facilities were dropped from the feasibility study.
Facilities Added to Feasibility Study
No facilities were added to the feasibility study.
4.0 Energy Use
Fuel oil bills for the facilities were provided. The following table summarizes the data:
Table 4.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual
Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost
High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230
Electrical energy consumption will increase with the installation of the wood fired boiler
system because of the power needed for the biomass boiler components such as augers,
conveyors, draft fans, etc. and the additional pumps needed to integrate into the existing
heating systems. The cash flow analysis accounts for the additional electrical energy
consumption and reduces the annual savings accordingly.
5.0 Biomass Boiler Size
The following table summarized the connected load of fuel fired boilers:
Table 5.1 - Connected Boiler Load Summary
Likely
Peak System
Output Load Peak
MBH Factor MBH
Gateway Borough
School Boiler 1 Fuel Oil 3770 0.65 2451
Boiler 2 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646
Boiler 3 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646
Total 11910 7742
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 4 of 8
July 24, 2012
Typically a wood heating system is sized to meet approximately 85% of the typical annual
heating energy use of the building. The existing heating boilers would be used for the
other 15% of the time during peak heating conditions, during times when the biomass
boiler is down for servicing, and during swing months when only a few hours of heating
each day are required. Recent energy models have found that a boiler sized at 50% to
60% of the building peak load will typically accommodate 85% of the boiler run hours.
Table 5.2 - Proposed Biomass Boiler Size
Likely Biomass
System Biomass Boiler
Peak Boiler Size
MBH Factor MBH
High School 7742 0.6 4645
6.0 Wood Fuel Use
The types of wood fuel available in the area include wood pellets and chipped/ground
wood fuel. The estimated amount of wood fuel needed for each wood fuel type for each
building was calculated and is listed below:
Table 6.1 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary
Chipped/
Fuel Wood Ground
Oil Pellets Wood
(Gallons) (Tons) (Tons)
High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9
Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use.
The amount of wood fuel shown in the table is for offsetting 85% of the total fuel oil use.
The moisture content of the wood fuels and the overall wood burning system efficiencies
were accounted for in these calculations. The existing fuel oil boilers were assumed to be
80% efficient. Wood pellets were assumed to be 7% MC with a system efficiency of 70%.
Chipped/ground fuel was assumed to be 40% MC with a system efficiency of 65%.
As can be seen from the potential wood fuel use, the volume of wood is such that a cord
wood system is not really practical and further analysis will look at pellet and
chipped/ground fuel options.
There are sawmills and active logging operations in the region. Tongass Forest
Enterprises has stared up a pellet plant in Ketchikan and is providing pellets to Sealaska.
Pellets are also available from plants in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. There
appears to be a sufficient available supply to service the boiler plant.
The unit fuel costs for fuel oil and the different fuel types were calculated and equalized to
dollars per million Btu ($/MMBtu) to allow for direct comparison. The Delivered $/MMBtu
is the cost of the fuel based on what is actually delivered to the heating system, which
includes all the inefficiencies of the different systems. The Gross $/MMBtu is the cost of
the fuel based on raw fuel, or the higher heating value and does not account for any
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 5 of 8
July 24, 2012
system inefficiencies. The following table summarizes the equalized fuel costs at different
fuel unit costs:
Table 6.2 - Unit Fuel Costs Equalized to $/MMBtu
Net
Gross System System
Delivered Gross
Fuel Type Units Btu/unit Efficiency Btu/unit $/unit $/MMBtu $/MMBtu
Fuel Oil gal 138500 0.8 110800 $3.50 $31.59 $25.27
$4.00 $36.10 $28.88
$4.50 $40.61 $32.49
Pellets tons 16400000 0.7 11480000 $300.00 $26.13 $18.29
$350.00 $30.49 $21.34
$400.00 $34.84 $24.39
Chips tons 10800000 0.65 7020000 $75.00 $10.68 $6.94
$100.00 $14.25 $9.26
$125.00 $17.81 $11.57
7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access
The boiler room is not large enough to accommodate a new wood fired boiler so a new
stand-alone plant would be required. The best location for a plant would be just northwest
of the boiler room, adjacent to the tennis courts to the north.
Any type of biomass boiler plant will require access by delivery vehicles, typically 40 foot
long vans or some similar type of trailer. The school is built on a steep site, limiting vehicle
access and space for constructing wood heating systems. A wood pellet boiler with
adjacent silos appear to the most appropriate solution. Wood pellet fuel would need to be
conveyed into the silo utilizing a pneumatic blower or grain auger. A pneumatic blower
allows greater flexibility in the relationship between the delivery vehicle and silo.
8.0 Integration with Existing Heating System
Integration of a wood fired boiler system would be relatively straight forward in the
building. The field visit confirmed the location of the boiler room in order to identify an
approximate point of connection from a biomass boiler to the existing building. Piping from
the biomass boiler plant would be run below ground with pre-insulated pipe and extended
to the face of each building, and extended up the exterior surface of the school in order to
penetrate exterior wall into the boiler room. Once the hot water supply and return piping
enters the existing boiler room it would be connected to existing supply and return pipes in
appropriate locations in order to utilize existing pumping systems within each building.
9.0 Air Quality Permits
Resource System Group has done a preliminary review of potential air quality issues in the
area. Southeast Alaska is has meteorological conditions that can create thermal
inversions, which are unfavorable for the dispersion of emissions. The proposed boiler
size at this location is small enough, that the boiler is not likely to require any State or
Federal permits. Since this plant will be located at a school and is also located in the
populated area, the air quality will likely be scrutinized and modeling of emissions, the
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 6 of 8
July 24, 2012
stack height, and of air pollution control devices is recommended. RSG also recommends
pellet systems over chip systems for the ability of pellets to burn cleaner than chip
systems. See the air quality memo in Appendix D.
10.0 Wood Heating Options
The technologies available to produce heating energy from wood based biomass are
varied in their approach, but largely can be separated into three types of heating plants:
cord wood, wood pellet and wood chip/ground wood fueled. See Appendix E for these
summaries.
Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground
fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options
reviewed were as follows:
Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options:
A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage.
Wood Pellet Boiler Options:
B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo.
11.0 Estimated Costs
The total project costs are at a preliminary design level and are based on RS Means and
recent biomass project bid data. The estimates are shown in the appendix. These costs
are conservative and if a deeper level feasibility analysis is undertaken and/or further
design occurs, the costs may be able to be reduced.
12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions
The cash flow analysis assumes fuel oil at $3.70/gal, electricity at $0.10/kwh, wood pellets
delivered at $300/ton, and ground/chipped wood fuel delivered at $100/ton. The fuel oil
and electricity costs were based on utility bills. Pellet costs were obtained from Tongass
Forest Enterprises.
It is assumed that the wood boiler would supplant 85% of the estimated heating use, and
the existing heating systems would heat the remaining 15%. Each option assumes the
total project can be funded with grants and non obligated capital money. The following
inflation rates were used: O&M - 2%, Fossil Fuel – 5%, Wood Fuel – 3%, Discount Rate
for NPV calculation – 3%. The fossil fuel inflation rate is based on the DOE EIA website.
DOE is projecting a slight plateau with a long term inflation of approximately 5%. As a
point of comparison, oil prices have increased at an annual rate of over 8% since 2001.
The analysis also accounts for additional electrical energy required for the wood fired
boiler system as well as the system pumps to distribute heating hot water to the buildings.
Wood fired boiler systems also will require more maintenance, and these additional
maintenance costs are also factored into the analysis.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 7 of 8
July 24, 2012
13.0 Results of Evaluation
The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option:
Table 13.1 - Economic Evaluation Summary
Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System
Year 1 NPV NPV
20
Yr
30
Yr
Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR
Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC
A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8
B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11
The benefit to cost ratio (B/C) takes the net present value (NPV) of the net energy savings
and divides it by the construction cost of the project. A B/C ratio greater than or equal to
1.0 indicates an economically advantageous project.
Accumulated cash flow (ACF) is another evaluation measure that is calculated in this
report and is similar to simple payback with the exception that accumulated cash flow
takes the cost of financing and fuel escalation into account. For many building owners,
having the accumulated cash flow equal the project cost within 15 years is considered
necessary for implementation. If the accumulated cash flow equals project cost in 20
years or more, that indicates a challenged project. Positive accumulated cash flow should
also be considered an avoided cost as opposed to a pure savings.
Because this project involves as school, a life cycle cost analysis following the
requirements of the State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development was
completed and the data is summarized in the following table:
Table 13.2 Life Cycle Costs of Project Alternatives
Alternate #1 Alternate #2
Existing
Boiler Wood Pellet Boiler
Initial Investment Cost $0 $1,400,000
Operations Cost $11,098,820 $6,160,797
Maintenance & Repair Cost $0 $56,725
Replacement Cost $0 $0
Residual Value $0 $0
Total Life Cycle Cost $11,098,820 $7,617,523
This life cycle cost analysis also indicates a pellet boiler system is a strong project.
14.0 Project Funding
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District may pursue a biomass project grant from
the Alaska Energy Authority.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 8 of 8
July 24, 2012
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District could also enter into a performance
contract for the project. Companies such as Siemens, McKinstry, Johnson Controls and
Chevron have expressed an interest in participating in funding projects of all sizes
throughout Alaska. This allows the facility owner to pay for the project entirely from the
guaranteed energy savings, and to minimize the project funds required to initiate the
project. The scope of the project may be expanded to include additional energy
conservation measures such as roof and wall insulation and upgrading mechanical
systems.
15.0 Summary
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the
use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the
current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and
the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3.
Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be
recommended over the chip system.
Additional sensitivity analysis was performed on the wood pellet option. The cost of the
wood fuel was varied, and the 20 year B/C ratio exceeds 1.0 up to $385/ton.
16.0 Recommended Actions
Most grant programs will likely require a full feasibility assessment. A full assessment
would provide more detail on the air quality issues, wood fuel resources, and a schematic
design of the boiler systems and system integration to obtain more accurate costs.
It is recommended that the best location for a boiler plant be reviewed in more detail. A
boiler plant located further east than shown on the drawing may be avoid taking up parking
spots, but a portion of the tennis court may be lost to accommodate the plant. The route
and method of delivering pellets needs to be investigated further as this will affect the best
location for the boiler plant as well.
APPENDIX A
Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost
Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost
Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating Options
Ketchikan, AK
Option A.1 Wood Chip
Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000
Wood Heating & Wood Handling System: $325,000
Stack/Air Pollution Control Device: $180,000
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building: $150,000
Underground Piping $25,000
KHS Integration $56,000
Subtotal:$1,006,000
30% Remote Factor $301,800
Subtotal:$1,307,800
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $196,170
Subtotal:$1,503,970
15% Contingency:$225,596
Total Project Costs 1,729,566$
Option B.1 Pellet
Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000
Wood Heating & Wood Handling System: $265,000
Stack/Air Pollution Control Device:$50,000
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building: $150,000
Underground Piping $25,000
KHS Integration $56,000
Subtotal:$816,000
30% Remote Factor $244,800
Subtotal:$1,060,800
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $159,120
Subtotal:$1,219,920
15% Contingency:$182,988
Total Project Costs 1,402,908$
APPENDIX B
Cash Flow Analysis
Ketchikan High SchoolOption A.1Ketchikan, AKWood Chip Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70 $3.60 $3.60 $3.60 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230 $0 $0 $0 $473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500 138500 138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000 0 0 0Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,000 0 0 0 14,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Chips$/ton: $100.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 40% MC 5400 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.2,019Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,71625 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.69 Project Capital Cost-$1,730,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 45000 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.280 /kWh Biomass System 4.0 40 160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,730,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 3.0 40 120 $20.00 $2,400Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 8.1 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio$10,248,706 $8,518,706 5.92$5,796,128 $4,066,1283.35Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost7Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70 127900 gal $473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842$809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$100.00 85% 1716 tons $171,590 $176,738 $182,040 $187,501 $193,126 $198,920 $204,888 $211,034 $217,365 $223,886 $230,603 $237,521 $244,646 $251,986 $259,545 $300,884 $348,807 $404,363Small load existing fuel$3.70 15% 19185 gal $70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282$90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.60 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$3.60 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$3.60 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200 $3,264 $3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533 $3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$2,400 $2,448Additional Electrical Cost $0.280$12,600 $12,978 $13,367 $13,768 $14,181 $14,607 $15,045 $15,496 $15,961 $16,440 $16,933 $17,441 $17,965 $18,504 $19,059 $22,094 $25,613 $29,693Annual Operating Cost Savings$212,455$226,930$244,739$260,984$278,161$296,319$315,511$335,793$357,224$379,864$403,779$429,035$455,706$483,865$513,592$688,814$917,714$1,215,958Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow212,455 226,930 244,739 260,984 278,161 296,319 315,511 335,793 357,224 379,864 403,779 429,035 455,706 483,865 513,592 688,814 917,714 1,215,958Accumulated Cash Flow212,455 439,385 684,125 945,109 1,223,269 1,519,588 1,835,099 2,170,893 2,528,117 2,907,981 3,311,760 3,740,795 4,196,501 4,680,366 5,193,958 8,268,776 ######### 17,827,143Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
Ketchikan High SchoolOption B.1Ketchikan, AKWood Pellet Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70 $3.70 $3.70 $3.70 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230 $0 $0 $0 $473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500 138500 138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000 0 0 0Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,000 0 0 0 14,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Pellets$/ton: $300.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 70% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 7% MC 8200 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.1,234Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,04925 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.42 Project Capital Cost-$1,400,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 25000 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.100 /kWh Biomass System 4.0 40 160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,400,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 2.0 40 80 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 17.5 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio$6,373,815 $4,973,815 4.55$3,213,382 $1,813,3822.30Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70 127900 gal $473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842$809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$300.00 85% 1049 tons $314,781 $324,224 $333,951 $343,970 $354,289 $364,918 $375,865 $387,141 $398,755 $410,718 $423,039 $435,731 $448,803 $462,267 $476,135 $551,970 $639,885 $741,802Small load existing fuel$3.70 15% 19185 gal $70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282$90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.70 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$3.70 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$3.70 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200 $3,264 $3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533 $3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600 $1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.100$2,500 $2,575 $2,652 $2,732 $2,814 $2,898 $2,985 $3,075 $3,167 $3,262 $3,360 $3,461 $3,564 $3,671 $3,781 $4,384 $5,082$5,891Annual Operating Cost Savings$80,164$90,662$103,543$115,552$128,366$142,030$156,594$172,108$188,628$206,211$224,916$244,806$265,950$288,416$312,280$455,438$647,168$902,321Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow80,164 90,662 103,543 115,552 128,366 142,030 156,594 172,108 188,628 206,211 224,916 244,806 265,950 288,416 312,280 455,438 647,168 902,321Accumulated Cash Flow80,164 170,827 274,370 389,922 518,287 660,317 816,910 989,019 1,177,647 1,383,858 1,608,773 1,853,580 2,119,529 2,407,946 2,720,226 4,694,187 7,524,448 11,496,899Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
APPENDIX C
Site Plan
NEW BOILER BUILDINGNEW SILOSCHOOL94'-0"NORTHREF.LEGENDPIPE ROUTINGBOILER ROOM120'60'30'0SCALE: 1:60MISSOULA, MT(406)728-9522Fax (406)728-8287Date®BIOMASS PRE-FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTKETCHIKAN, ALASKAKETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOLSSFNHR07/24/12FEDCJ:ketchSCOLSITE PLAN
APPENDIX D
Air Quality Report
55 Railroad Row White River Junction, Vermont 05001
TEL 802.295.4999 FAX 802.295.1006 www.rsginc.com
INTRODUCTION
At your request, RSG has conducted an air quality feasibility study for seven biomass energy
installations in Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These sites are located in the panhandle of Alaska.
The following equipment is proposed:
Ketchikan
o One 4,700,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan High School.
o One 800,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council
Medical Facility.
o One 150,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council
Votec School.
o One 200,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the old Ketchikan Indian
Council Administration Building.
Craig
o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Craig Tribal
Association Building.
o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler near the Fire Hall.
o One 250,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Shaan‐Seet Office.
To: Nick Salmon
From: John Hinckley
Subject: Ketchikan‐Craig Cluster Feasibility Study
Date: 24 July 2012
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 2
A USGS map of the Ketchikan study area is provided in Figure 1 below. As shown, the area is
mountainous, with Ketchikan located on the southwest side of a mountain range. Ketchikan has
a population of 14,070. The area is relatively fairly well populated and developed relative to
other areas in Alaska. The area is also a port for cruise ships, which are significant sources of air
pollution. The topography, population, level of development, and existing emission sources has
the potential to create localized, temporary problematic air quality.
Figure 1: USGS Map Illustrating the Ketchikan Study Area
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 3
Figure 2 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the
Ketchikan High School. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly
direction with the grade becoming very steep to the northeast of the High School building. The
school building is between two to three stories high. The biomass facility will be located in a
stand‐alone building on the north side of the school building, which is the high side of the
building. There are residential areas west, north, and east of the proposed biomass facility
which are uphill (above) the facility. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location
and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The
degree of separation of the biomass building from the other buildings will create a buffer for
emissions dispersion.
Figure 2: Site Map of the Ketchikan High School Project
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 4
Figure 3 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the
Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in
the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are buildings above and below the site. The
biomass facility will be located in a stand‐alone building on the northeast (uphill) side of the
school building. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and
the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of
the biomass building from the other buildings will create a small buffer for emissions
dispersion.
Figure 3: Site Map of the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 5
Figure 4 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School
(marked Stedman) and Ketchikan Indian Council Admin Building (marked Deermount). The
sites slope moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are
buildings above and below the sites. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location
and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined.
Figure 4: Site Map of Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School (Stedman) and the Admin
Building (Deermount)
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 6
A USGS map is provided below in Figure 5. As shown, Craig Island is relatively flat with
mountainous terrain to the west, and water in all other directions. The area is relatively
sparsely populated. The population of Craig is 1,397. Our review of the area did not reveal any
significant emission sources or ambient air quality issues.
Figure 5: USGS Map Illustrating the Craig Study Area
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 7
Figure 6 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility and the
surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two
story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building to the west of the
Tribal Association Building and east of another building. The stack should be designed to
provide plume rise above both of these buildings. The precise dimensions of that building, the
stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been
determined.
Figure 6: Site Map of the Craig Tribal Association Building
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 8
Figure 7 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the proposed Shaan‐Seet biomass facility and the
surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two
story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building. The precise
dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment
specifications have not been determined.
Figure 7: Site Map of Shaan‐Seet Boiler Plant Site
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 9
METEOROLOGY
Meteorological data from Annette, AK, was reviewed to develop an understanding of the
weather conditions. Annette is the closest weather data representing the climactic conditions
occurring in the Panhandle and is therefore a good proxy of Ketchikan and Craig weather
conditions. This data indicates calm winds occur only 10% of the year when, which suggests
there will be minimal time periods when thermal inversions and therefore poor emission
dispersion conditions can occur.1
Figure 8: Wind Speed Data from Annette, AK
1 See: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Wind/Speed/Annette/ANN.html
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 10
DESIGN & OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are suggested for designing this project:
Burn natural wood, whose characteristics (moisture content, bark content, species,
geometry) results in optimal combustion in the equipment selected for the project.
Do not install a rain cap above the stack. Rain caps obstruct vertical airflow and reduce
dispersion of emissions.
Construct the stack to at least 1.5 times the height of the tallest roofline of the adjacent
building. Hence, a 20 foot roofline would result in a minimum 30 foot stack. Attention
should be given to constructing stacks higher than 1.5 times the tallest roofline
given higher elevations of surrounding residences due to the moderate to steep
slopes present.
Operate and maintain the boiler according to manufacturer’s recommendations.
Perform a tune‐up at least every other year as per manufacturer’s recommendations
and EPA guidance (see below for more discussion of EPA requirements)
Conduct regular observations of stack emissions. If emissions are not characteristic of
good boiler operation, make corrective actions.
For the Ketchikan High School: install at minimum a multicyclone to filter particulate
matter emissions.
These design and operation recommendations are based on the assumption that state‐of‐the‐
art combustion equipment is installed.
STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
This project will not require an air pollution control permit from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Quality given the boilers’ relatively small size and corresponding quantity of
emissions. However, this project will be subject to new proposed requirements in the federal
“Area Source Rule” (40 CFR 63 JJJJJJ). A federal permit is not needed. However, there are various
record keeping, reporting and operation and maintenance requirements which must be
performed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in the Area Source Rule. The
proposed changes have not been finalized. Until that time, the following requirements are
applicable:
Submit initial notification form to EPA within 120 days of startup.
Complete biennial tune ups per EPA method.
Submit tune‐up forms to EPA.
Please note the following:
Oil and coal fired boilers are also subject to this rule.
Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 11
Gas fired boilers are not subject to this rule.
More requirements are applicable to boilers equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr heat
input. These requirements typically warrant advanced emission controls, such as a
baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP).
The compliance guidance documents and compliance forms can be obtained on the following
EPA web page: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/
SUMMARY
RSG has completed an air quality feasibility study for Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These boilers
are not subject to state permitting requirements, but are subject to federal requirements.
Design criteria have been suggested to minimize emissions and maximize dispersion.
The following conditions suggest advanced emission control devices (ESP, baghouse) are not
mandatory in Ketchikan and Craig:
1. The wood boilers will be relatively small emission sources.
2. Most of the wood boilers will be located in a separate building which will create a
dispersion buffer between the boiler stack and the building.
3. There are no applicable federal or state emission limits.
4. Meteorological conditions are favorable for dispersion.
The following conditions suggest additional attention should be given to controlling emissions
in Ketchikan:
1. Presence of other emission sources.
2. Relatively high population density.
3. The sensitive populations housed by all Ketchikan buildings.
While not mandatory, we recommend exploring the possibility of a cyclone or multi‐cyclone
technology for control of fly ash and larger particulate emissions for all the aforementioned
boilers. We also recommend developing a compliance plan for the aforementioned federal
requirements.
Given its size and sensitive population served, air dispersion modeling can be performed for the
Ketchikan High School site to determine the stack height and degree of emission control
(multicyclone vs ESP).
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions.
APPENDIX E
Wood Fired Heating Technologies
WOOD FIRED HEATING TECHNOLOGIES
CTA has developed wood-fired heating system projects using cord wood, wood pellet
and wood chips as the primary feedstock. A summary of each system type with the
benefits and disadvantages is noted below.
Cord Wood
Cord wood systems are hand-stoked wood boilers with a limited heat output of 150,000-
200,000 British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hour). Cord wood systems are typically
linked to a thermal storage tank in order to optimize the efficiency of the system and
reduce the frequency of stoking. Cord wood boiler systems are also typically linked to
existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Garn, HS
Tarm and KOB identify outputs of 150,000-196,000 Btu/hr based upon burning eastern
hardwoods and stoking the boiler on an hourly basis. The cost and practicality of stoking
a wood boiler on an hourly basis has led most operators of cord wood systems to
integrate an adjacent thermal storage tank, acting similar to a battery, storing heat for
later use. The thermal storage tank allows the wood boiler to be stoked to a high fire
mode 3 times per day while storing heat for distribution between stoking. Cord wood
boilers require each piece of wood to be hand fed into the firebox, hand raking of the
grates and hand removal of ash. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock
piled and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Cordwood boilers are manufactured by a number of European manufacturers and an
American manufacturer with low emissions. These manufacturers currently do not
fabricate equipment with ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
certifications. When these non ASME boilers are installed in the United States,
atmospheric boilers rather than pressurized boilers are utilized. Atmospheric boilers
require more frequent maintenance of the boiler chemicals.
Emissions from cord wood systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 >0.08 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.23 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 195 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Small size
Lower cost
Local wood resource
Simple to operate
Disadvantages:
Hand fed - a large labor commitment
Typically atmospheric boilers (not ASME rated)
Thermal Storage is required
Page 1
Wood Pellet
Wood pellet systems can be hand fed from 40 pound bags, hand shoveled from 2,500
pound sacks of wood pellets, or automatically fed from an adjacent agricultural silo with
a capacity of 30-40 tons. Pellet boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat
distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from KOB, Forest Energy and
Solagen identify outputs of 200,000-5,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning pellets made
from waste products from the western timber industry. A number of pellet fuel
manufacturers produce all tree pellets utilizing bark and needles. All tree pellets have
significantly higher ash content, resulting in more frequent ash removal. Wood pellet
boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash 2-3 times a
week. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into pellet boiler systems. Ash is
typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Pellet storage is very economical. Agricultural bin storage exterior to the building is
inexpensive and quick to install. Material conveyance is also borrowed from agricultural
technology. Flexible conveyors allow the storage to be located 20 feet or more from the
boiler with a single auger.
Emissions from wood pellet systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 >0.09 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 220 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Smaller size (relative to a chip system)
Consistent fuel and easy economical storage of fuel
Automated
Disadvantages:
Higher system cost
Higher cost wood fuel ($/MMBtu)
Page 2
Page 3
Wood Chip
Chip systems utilize wood fuel that is either chipped or ground into a consistent size of
2-4 inches long and 1-2 inches wide. Chipped and ground material includes fine
sawdust and other debris. The quality of the fuel varies based upon how the wood is
processed between the forest and the facility. Trees which are harvested in a manner
that minimizes contact with the ground and run through a chipper or grinder directly into
a clean chip van are less likely to be contaminated with rocks, dirt and other debris. The
quality of the wood fuel will also be impacted by the types of screens placed on the
chipper or grinder. Fuel can be screened to reduce the quantity of fines which typically
become airborne during combustion and represent lost heat and increased particulate
emissions.
Chipped fuel is fed from the chip van into a metering bin, or loaded into a bunker with a
capacity of 60 tons or more. Wood chip boilers systems are typically linked to existing
heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Hurst, Messersmith
and Biomass Combustion Systems identify outputs of 1,000,000 - 50,000,000 Btu/hr
based upon burning western wood fuels. Wood chip boilers typically require hand raking
of the grates and hand removal of ash daily. Automatic ash removal can be integrated
into wood chip boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled
and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Emissions from wood chip systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 0.21 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 195 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Lowest fuel cost of three options ($/MMBtu)
Automated
Can use local wood resources
Disadvantages:
Highest initial cost of three types
Larger fuel storage required
Less consistent fuel can cause operational and performance issues
E3 – Pellet Quote (Tongass)
355 Carlanna Lake Road, Suite 100 • Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone (907) 225-4541 • Fax (907) 220-0645 • info@akforestenterprises.com
April 23, 2012
Mr. Dan Bockhorst
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
1900 First Avenue, Suite 201
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Re: Wood Pellet Supply Contracts
Dear Mr. Bockhorst,
The purpose of this letter is to let potential customers know that there is a
tremendous opportunity for Tongass Forest Enterprises to secure a long term
supply of fiber here on Revillagigedo Island for making pellets. We are in talks with
Alcan Forest Products to purchase the remaining pulp grade wood from the Leask
Lakes sale which is winding down. We are also looking at purchasing much of the
pulp grade wood from the Boundary Sale which is located near the Brown Mountain
Road. The Boundary Sale will likely be the closest timber sale to Ketchikan for
many years to come and offers very inexpensive trucking to Ketchikan. There is
opportunity for future customers to take advantage of this sale by committing to
long term pellet contracts with TFE.
We offer the following pricing of premium grade wood pellets for long term
commitments if agreements are signed by August 2012.
Tons / Year 1 year 2 year 3 year 5 year
0 -200 305 300 295 290
200-500 300 295 290 280
¾ 500 290 285 280 275
Please call if you have any questions with this pricing. (907) 617-1441.
Sincerely
Trevor Sande
cc: Ed Schofield, Mike Williams, Robert Boyle
E4 – Airport Energy Audit
Ketchikan International Airport
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Final Report
November 2012
Energy Audit
Table of Contents
Section 1: Executive Summary 2
Section 2: Introduction 8
Section 3: Energy Efficiency Measures 10
Section 4: Description of Systems 17
Section 5: Methodology 19
Appendix A: Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 22
Appendix B: Utility and Energy Data 30
Appendix C: Equipment Data 36
Appendix D: Abbreviations 38
Section 1
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of an energy audit of the Ketchikan International Airport Terminal
Building and Runway/Taxiway Lighting. The purpose of this energy audit is to evaluate the infrastructure
and its subsequent energy performance to identify applicable energy efficiencies measures (EEMs).
The Terminal Building is 32,600 square feet and contains the ticketing, waiting, offices, cafeteria, flight
tower, gift shop, storage, and mechanical support spaces. The runway is 7,500 foot long and 150 feet
wide.
TERMINAL BUILDING ASSESSMENT
Envelope
The envelope components have much lower insulating values (R-values) than optimal for Ketchikan’s
climate. While there are several low cost EEMs to reduce heat loss through the envelope, upgrading
envelope components typically do not provide a life cycle savings unless they are near the end of their
service life or are part of a major upgrade to the building.
Walls: The exterior walls are underinsulated. The R-values range from R-5 to R-12, which is
significantly below current R-24 standards for new buildings.
Windows: The windows have non-thermally broken aluminum frames with double pane glazing.
These units have an R-1.5 insulating value, below modern R-3 window systems with triple pane
glazing.
Doors: The exterior doors are not thermally broken and many have poor weather-stripping. The
sensors on the main entrance doors are adjusted so doors at both ends of the arctic entryway open
when a person approaches either door.
Roof: The roof insulation varies from R-28 to R-38 insulating value, below current R-46 levels.
Heating System
The heating system consists of two fuel oil boilers and a hydronic heating system. Heat is supplied by the
ventilation systems, perimeter baseboards, and other terminal units.
The boilers are 40 years old and at the end of their service life. They are both oversized by 100% —
indicating that an expansion of the terminal was anticipated when the building was constructed. Oversized
boilers have cycling and standby losses of 2% to 5% per year. The boiler combustion air louver has been
mostly blocked off, which can affect the boilers’ ability to obtain sufficient combustion air. Options for
replacing the boilers are being evaluated in a separate Heating System Retrofit Study.
The hydronic heating system has constant speed pumps that do not vary their energy consumption with
heating load. Variable speed pumping will reduce the average pumping power from 4.5 HP to below 2
HP. The heating piping is underinsulated. Insulation can be added to accessible piping in the mechanical
spaces, but it is not cost effective to add insulation to piping above the ceilings.
Ventilation Systems
Ventilation Systems
Occupants complain of lack of thermal comfort, stuffy rooms, and lack of cooling during periods with
high solar gain. The ventilation systems are at the end of their expected service life and are failing to
adequately ventilate, heat, and cool the building. These issues are due to significant system deficiencies.
Ventilating unit VU-1 supplies ventilation air, heating, and cooling to the terminal. The unit has reached
the end of its service life and has the following deficiencies:
Indoor Air Quality and Thermal Comfort
The ventilation systems are at the end of their expected service life and are failing to
adequately ventilate, heat, and cool the building. The poor performance of the ventilation
systems is likely saving energy to the detriment of the interior environment. These issues
are due to significant system deficiencies:
The building ventilation systems are near the end of their expected service life and are
not providing good service;
The boilers are extremely oversized and inefficient;
The ventilating units have significant deficiencies and are not fully operational;
The ventilation scheme of supplying air above the ceilings is a very poor application;
and,
The control system is not providing optimal control. The pneumatic controllers are
failing and the DDC interface is poor.
A renovation of the systems should include a goal of improving the functions and indoor
environment without increasing energy costs. Optimization opportunities that can contribute
to that goal with renovated systems, but are not economically feasible with the existing
systems, include:
Staging of boilers;
Night setback;
Scheduled operation of fan systems;
Demand control ventilation based on occupancy;
Heat recovery from high heat gain spaces such as the FAA equipment room, computer
server room, kitchen refrigeration, and boiler room;
Variable air volume systems that modulate with cooling requirements; and,
Variable-flow exhaust system for toilet rooms and other constant exhaust spaces.
We recommend a condition survey to develop a long-term plan for the systems. Because
the building is underperforming and actually using less energy, upgrading controls and systems
will not provide a life cycle savings; however, it will greatly improve the indoor environment
for building occupants and allow the implementation of optimal systems and controls for the
building
The mixing dampers have failed. The return air dampers are fully closed. This restricts system air
flow; low air flow at the diffusers and duct openings confirms this issue. This is directly affecting
the air quality in many rooms. The outside air dampers appear to be stuck at 5% open. This does
not allow them to modulate open and naturally cool the building on sunny days. The exhaust air
damper is wide open, causing the return fan to discharge excessive amounts of warm air to the
outdoors.
The heating coil is not supplying heat to the hot deck. This is likely the reason many zones are
below setpoint and the occupants have installed electric heaters.
A cooling coil has been added to the system. The added pressure drop through the coil reduces
system air flow. This is compounded by arrangement of the installed coil, which is restricting
airflow through the unit.
The system supplies air to the ceiling space in the ticketing and waiting rooms. The pressurized
plenum then pushes air through ceiling slot diffusers into the rooms. This is inherently a poor
method for supplying ventilation air and for heating and cooling the building.
The manual damper in the return air duct from the first floor is closed. It should be open to
promote airflow through the 1st floor.
Ventilating unit VU-2 supplies ventilation air and cooling to the tower. The system is not operated
because of concerns that air flow to the FAA control tower could adversely affect sensitive electronic
equipment. Not operating the system affects tower indoor air quality and thermal comfort due to lack of
cooling.
Recommendations
The following short-term measures are recommended for immediate implementation to improve
indoor air quality and thermal comfort. They will not necessarily result in energy savings.
Repair VU-1 mixing dampers
Repair VU-1 heating coil controls
Return VU-2 to Operation
Cooling Systems
There are two roof top mechanical cooling systems, one serving ventilating unit VU-1 and the other VU-
2. The VU-1 unit is operated from June to August to cool the building. The VU-2 unit has been taken out
of service. The performance of the units could not be tested because they are disabled.
The FAA equipment room on the 4th floor has two window air conditioners that operate continuously to
remove equipment heat gain. This heat can be utilized by installing a heat pump heat recovery system to
transfer the heat to the control tower.
Control System
The terminal has a DDC system controlling the ventilation systems and monitoring the boilers and an
original pneumatic control system for the zone level controls. The DDC system does not have a computer
terminal with graphic screens that allow building operators to control and monitor the systems. A graphic
interface is essential to monitor the building and maintain the energy efficiency of the building.
The pneumatic control system is experiencing regular failures of control valves and sensors. The system
is a maintenance liability and also does not allow central monitoring.
Domestic Hot Water System
Domestic hot water is generated by two indirect hot water heaters. A hot water circulating pump
maintains hot water in the piping systems. The system is in good condition.
Lighting
Interior
The main lobbies have T12 fluorescent lighting that is much higher than needed to adequately light the
spaces. The air carrier offices have T8 and T12 lamps. Conversion to LED will save lighting energy, but
some of the lighting energy is beneficial heat to the building.
Air charter and rental offices are lit with luminaires using T5 lamps which are the most energy efficient
fluorescent lamps available. No additional energy savings is available by going to LED unless the light
levels are reduced. The light levels are good as currently designed.
Exterior
The exterior lighting consists of high pressure sodium lamps and compact fluorescent lamps controlled by
photocells, time clocks, and manual switches. The exterior of the terminal is over lit during unoccupied
periods.
Tarmac: (6) 400-watt HPS fixtures controlled by a timer.
Perimeter: Controlled from a photocell.
- (23) 70-watt HPS fixtures
- (1) 150-watt HPS fixture
Front Canopy: Controlled from a photocell.
- (32) 20-watt CFLs fixtures
- (15) 250-watt HPS fixtures
Baggage Handling: Controlled from a manual switch.
- (5) 250-watt MH fixtures
Electric Equipment
The transformers are not energy efficient models. The kitchen prep area has high heat gain from a
refrigerator, freezer, and ice machine.
RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY LIGHTING ASSESSMENT*
Runway Lighting: The runway is lit with 91 200-watt incandescent lamps. LED runway lights are
available for this application.
Taxiway Lighting: The taxiway is lit with 141 45-watt incandescent lamps. LED lamps are available
for this application.
*The State of Alaska has not approved the use of LED lighting for runways.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMS)
All buildings have opportunities to improve their energy efficiency. The energy audit revealed numerous
opportunities in which an efficiency investment will result in a net reduction in long-term operating costs.
Details on these EEMs are provided in Section 3.
Behavioral and Operational EEMs
The following EEMs require behavioral and operational changes in the building use. The savings are not
readily quantifiable, but these EEMs are highly recommended as low-cost opportunities that are a
standard of high performance buildings.
EEM-1: Replace Appliances with Energy Star Models
EEM-2: De-Lamp Vending Machines
EEM-3: Weather-strip Doors
EEM-4: Reduce Arctic Entry Temperature
EEM-6: Seal Wall Patches
EEM-7: Adjust Sensor on Main Doors
High and Medium Priority EEMs
The following EEMs are recommended for investment. They are ranked by life cycle savings to
investment ratio (SIR). This ranking method places a priority on low cost EEMs which can be
immediately funded, generating energy savings to fund higher cost EEMs in the following years.
Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings.
25-Year Life Cycle Costs
Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
High Priority Energy Efficiency Measures
EEM-8: Adjust Boiler Thermostat $100 $0 ($25,800) ($25,700) 258.0
EEM-9: Turn Off Standby Boiler $1,000 $4,600 ($167,400) ($161,800) 163
EEM-10: Perform Boiler Combustion Test $700 $13,900 ($38,700) ($24,100) 35.4
EEM-11: Upgrade Runway Lighting $95,400 ($526,900) ($40,300) ($471,800) 5.9
EEM-12: Optimize Exterior Terminal Lighting $6,200 ($1,500) ($23,500) ($18,800) 4.0
Medium Priority Energy Efficiency Measures
EEM-13: Upgrade Taxiway Lighting $71,400 ($185,800) ($7,700) ($122,100) 2.7
EEM-14: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency $8,700 $0 ($15,100) ($6,400) 1.7
EEM-15: Optimize Exterior Lighting Controls $1,800 $0 ($2,200) ($400) 1.2
EEM-16: Install DHWRP Thermostat Control $500 $0 ($600) ($100) 1.2
Totals* $185,800 ($695,700) ($321,300) ($831,200) 5.5
* The analysis is based on each EEM being independent of the others. While it is likely that some EEMs
are interrelated, an isolated analysis is used to demonstrate the economics because the audit team is not
able to predict which EEMs an Owner may choose to implement. If several EEMs are implemented, the
resulting energy savings is likely to differ from the sum of each EEM projection.
Low Priority
Low priority EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended.
25-Year Life Cycle Costs
Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
Low Priority Energy Efficiency Measures
EEM-17: Replace Rollup Baggage Door $4,300 $0 ($4,000) $300 0.9
EEM-18: Increase Tower Wall Insulation $92,300 $0 ($78,800) $13,500 0.9
EEM-19: Increase Terminal Wall Insulation $323,200 $0 ($123,200) $200,000 0.4
EEM-20: Upgrade Interior Lighting $188,600 ($63,500) $5,800 $130,900 0.3
EEM-21: Increase Addition Wall Insulation $323,200 $0 ($18,000) $305,200 0.1
A preliminary analysis demonstrated that the following EEMs do not offer life cycle energy savings,
detailed analysis was not warranted.
EEM-22: Increase Terminal Roof Insulation
EEM-23: Convert to Variable Speed Pumping
EEM-24: Increase Pipe Insulation
SUMMARY
We recommend that the behavioral and high priority EEMs be implemented now to generate energy
savings from which to fund the medium priority EEMs.
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s (AHFC) revolving loan fund for public buildings is another
funding avenue to consider. AHFC will loan money for energy improvements under terms that allow for
repaying a loan from energy savings. More information on this option can be found online at
http://www.ahfc.us/loans/akeerlf_loan.cfm.
Section 2
Introduction
This report presents the findings of an energy audit of the Ketchikan Airport Terminal Building and
runway lighting. The purpose of this energy audit is to evaluate the infrastructure and its subsequent
energy performance to identify applicable energy efficiencies measures (EEMs).
The energy audit report contains the following sections:
Introduction: Building use and energy consumption.
Energy Efficiency Measures: Priority ranking of the EEMs with a description, energy analysis,
and life cycle cost analysis.
Description of Systems: Background description of the building energy systems.
Methodology: Basis for how construction and maintenance cost estimates are derived and the
economic and energy factors used for the analysis.
BUILDING USE
The Ketchikan Airport Terminal is 32,600 square feet and contains the ticketing, waiting, offices,
cafeteria, flight tower, gift shop, storage, and mechanical support spaces. The building is occupied in the
following manner:
Occupied Hours: Daily from 5:45 am to 9:30 pm
Occupants: Staff - 85; Passengers - 600 per day; Local traffic - 350 per day.
Construction and Renovation History
1972 – Original construction
2004 – Remodel and Addition
Energy Consumption
The Terminal energy sources include an electric service and a fuel oil tank. Fuel oil is used for the
majority of the heating loads, including domestic hot water. The following table shows annual energy use
and cost.
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Source Consumption Cost Energy, MMBtu
Electricity 953,650 kWh $90,500 3,300 51%
Fuel Oil 23,841 Gallons $85,300 3,200 49%
Totals $175,800 6,500 100%
Buildings in Southeast Alaska typically consume 67% of their energy to generate heat. The Terminal fuel
oil use accounts for only 49% of total energy. This lower percentage is likely due to the lack of ventilation
being supplied by AHU-1 and the use of electric space heaters in the building.
Electricity
This chart shows electrical energy use
for the entire Airport Terminal from
2008 to 2011. Electricity use is steady
through the year indicating that cooling
energy replaces heating energy in the
summer months.
The effective cost in 2011 —energy
costs plus demand charges—was 9.5¢
per kWh.
Fuel Oil
This chart shows heating energy use
from 2007 to 2010. The chart
compares annual use with the heating
degree days which is a measurement
of the demand for energy to heat a
building. A year with a higher number
of degree days reflects colder outside
temperatures and a higher heating
requirement.
Cost of Heat Comparison
The current cost of fuel oil (August
2012) is $3.58 per gallon. Assuming a
fuel oil conversion efficiency of 70%
and an electric boiler conversion
efficiency of 95%, oil heat at $3.58
per gallon costs $36.93 per MMBtu.
Since electric heat at 9.5¢ per kWh
costs $29.26 per MMBtu, electric
heat is less expensive than fuel oil
heat.
Section 3
Energy Efficiency Measures
The following energy efficiency measures (EEMs) were identified during the energy audit. The EEMs are
priority ranked and, where applicable, subjected to energy and life cycle cost analysis. Appendix A
contains the energy and life cycle cost analysis spreadsheets.
The EEMs are grouped into the following prioritized categories:
Behavioral or Operational: EEMs that require minimal capital investment but require
operational or behavioral changes. The EEMs provide a life cycle savings but an analysis is not
performed because the guaranteed energy savings is difficult to quantify.
High Priority: EEMs that require a small capital investment and offer a life cycle savings. Also
included in this category are higher-cost EEMs that offer significant life cycle savings.
Medium Priority: EEMs that require a significant capital investment to provide a life cycle
savings. Many medium priority EEMs provide a high life cycle savings and offer substantial
incentive to increase investment in building energy efficiency.
Low Priority: These EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended.
BEHAVIORAL OR OPERATIONAL
The following EEMs are recommended for implementation. They require behavioral or operational
changes that can occur with minimal investment to achieve immediate savings. These EEMs are not
easily quantified by analysis because they cannot be accurately predicted. They are recommended because
they offer a life cycle savings, represent good practice, and are accepted features of high performance
buildings.
EEM-1: Replace Appliances with Energy Star Models
Purpose: Energy Star appliances are the standard for high performance buildings. The building has a
few appliances that are not Energy Star compliant.
Scope: When appliances reach the end of their service life, replace them with Energy Star compliant
models.
EEM-2: De-Lamp Vending Machines
Purpose: Lamps for soft drink coolers and snack machines run continuously and are not necessary.
Energy will be saved if the lamps are removed.
Scope: Remove lamps from the soft drink cooler and snack machines.
EEM-3: Weather-strip Doors
Purpose: Many of the exterior doors do not seal and are missing weather stripping. Energy will be
saved if doors are properly weather-stripped to reduce infiltration.
Scope: Replace weather stripping on exterior doors.
EEM-4: Reduce Arctic Entry Temperature
Purpose: The main arctic entrances are being maintained at 68°F. The arctic entry should be a
transition space between the building interior and exterior and therefore does not need to be
heated to interior space temperatures. Energy will be saved if the thermostat for this space is
reduced to 55°F.
Scope: Reduce arctic entry thermostat setpoint to 55°F.
EEM-5: Seal Baggage Belt Openings
Purpose: The baggage belt openings do not have seal the building from infiltration and heat loss.
Energy will be saved if the baggage belt openings and passageway are sealed to reduce
infiltration. There are also holes in the ceiling and walls of the baggage passageway that
contribute to infiltration and heat loss.
Scope: Install an automatic door on the departure baggage openings. Design a closure for all
openings that seals the opening when it is not in use. Seal the thermal envelope of the
baggage passageway.
EEM-6: Seal Wall Patches
Purpose: There are several locations where openings in the exterior wall have been filled in. The joint
between the wall and infill has not been properly sealed, which increases infiltration into the
building. Energy will be saved if the joints are sealed.
Scope: Seal the joints around exterior wall in-fills.
EEM-7: Adjust Sensor on Main Doors
Purpose: When a person walks through the main doors, the sensors open both doors simultaneously.
Energy will be saved if the sensors are adjusted so they only “see” a person who is directly
in-front of each respective door.
Scope: Adjust the door sensors so they only open for a person who is approaching the respective
door.
HIGH PRIORITY
The following EEMs are recommended for implementation because they are low cost measures that have
a high savings to investment ratio. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative values,
in parenthesis, represent savings.
EEM-8: Adjust Boiler Thermostat
Purpose: The boiler operating thermostat has an adjustable differential between on and off setpoints.
They are currently set with a 10°F differential. Setting it to a 30°F differential will increase
the amount of time the boiler operates each cycle, which improves seasonal efficiency.
Scope: Adjust the boiler thermostat differential as large as possible without compromising heating
performance. As a starting point, use differentials of 30°F in the winter and 40°F in the
summer.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($910) ($910) $100 $0 ($25,800) ($25,700) 258.0
EEM-9: Turn Off Standby Boiler
Purpose: Both boilers are kept hot continuously. Consideration should be given to isolating the standby
boiler when the weather is warm enough that a failure of the lead boiler will not be
detrimental to terminal operations while the standby boiler is brought on-line. Keeping the
standby boiler hot can result in a 1% efficiency loss due to the isolated boiler acting as a heat
sink. Energy will be saved if only a single boiler is on line when temperatures permit.
Scope: Shut down and isolate the lag boiler when only a single boiler is needed to support building
operations.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$240 ($5,910) ($5,670) $1,000 $4,600 ($167,400) ($161,800) 162.8
EEM-10: Perform a Boiler Combustion Test
Purpose: Operating the boiler with an optimum amount of excess air will improve combustion
efficiency. Annual cleaning followed by a combustion test is recommended.
Scope: Annually clean and perform a combustion test on each boiler.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$720 ($1,370) ($650) $700 $13,900 ($38,700) ($24,100) 35.4
EEM-11: Upgrade Runway Lighting
Purpose: The runway is lit by 91 200-watt incandescent fixtures. Energy will be saved if the lighting is
upgraded to LED fixtures.
Scope: Replace the runway fixtures with LED fixtures. Note that the State of Alaska has not
approved the use of LED lighting for runways.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
($27,320) ($2,170) ($29,490) $95,400 ($526,900) ($40,300) ($471,800) 5.9
EEM-12: Optimize Exterior Terminal Lighting
Purpose: The exterior lighting on the perimeter of the building consists of numerous fixtures controlled
by a photocell. Optimizing the lighting and controls will save energy.
Scope: Upgrade lighting fixtures and controls in the following manner:
- Replace the HPS wall packs with LED fixtures that dim except when occupancy is
sensed.
- Add a time clock to turn off the remaining lighting from 11pm to 5 am.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
($80) ($1,270) ($1,350) $6,200 ($1,500) ($23,500) ($18,800) 4.0
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Medium priority EEMs will require planning and a higher level of investment. The following are
recommended because they offer a life cycle savings. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority.
Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings.
EEM-13: Upgrade Taxiway Lighting
Purpose: The taxiway is lit by 141 45-watt incandescent fixtures. Energy will be saved if the lighting is
upgraded to LED fixtures.
Scope: Replace the taxiway fixtures with LED fixtures.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
($9,630) ($420) ($10,050) $71,400 ($185,800) ($7,700) ($122,100) 2.7
EEM-14: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency
Purpose: The equipment inspection identified three motors (VU-1 15 HP; EF-1 5 HP; P-3 2 HP) that
can be upgraded with premium efficiency models to save energy.
Scope: Replace identified motors with premium efficiency motors.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($810) ($810) $8,700 $0 ($15,100) ($6,400) 1.7
EEM-15: Optimize Exterior Lighting Controls
Purpose: The exterior area lighting is controlled from a timer that is manually adjusted with seasonal
changes in daylight. Energy will be saved if a photocell is installed to automatically turn the
lighting on and off, retaining the timer to turn the lights off during periods when the terminal
is unoccupied.
Scope: Install photocell and integrate with existing timer.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($120) ($120) $1,800 $0 ($2,200) ($400) 1.2
EEM-16: Install Domestic HWRP Thermostat Control
Purpose: The domestic hot water recirculating pump currently operates continuously to circulate
heated domestic hot water through the piping system regardless of demand or system
temperature. Energy will be saved if a thermostat is installed to operate the pump when the
loop temperature drops below the setpoint.
Scope: Install thermostat to control operation of hot water return pump.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($30) ($30) $500 $0 ($600) ($100) 1.2
LOW PRIORITY
Low priority EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended.
EEM-17: Replace Rollup Baggage Door
Purpose: Island Air has an uninsulated metal door for baggage pass-through. Energy will be saved by
replacing this overhead door with a high efficiency insulated unit.
Scope: Replace the overhead door with a high efficiency insulated unit and replace weather
stripping.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($140) ($140) $4,300 $0 ($4,000) $300 0.9
EEM-18: Increase Tower Wall Insulation
Purpose: The tower walls are constructed of insulated metal panels that have an estimated R-5
insulation value. An optimal R-value by current construction standards is R-24. Energy will
be saved if the insulation level of the walls is increased by installing 3” of rigid insulation in
the wall cavity and a finish layer of gypsum board.
Scope: Install a minimum of 3” of foam insulation in the wall cavity and a painted gypsum board
finish.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($2,780) ($2,780) $92,300 $0 ($78,800) $13,500 0.9
EEM-19: Increase Terminal Wall Insulation
Purpose: The majority of the walls are constructed of minimally insulated concrete. The walls have an
insulating value of R-12; R-24 is optimal. Energy will be saved by adding insulation to the
walls.
Scope: Install 2” of rigid insulation and metal siding over the uninsulated concrete walls.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($4,350) ($4,350) $323,200 $0 ($123,200) $200,000 0.4
EEM-20: Upgrade Interior Lighting
Purpose: The majority of the interior lighting consists of T12 fluorescent fixtures. Many of the fixtures
have been delamped to bring light levels into appropriate ranges. Energy will be saved if
more efficient LED fixtures are installed.
Scope: Replace the existing T12 fixtures with more efficient LED fixtures. This EEM is not
recommended because upgrading the lighting will reduce lighting heat gain that is at least
50% beneficial to heating the building. Since lighting heat is less expensive than fuel oil heat,
there is an added cost of shifting this heating load from the electric lights to the fuel oil boiler.
This significantly reduces the savings potential of a lighting upgrade.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
($3,290) ($1,320) ($4,610) $188,600 ($63,500) $5,800 $130,900 0.3
EEM-21: Increase Addition Wall Insulation
Purpose: The existing addition walls have metal framing and R-13 batt insulation. There is no thermal
break for the metal studs which reduces the thermal value to R-10. An optimal R-value by
current construction standards is R-24. Energy will be saved if the insulation level of the
walls is increased.
Scope: Install 3” of rigid insulation and metal siding over the uninsulated concrete walls.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($640) ($640) $323,200 $0 ($18,000) $305,200 0.1
EEM-22: Increase Terminal Roof Insulation
Purpose: The thermal insulating value of the Terminal roof is R-28; R-46 is optimal. Energy will be
saved if the roof is insulated to the optimum R-value.
Scope: Bring this section of roof up to current construction standards by installing insulation over the
existing roof and applying a new membrane. This EEM is not recommended because the high
cost of replacing the membrane will not be offset by energy savings. The roof insulation
should be increased when the membrane has exceeded its service life.
EEM-23: Convert to Variable Speed Pumping
Purpose: The building utilizes constant speed heating pumps that consume nearly constant energy over
the range of heating loads. Energy will be saved if the pumping system is converted to a
variable speed system that varies energy consumption with heating load.
Scope: Install VFDs and pressure sensors to modulate the heating pumps with heating loads. Replace
3-way control valves with two valves. A preliminary analysis determined that this EEM will
not generate sufficient energy savings to offset the cost of conversion to variable flow.
EEM-24: Increase Pipe Insulation
Purpose: The thickness of the pipe insulation is below current standards. Energy will be saved if the
piping is optimally insulated.
Scope: Install a second layer of insulation on the heating and domestic hot water piping. This EEM is
not recommended because energy savings will not offset the cost of adding insulation to the
piping.
Section 4
Description of Systems
ENERGY SYSTEMS
This section provides a general description of the building systems. Energy conservation opportunities are
addressed in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures.
Building Envelope
R-value
Component Description (inside to outside) Existing Optimal
Original Terminal
Walls Precast concrete walls with 2” insulation R-12 R-24
Roof 4” concrete pan deck, 6” EPS insulation, roof membrane R-28 R-46
Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-20
Perimeter Concrete footing with 2” rigid insulation R-10 R-15
Windows Aluminum frames, double pane R-1.5 R-3
Doors Metal frame w/o thermal break, double pane windows R-2 R-4
Tower
Walls Metal panel walls with 1” insulation R-5 R-24
Roof Metal deck, thermal board, 2” PIC insulation; 3” XPS, membrane R-30 R-46
Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-20
Perimeter Concrete footing with 2” rigid insulation R-10 R-15
Windows Aluminum frames, double pane R-1.5 R-3
Doors Metal frame w/o thermal break, double pane windows R-2 R-4
2004 Addition
Walls Gyp. bd; metal studs with R-13 batt, gyp. bd.; stucco R-10 R-24
Roof 4” concrete pan deck, 6” EPS insulation, roof membrane R-28 R-46
Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-20
Perimeter Concrete footing with 2” rigid insulation R-10 R-15
Windows Aluminum frames, double pane R-1.5 R-3
Doors Metal frame w/o thermal break, double pane windows R-2 R-4
Heating System
The building is heated by two fuel oil boilers that provide heat to two ventilating units, cabinet unit
heaters at entrances, and local hydronic heating units. The heating system has the following pumps:
P-1 supplies the VU-1 heating coil.
P-2 supplies the VU-2 heating coil.
P-3 circulates heating water to the terminal heating units.
P-4 circulates heating water to indirect domestic hot water heater DHW-1.
P-5 circulates heating water to indirect domestic hot water heater DHW-1.
Ventilation Systems
Area Fan System Description
Terminal VU-1 Constant volume multi-zone ventilating unit consisting of a mixing
box, filter section, supply fan, hot/cold deck, bypass deck
Terminal EF-1 Constant volume return fan serving VU-1
Tower VU-2 Constant volume ventilating unit consisting of a mixing box, filter
section, heating coil, supply fan, cooling coil
Tower EF-2 Constant volume return fan serving VU-2
Domestic Hot Water System
Domestic hot water is provided by two indirect domestic hot water heaters located in the boiler room.
Cooling Systems
There are two roof-top mechanical cooling systems: one for VU-1 and one for VU-2. The kitchen prep
area has a standup refrigerator and freezer unit.
Control System
A DDC control system controls the operation of the ventilating units. A pneumatic control system
controls zone heating units.
Lighting
Interior lighting primarily consists of T8 and T12 fluorescent fixtures and incandescent fixtures. The
lighting is inefficient but it supplies beneficial heat to the building at a lower cost than fuel oil boiler heat.
Exterior lighting primarily consists of high pressure sodium, metal halide, and compact fluorescent
fixtures. The exterior lighting utilizes both manual switching and photocell controls.
The taxiway and runway have inefficient incandescent lighting. LED lighting upgrades are available.
Section 5
Methodology
Information for the energy audit was gathered through on-site observations, review of construction
documents, and interviews with operation and maintenance personnel. The EEMs are evaluated using
energy and life cycle cost analyses and are priority ranked for implementation.
Energy Efficiency Measures
Energy efficiency measures are identified by evaluating the building’s energy systems and comparing
them to systems in modern, high performance buildings. The process for identifying the EEMs
acknowledges the realities of an existing building that was constructed when energy costs were much
lower. Many of the opportunities used in modern high performance buildings—highly insulated
envelopes, variable capacity mechanical systems, heat pumps, daylighting, lighting controls, etc.—simply
cannot be economically incorporated into an existing building.
The EEMs represent practical measures to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings, taking into
account the realities of limited budgets. If a future major renovation project occurs, additional EEMs
common to high performance buildings should be incorporated.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The EEMs are evaluated using life cycle cost analysis which determines if an energy efficiency
investment will provide a savings over a 25-year life. The analysis incorporates construction,
replacement, maintenance, repair, and energy costs to determine the total cost over the life of the EEM.
Future maintenance and energy cash flows are discounted to present worth using escalation factors for
general inflation, energy inflation, and the value of money. The methodology is based on the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis.
Life cycle cost analysis is preferred to simple payback for facilities that have long—often perpetual—
service lives. Simple payback, which compares construction cost and present energy cost, is reasonable
for short time periods of 2-4 years, but yields below optimal results over longer periods because it does
not properly account for the time value of money or inflationary effects on operating budgets. Accounting
for energy inflation and the time value of money properly sums the true cost of facility ownership and
seeks to minimize the life cycle cost.
Construction Costs
The cost estimates are derived based on a preliminary understanding of the scope of each EEM as
gathered during the walk-through audit. The construction costs for in-house labor are $60 per hour for
work typically performed by maintenance staff and $110 per hour for contract labor.
The cost estimate assumes the work will be performed as part of a larger renovation or energy efficiency
upgrade project. When implementing EEMs, the cost estimate should be revisited once the scope and
preferred method of performing the work has been determined. It is possible some EEMs will not provide
a life cycle savings when the scope is finalized.
Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are based on in-house or contract labor using historical maintenance efforts and
industry standards. Maintenance costs over the 25-year life of each EEM are included in the life cycle
cost calculation spreadsheets and represent the level of effort to maintain the systems.
Energy Analysis
The energy performance of an EEM is evaluated within the operating parameters of the building. A
comprehensive energy audit would rely on a computer model of the building to integrate building energy
systems and evaluate the energy savings of each EEM. This investment grade audit does not utilize a
computer model, so energy savings are calculated with factors that account for the dynamic operation of
the building. Energy savings and costs are estimated for the 25-year life of the EEM using appropriate
factors for energy inflation.
Prioritization
Each EEM is prioritized based on the life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR) using the following
formula:
Prioritization Factor = Life Cycle Savings / Capital Costs
This approach factor puts significant weight on the capital cost of an EEM, making lower cost EEMs
more favorable.
Economic Factors
The following economic factors are significant to the findings.
Nominal Interest Rate: This is the nominal rate of return on an investment without regard to
inflation. The analysis uses a rate of 5%.
Inflation Rate: This is the average inflationary change in prices over time. The analysis uses an
inflation rate of 2.75%.
Economic Period: The analysis is based on a 25-year economic period with construction beginning
in 2013.
Fuel Oil
Fuel oil currently costs $3.58 per gallon for a seasonally adjusted blend of #1 and #2 fuel oil. The analysis
is based on 6% fuel oil inflation which has been the average for the past 20-years.
Electricity
Electricity is supplied by Ketchikan Public Utilities. The building is billed for electricity under their
commercial service rate. This rate charges for both electrical consumption (kWh) and peak electric
demand (kW). Electrical consumption is the amount of energy consumed and electric demand is the rate
of consumption.
Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Rate
Electricity ($ / kWh ) $0.0897
Demand ( $ / kW ) $2.91
Customer Charge ( $ / mo ) $36.30
Summary
The following table summarizes the energy and economic factors used in the analysis.
Summary of Economic and Energy Factors
Factor Rate or Cost Factor Rate or Cost
Nominal Discount Rate 5% Electricity Current rates
General Inflation Rate 2% Electricity Inflation 2.5%
Fuel Oil Cost (2013) $3.79/gal Fuel Oil Inflation 6%
Appendix A
Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
Basis
Economic
Study Period (years) 25 Nominal Discount Rate 5%General Inflation 3%
Energy
2011 $/gal Fuel Inflation 2012 $/gal
Fuel Oil $3.58 6% $3.79
Electricity $/kWh (2011)$/kW (2011)Inflation $/kWh (2012)$/kW (2012)
w/ Demand Charges $0.090 $2.91 2.5% $0.092 $2.98
w/o Demand Charges $0.095 -2.5% $0.097 -
EEM-8: Adjust Boiler Thermostat
Energy Analysis
Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal
24,000 -1.0% -240
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Adjust boiler thermostat 0 1 hr $60 $60
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -240 gal $3.79 ($25,815)
Net Present Worth ($25,800)
EEM-9: Turn Off Standby Boiler
Energy Analysis
Boiler Input MBH Loss %Loss MBH Hours, exist Hours, new kBtu η boiler Gallons
B-1 3,347 1%33 8,760 4,380 -146,599 68%-1,557
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Establish operating procedure 0 16 hrs $60 $960
Annual Costs
Turn off and isolate boilers 1 - 25 4 hrs $60.00 $4,628
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,557 gal $3.79 ($167,429)
Net Present Worth ($161,800)
EEM-10: Perform Boiler Combustion Test
Energy Analysis
Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal
24,000 -1.5% -360
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Purchase combustion analyzer 0 1 LS $700 $700
Annual Costs
Clean boilers and perform combustion test 1 - 25 12 hrs $60.00 $13,884
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -360 gal $3.79 ($38,722)
Net Present Worth ($24,100)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-11: Upgrade Runway Lighting
Energy Analysis
Type # Fixtures Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Savings, kWh
Runway 91 Inc 200 222 LED -44 -23,649
Lamp Replacement
Type # Fixtures Lamp # Lamps Life, hrs Lamps//yr $ / lamp $ / Replace
Runway 91 Inc -1 500 -797.16 $20 $15
Runway 91 LED 1 100,000 3.99 $130 $15
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace taxiway fixtures 0 91 LS $590 $53,690
Estimating contingency 0 15%$8,054
Overhead & profit 0 30% $18,523
Design fees 0 10%$8,027
Project management 0 8%$7,063
Annual Costs
Existing lamp replacement 1 - 25 -797.16 lamps $35.00 ($538,013)
LED board replacement 1 - 25 3.99 LED board $145.00 $11,145
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -23,649 kWh $0.092 ($40,342)
Net Present Worth ($471,900)
Existing Replacement
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-12: Optimize Exterior Terminal Lighting
Energy Analysis
Add Timer
Type # Fixtures Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Hours, ex Hours, new Savings, kWh
Surface 20 HPS 70 95 4,380 2,190 -4,161
Can 47 CFL 20 23 4,380 2,190 -2,367
-6,528
Upgrade Wall Paks
Type # Fixtures Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Savings, kWh
WallPak 3 MH 70 95 LED -30 -854
WallPak 1 HPS 150 190 LED -50 -613
WallPak 6 HPS 250 295 LED -75 -5,782
-7,249
Lamp Replacement
Type # Fixtures Lamp # Lamps Life, hrs Lamps//yr $ / lamp $ / Replace
WallPak 3 MH -1 12,000 -1.10 $42 $20
WallPak 1 HPS -1 24,000 -0.18 $40 $20
WallPak 6 HPS -1 24,000 -1.10 $50 $60
WallPak 3 LED 1 80,000 0.16 $125 $20
WallPak 1 LED 1 80,000 0.05 $190 $20
WallPak 6 LED 1 80,000 0.33 $200 $60
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace WallPak: 70 watt MH with LED 0 3 LS $525 $1,575
Replace WallPak: 150 watt HPS with LED 0 1 LS $525 $525
Replace WallPak: 250 watt HPS with LED 0 1 LS $600 $600
Install timer and wire to appropriate circuits 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$315
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,205
Design fees 0 10%$522
Project management 0 8%$459
Annual Costs
Existing lamp replacement, 70 watt MH 1 - 25 -1.10 lamps $62.00 ($1,309)
Existing lamp replacement, 150 watt HPS 1 - 25 -0.18 lamps $60.00 ($211)
Existing lamp replacement, 250 watt HPS 1 - 25 -1.10 lamps $110.00 ($2,323)
LED board replacement, 40 watts 1 - 25 0.16 LED board $145.00 $459
LED board replacement, 80 watts 1 - 25 0.05 LED board $210.00 $222
LED board replacement, 106 watts 1 - 25 0.33 LED board $260.00 $1,647
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -13,777 kWh $0.092 ($23,502)
Net Present Worth ($18,800)
Existing Replacement
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-13: Upgrade Taxiway Lighting
Energy Analysis
Type # Fixtures Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Savings, kWh
Taxiway 141 Inc 45 56 LED -34 -4,529
Lamp Replacement
Type # Fixtures Lamp # Lamps Life, hrs Lamps//yr $ / lamp $ / Replace
Taxiway 141 Inc -1 1,500 -411.72 $12 $15
Taxiway 141 LED 1 100,000 6.18 $225 $15
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace taxiway fixtures 0 141 LS $285 $40,185
Estimating contingency 0 15%$6,028
Overhead & profit 0 30% $13,864
Design fees 0 10%$6,008
Project management 0 8%$5,287
Annual Costs
Existing lamp replacement 1 - 25 -411.72 lamps $27.00 ($214,361)
LED board replacement 1 - 25 6.18 LED board $240.00 $28,581
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -4,529 kWh $0.092 ($7,726)
Net Present Worth ($122,100)
EEM-14: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency
Energy Analysis
Equip Number HP ηold ηnew kW Hours kWh
P-3 1 2 80.8% 86.5% -0.09 8,760 -745
EF-1 1 5 83.3% 89.5% -0.23 8,760 -2,026
VU-1 1 15 86.6% 92.4% -0.65 8,760 -5,685
-1.0 -8,456
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs HP
Replace motor 2 0 1 LS 970 $970
Replace motor 5 0 1 LS 1,290 $1,290
Replace motor 15 0 1 LS 2,660 $2,660
Estimating contingency 0 15%$738
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,697
Design fees 0 10%$736
Project management 0 8%$647
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -8,456 kWh $0.092 ($14,425)
Electric Demand 1 - 25 -12 kW $2.98 ($641)
Net Present Worth ($6,300)
Existing Replacement
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-15: Optimize Exterior Lighting Controls
Energy Analysis
Type # Fixtures Lamp Lamp, watts Fixture Watts Hours, ex Hours, new Savings, kWh
Pole Mount 6 HPS 250 295 3,650 2,920 -1,292
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install photocell and integrate with timer 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$150
Overhead & profit 0 30%$345
Design fees 0 10%$150
Project management 0 8%$132
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -1,292 kWh $0.092 ($2,204)
Net Present Worth ($400)
EEM-16: Install DHWRP Thermostat Control
Energy Analysis
Watts Hours,ex Hours, new kWh
60 8,760 2,920 -350
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Thermostatic controller 0 1 ea $300 $300
Estimating contingency 0 15%$45
Overhead & profit 0 30%$104
Design fees 0 10%$45
Project management 0 8%$39
Energy Costs
Electric Energy (Effective Cost)1 - 25 -350 kWh $0.097 ($633)
Net Present Worth ($100)
EEM-17: Replace Rollup Baggage Door
Energy Analysis
Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons
Rollup Door 12 0.50 3 20 -0.4 -3,504 68%-37
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace overhead door 0 12 sqft $200 $2,400
Estimating contingency 0 15%$360
Overhead & profit 0 30%$828
Design fees 0 10%$359
Project management 0 8%$316
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -37 gal $3.79 ($4,002)
Net Present Worth $300
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-18: Increase Tower Wall Insulation
Energy Analysis
Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons
Wall 2,100 5 20 25 -7.9 -68,985 68%-732
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install wall insulation 0 2,100 sqft $10 $21,000
Relocate electrical boxes and other appurtenances 0 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Gypsum Board 0 2,100 sqft $6 $12,600
Estimating contingency 0 15%$8,040
Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,080
Design fees 0 10%$7,772
Project management 0 8%$6,839
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -732 gal $3.79 ($78,787)
Net Present Worth $13,500
EEM-19: Increase Terminal Wall Insulation
Energy Analysis
Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons
Wall 13,000 12 22 25 -12.3 -107,841 68%-1,145
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install wall insulation and siding 0 13,000 sqft $14 $182,000
Estimating contingency 0 15% $27,300
Overhead & profit 0 30% $62,790
Design fees 0 10% $27,209
Project management 0 8% $23,944
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,145 gal $3.79 ($123,164)
Net Present Worth $200,100
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport
EEM-20: Upgrade Interior Lighting
Energy Analysis
Electric Savings
Fixture Number Hours Lamp Fixture Watts Lamp Fixture Watts kW kWh
Fluorescent 514 5,824 2T12 92 LED 77 -7.7 -44,845
-7.7 -44,845
Additional Heating Load
kWh Factor kBtu η boiler Gallons
44,845 50% 76,505 68% 812
Lamp Replacement
Type # Fixtures Lamp # Lamps Life, hrs Lamps//yr $/lamp Labor/lamp
Fluorescent 514 2T12 -2 20,000 -299 $3 $10.00
LED 514 LED 1 70,000 43 $20 $15.00
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace 2T12 ballast and lamps with T8 0 354 LS $300 $106,200
Estimating contingency 0 15% $15,930.00
Overhead & profit 0 30% $36,639.00
Design fees 0 10% $15,877
Project management 0 8% $13,972
Annual Costs
Existing lamp replacement, 2T12 1 - 25 -299 lamps $16.00 ($92,360)
Lamp replacement, LED 1 - 25 43 lamps $35.00 $28,862
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -44,845 kWh $0.092 ($76,499)
Electric Demand 1 - 25 -92 kW $2.98 ($5,113)
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 812 gal $3.79 $87,376
Net Present Worth $130,900
EEM-21: Increase Addition Wall Insulation
Energy Analysis
Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons
Wall 1,200 10 25 25 -1.8 -15,768 68%-167
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install wall insulation and siding 0 13,000 sqft $14 $182,000
Estimating contingency 0 15% $27,300
Overhead & profit 0 30% $62,790
Design fees 0 10% $27,209
Project management 0 8% $23,944
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -167 gal $3.79 ($18,008)
Net Present Worth $305,200
Replacement SavingsExisting
Appendix B
Energy and Utility Data
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport Terminal
ELECTRIC RATE
Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service
Electricity ($ / kWh )$0.0897
Cost of Power Adjustment ($ / kWh)$0.0000
Demand ( $ / kW )$2.91
Customer Charge ( $ / mo )$36.30
Sales Tax ( % )0.0%
ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND
kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW
Jan 94,600 154 85,400 154 79,300 154 75,900 154 83,800
Feb 82,400 156 73,200 156 90,000 156 82,200 156 81,950
Mar 76,900 148 78,500 148 68,700 148 73,900 148 74,500
Apr 97,100 146 82,200 146 72,300 146 67,300 146 79,725
May 69,500 135 80,700 135 79,000 135 63,900 135 73,275
Jun 90,100 144 81,700 144 71,300 144 70,600 144 78,425
Jul 81,600 138 79,200 138 78,400 138 75,600 138 78,700
Aug 82,700 138 80,300 138 81,200 138 91,100 138 83,825
Sep 79,600 155 90,100 155 73,600 155 86,600 155 82,475
Oct 92,700 149 72,300 149 81,900 149 67,700 149 78,650
Nov 78,200 149 90,600 149 71,000 149 81,600 149 80,350
Dec 91,400 147 76,700 147 71,000 147 72,800 147 77,975
Total 1,016,800 970,900 917,700 909,200 953,650
Average 84,733 147 80,908 147 76,475 147 75,767 147 79,471
Load Factor 79%76%71%71%147
ELECTRIC BILLING DETAILS
Month Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total % Change
Jan $7,113 $375 $36 $7,525 $6,808 $375 $36 $7,220 -4.1%
Feb $8,073 $381 $36 $8,491 $7,373 $381 $36 $7,791 -8.2%
Mar $6,162 $358 $36 $6,557 $6,629 $358 $36 $7,023 7.1%
Apr $6,485 $352 $36 $6,874 $6,037 $352 $36 $6,425 -6.5%
May $7,086 $320 $36 $7,443 $5,732 $320 $36 $6,088 -18.2%
Jun $6,396 $346 $36 $6,778 $6,333 $346 $36 $6,715 -0.9%
Jul $7,032 $329 $36 $7,398 $6,781 $329 $36 $7,146 -3.4%
Aug $7,284 $329 $36 $7,649 $8,172 $329 $36 $8,537 11.6%
Sep $6,602 $378 $36 $7,017 $7,768 $378 $36 $8,183 16.6%
Oct $7,346 $361 $36 $7,744 $6,073 $361 $36 $6,470 -16.4%
Nov $6,369 $361 $36 $6,766 $7,320 $361 $36 $7,717 14.1%
Dec $6,369 $355 $36 $6,760 $6,530 $355 $36 $6,921 2.4%
Total $ 82,318 $ 4,246 $ 436 $ 86,999 $ 81,555 $ 4,246 $ 436 $ 86,237 -0.9%
Average $ 6,860 $ 354 $ 36 $ 7,250 $ 6,796 $ 354 $ 36 $ 7,186 -0.9%
Cost ($/kWh)$0.095 95% 5% 1% $0.095 0.1%
Electrical costs are based on the current electric rates.
2010 2011
2011Month200820092010 Average
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Electric Consumption
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport Terminal
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Use (kWh)Month of the Year
Electric Use History
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Demand (kW)Month of the Year
Electric Demand History
2008
2009
2010
2011
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Electric Cost
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport Terminal
$ 0
$ 1,000
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 4,000
$ 5,000
$ 6,000
$ 7,000
$ 8,000
$ 9,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Cost (USD)Month of the Year
Electric Cost Breakdown
2010
Electric Use (kWh) Costs
Electric Demand (kW) Costs
Customer Charge and Taxes
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Electric Demand (kW)Electric Use (kWh)Month of the Year
Electric Use and Demand Comparison
2010
Electric Use
Electric Demand
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Fuel Oil Consumption
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan Airport Terminal
Year Fuel Oil Degree Days
2007 25,775 7,430
2008 24,204 7,385
2009 21,460 7,538
2010 23,923 7,390
Average 23,841 7,436
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 Degree DaysGallons of Fuel OilYear
Annual Fuel Oil Use
Fuel Oil
Degree Days
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Energy Cost $/MMBtu Area ECI EUI
Fuel Oil $3.58 $36.93 32,600 $5.39 199
Electricity $0.095 $29.26
Source Cost
Electricity 953,650 kWh $90,500 3,300 51%
Fuel Oil 23,841 Gallons $85,300 3,200 49%
Totals $175,800 6,500 100%
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Consumption Energy, MMBtu
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Fuel Oil ElectricityCost $ / MMBtuCost of Heat Comparison
Appendix C
Equipment Data
Motor
HP / Volts / η
B-1 Boiler Room Building Heat Cleaver Brooks CB100-80 2,800 MBH
B-2 Boiler Room Building Heat Cleaver Brooks CB100-80 2,800 MBH
P-4 Boiler Room Domestic Hot Water Grundfos UP26-64 185 watt / 120V
P-5 Boiler Room Domestic Hot Water Grundfos UP26-64 185 watt / 120V
P-3 Boiler Room Hydronic Heat B&G Series 80 160 @ 30' 2 / 208V / 78.5%
VU-1 Fan Room Terminal Ventilation Pace B-22 FC 23,425 cfm @ 1.5" 15 / 208V / 87.5%
P-1 Fan Room VU-1 Heating Coil B&G Series 80 95 gpm @ 45' 3 / 208V / 85%
EF-1 Fan Room VU-1 Return/Relief Fan Pace U-36 FC 19,190 cfm @ 0.625" 5 / 208V / 82.5%
EF-2 Fan Room VU-1 Return/Relief Fan Pace A-15 FC 2,620 cfm @ 0.5" 0.5 / 120V / 70%
A/C -1 Roof Cooling for VU-1 Carrier Gemini 38AK5044
SF-1 Roof Stairwell Smoke Control Team SF-1 4,000 cfm @ 0.5" 1.5 / 208V / 73%
EF-5 Roof Toilet Exhaust 1,800 cfm @ 0.5" 0.5 / 120V / 70%
VU-2 Tower Tower Ventilation Pace A-12 FC 3,015 cfm @ 1.5" 2 / 208V / 80.5%
P-2 Tower VU-2 Heating Coil B&G Series 80 32 gpm @ 26' 0.5 / 120V / 70%
Major Equipment Inventory - Ketchikan Airport
CapacityUnit
ID Location Function Make Model
Appendix D
Abbreviations
AHU Air handling unit
BTU British thermal unit
BTUH BTU per hour
CMU Concrete masonry unit
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CUH Cabinet unit heater
DDC Direct digital controls
DHW Domestic hot water
EAD Exhaust air damper
EEM Energy efficiency measure
EF Exhaust fan
Gyp Bd Gypsum board
HVAC Heating, Ventilating, Air-
conditioning
HW Hot water
HWRP Hot water recirculating pump
KVA Kilovolt-amps
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LED Light emitting diode
MBH 1,000 Btu per hour
MMBH 1,000,000 Btu per hour
OAD Outside air damper
PSI Per square inch
PSIG Per square inch gage
RAD Return air damper
RF Return fan
SIR Savings to investment ratio
SF Supply fan
UV Unit ventilator
VAV Variable air volume
VFD Variable frequency drive
E5 – High School Energy Audit
Ketchikan High School
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District
Funded by:
Final Report
October 2011
Prepared by:
Energy Audit
Table of Contents
Section 1: Executive Summary 2
Section 2: Introduction 8
Section 3: Energy Efficiency Measures 10
Section 4: Description of Systems 20
Section 5: Methodology 24
Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 27 Appendix A:
Energy and Utility Data 38 Appendix B:
Equipment Data 44 Appendix C:
Abbreviations 50 Appendix D:
Audit Team
The energy audit is performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC of Juneau, Alaska. The audit team
consists of:
Jim Rehfeldt, P.E., Energy Engineer
Jack Christiansen, Energy Consultant
Brad Campbell, Energy Auditor
Loras O’Toole P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Will Van Dyken P.E., Electrical Engineer
Curt Smit, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Philip Iverson, Construction Estimator
Karla Hart, Technical Publications Specialist
Jill Carlile, Data Analyst
Grayson Carlile, Energy Modeler
Section 1
Executive Summary
An energy audit of the Ketchikan High School was performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC.
The investment grade audit was funded by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify
opportunities to improve the energy performance of public buildings throughout Alaska.
Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms, commons,
a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical support
spaces.
Building Assessment
The following summarizes our assessment of the building.
Envelope
The exterior of the building appears to have been well maintained and should provide many more
years of service. Of particular interest was the newly completed re-roofing project that covered the
majority of the building. The project showed good attention to detail, to include a reduction in the
number of roof penetrations that often lead to integrity failures. The audit team was also informed
that the roofing contractor had uncovered, identified, and successfully repaired a significant air
leakage path around the perimeter of every one of the newly roofed spaces. In addition to this
improvement to the building envelop integrity, additional insulation was added to the roof to increase
the average insulation value of the tapered roof system to R-34. While this was an improvement over
the previous roof insulation value, it is recommended that future roofing projects target the high
performance building standard for roofing insulation of R-46 based on an optimization for life cycle
cost.
The Humanity Wing roof was also recently replaced using an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly
(IRMA). This style roof typically has an initial waterproof layer such as EPDM, then a layer of foam
insulation, then a fabric cloth cover then an LG board – a thinner layer of foam adhered to a roofing
paver. The Humanity Wing utilized a base layer of foam that was approximately 4” thick at the
inspected roof drain with 2” layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at
the inspected location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the
expanded polystyrene foam, however it has been determined that the IRMA is a flawed system that is
particularly ineffective and inefficient in Southeast Alaska. This is because the IRMA allows water
to flow between the layers of insulation to the waterproof membrane below before it flows to the roof
drains. This presents a two-fold problem. First, the expanded foam eventually becomes waterlogged
and loses some of its insulating properties. Secondly, any outdoor temperature water moving through
the foam against the warm roof surface below will remove heat as it travels to the roof drain. In a
climate such as Ketchikan’s, imagine the number of days/year that the roof and underside of the
ceiling is being cooled to the temperature of the rain water. That number is simply the number of
rainy days/year. A similar roof is also used on the 2nd floor south facing balcony at the building
entrance. A life cycle cost analysis for replacement of the Humanity Wing roof with a tapered roof
system buildup to optimum insulation levels is outlined in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measure 25.
The exterior tile wall surface appears to be problematic due to a lack of backer-board to provide
additional support to the tile when it is impacted by an object. Without the backer board, impact
results in a broken tile.
The main entry double door system appears to be serving the facility well. The middle column
provides two opportunities for weather stripping to properly seal the door, a design that is far superior
to that used on similar applications.
The windows of the school are failing at an unacceptable rate. Maintenance staff believes that the
original window glazing is failing due to flexing of the internal and external panes. This may be due
to an excessive gap between the panes or the glazing being too thin for the applied external forces.
Solar gain and wind are two such forces. The larger the air gap between the panes, the greater the
amount of potential expansion and contraction. An additional potential cause for failure is the
expansion and contraction of the aluminum frames themselves.
The failed windows were replaced by windows manufactured locally with a smaller air gap between
the internal and external panes. The audit team was informed by maintenance staff that the new
windows were also routinely failing. Maintenance staff replaced 51 windows last year alone and it
appeared at the time of the audit that there were 10 more that had failed since.
While aluminum is the material of choice by many architects for window wall curtains such as in the
lobby and library, it has one of the poorest performances from the perspective of energy conservation
due to high thermal conductivity of the aluminum and its ability to transfer heat from the interior
spaces to the outside through the window frames. The insulation value for these large window
curtains could be as low as R-1. If a simple solution to this reoccurring problem is not found, such as
a window replacement with slightly smaller window dimensions, then an excellent opportunity exists
to replace the windows with smaller, more energy efficient units.
The exterior doors are not thermally broken. Future exterior door replacement selection should
include this feature. Weather-stripping on a high percentage of the exterior doors is in need of
replacement.
Heating System
The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems,
fan coil units, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters in the humanity wing.
At the time of the audit Boiler #1 was running and the remaining two boilers were on-line and not
isolated. Circulating heating water through a non-necessary boiler results in a significant amount of
heat loss.
The boilers are reported to be significantly oversized—one boiler is capable of heating the building
on all but the coldest days. All boilers have jacket losses and cycling losses from turning on and off;
oversized boilers have greater losses with no benefit.
Electric heating is less expensive when surplus hydroelectric power exists. Adding an electric boiler
will utilize the cost advantage and provide a more efficient heating plant for warm days when loads
are small.
The pumping system does not utilize variable speed pumping to reduce energy costs. There is no
incentive to convert due to the large number of three-way valves in the systems.
The remainder of the fuel oil boiler heating system appears to be in good condition; however fairly
simple improvements can be made to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. These are outlined in
Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures.
Ventilation System
The building ventilation systems consist of thirteen large air handling units located in four fan rooms.
In addition to the large air handling units there are five return fans and thirty four exhaust fans
mounted throughout the building and on the roof top for the purposes of cooling spaces, improving
building air quality, and kitchen operations. The overall condition of the systems is good, however
issues include:
HVAC systems could be optimized to reduce ventilation and fan power through control
sequence modifications. Once optimization is achieved then a retro-commissioning should be
performed on all HVAC systems to integrate operations and further increase efficiencies.
AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. Short-circuiting of supply air flow due to an
approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing is reducing the air flow supplied by the
unit while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor
The cooling system for the building was removed, but all of the cooling coils still remain in
the AHU systems. Removal of these unnecessary cooling coils will decrease the pressure that
the supply fans are operating against.
The fan schedules were found to be inconsistent with the occupancy and use of the building.
This is true of both the school-year and the summer season. There is opportunity to fine-tune
the schedules and reduce energy consumption.
AHU-1 operates whenever functions occur in the gymnasium and auditorium. This system
supplies the lobby and several school wings with a high rate of outside air flow. Reducing the
operating hours of the system and the volume of outside air flow when it is operating will
significantly reduce energy costs.
The Humanity Wing does not recirculate building air, but instead heats full outside air
whenever it operates. A significant amount of energy would be saved if a large portion of
conditioned air was re-circulated.
The fan belt guard had been removed and had not been replaced on AHU-11.
Ventilation system capacity is determined by the amount of air flow needed to cool the building on
the hottest day. The ventilation systems are oversized for a school building with no summer operation
and located in a temperate rain forest climate. The existing peak air flow rate of 1.25 cfm/sqft is much
higher than a more appropriate rate of 0.75 to 1.0 cfm/sqft.
The existing continuous exhaust air requirement for the building is 29,000 cfm, which the ventilation
systems must makeup with outside air. For the current population of 600 students and staff, the
building ventilation rate is 48 cfm/person, more than 3 times the required rate of approximately 15
cfm/person. Typically, the heating of ventilation air is 60% to 80% of the building heating load, so
there is substantial incentive to scrutinize and reduce exhaust air flows, which would allow a
reduction in the ventilation air requirement, and save energy.
To reduce energy consumption, it is recommended that the ventilation systems be tailored to the
actual use, function, and occupancy, optimal control sequences be implemented, and the systems
retro-commissioned. Opportunities include:
Modify AHUs where applicable to operate as variable air systems with the addition of variable
frequency drives
Verify CO2 sensor controls and sequences to the associated space AHUs so that air flow can be
reduced to save energy while maintaining healthy air quality within those spaces. CO2 sensors
have been added to AHU-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13.
Reduce the continuous exhaust air requirement for the school by reducing exhaust air flow from
toilet rooms and other exhaust areas. Consider variable exhaust flow for toilet rooms to increase
air flow when a room is in use.
Optimize schedules. The current schedules appear to have unneeded operating hours and are not
tailored to the current building use.
Perform an integrated building-wide retro-commissioning upon implementation of optimization
of control sequences.
Cooling Systems
There are two computer IT rooms that are cooled by mechanical cooling systems that reject the heat
outdoors. The heat is generated continuously; recovering the heat will reduce the heating load on the
boilers.
Control System
The building control system is a combination of pneumatic and electric components. Many of the
original pneumatic system components are being replaced by outside contractors and maintenance
staff. Upon completion of pneumatic component replacement, optimal control sequences should be
implemented and the systems retro-commissioned to ensure proper operation.
Lighting
Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting
consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff have done
an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption through lighting modifications. The interior
lighting and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by photocells in a manner that minimizes
lighting operational hours. Opportunities to further reduce lighting loads include the replacement of
the metal halide lighting in the automotive bay and woodshop, the perimeter wall pack units, and the
parking lot lighting. An excellent selection for replacement is the induction lighting systems that
Dale Reed has already used on other applications. These fixtures will reduce energy consumption by
approximately 50%.
Summary
It is the assessment of the energy audit team that the greatest potential for reducing energy
consumption is through proper scheduling and right-sizing of the heating and ventilation systems. A
building optimization analysis is recommended in which the building systems are reconfigured and
optimized for the actual use. The analysis should evaluate if there is incentive to install electric
boilers to take advantage of favorable electric rates when there is low-cost hydroelectric power.
Integrating the four phases of construction through a building-wide commissioning effort is a
necessary step towards improving the indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency of
the building. While a complete optimization analysis is beyond the scope of this energy audit, several
EEMs show that there is considerable financial incentive to tailor the systems to the actual building
use.
Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs)
All buildings have opportunities to improve their energy efficiency. The energy audit revealed
numerous opportunities in which an efficiency investment will result in a net reduction in long-term
operating costs at the Ketchikan High School.
Behavioral and Operational EEMs
The following EEMs require behavioral and operational changes in the building use. The savings are
not readily quantifiable but these EEMs are highly recommended as low-cost opportunities that are a
standard of high performance buildings.
EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors
EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing
EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan
EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating
The summary table of high and
medium Priority Energy Efficiency
Measures recommended for the
Ketchikan High School follows on the
next page.
High and Medium Priority EEMs
The following EEMs are recommended for investment. They are ranked by life cycle savings to
investment ratio (SIR). This ranking method places a priority on low cost EEMs which can be
immediately funded, generating energy savings to fund higher cost EEMs in the following years.
Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings.
25-Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
High Priority
EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6
EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9
EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2
EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0
EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1
EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3
EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6
EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7
EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4
EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1
EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0
EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1
EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8
EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0
EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9
EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8
EEM-21: Rooms 151 & 131 Heat Recovery $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9
Medium Priority
EEM-22: Install Auto Valves on Unit Heaters $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7
EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2
EEM-24: Upgrade Motors $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0
Totals* $645,600 $43,200 ($5,637,800) ($4,949,000) 8.7
*The analysis is based on each EEM being independent of the others. While it is likely that some
EEMs are interrelated, an isolated analysis is used to demonstrate the economics because the audit
team is not able to predict which EEMs an Owner may choose to implement. If several EEMs are
implemented, the resulting energy savings is likely to differ from the sum of each EEM projection.
Summary
The energy audit revealed numerous opportunities for improving the energy performance of the
building. It is recommended that the behavioral and high priority EEMs be implemented now to
generate energy savings from which to fund the medium priority EEMs.
Another avenue to consider is to borrow money from AHFCs revolving loan fund for public
buildings. AHFC will loan money for energy improvements under terms that allow for paying back
the money from the energy savings. More information on this option can be found online at
http://www.ahfc.us/loans/akeerlf_loan.cfm.
Section 2
Introduction
This report presents the findings of an energy audit of Ketchikan High School located in Ketchikan,
Alaska. The purpose of this investment grade energy audit is to evaluate the infrastructure and its
subsequent energy performance to identify applicable energy efficiencies measures (EEMs).
The energy audit report contains the following sections:
Introduction: Building use and energy consumption.
Energy Efficiency Measures: Priority ranking of the EEMs with a description, energy analysis,
and life cycle cost analysis.
Description of Systems: Background description of the building energy systems.
Methodology: Basis for how construction and maintenance cost estimates are derived and the
economic and energy factors used for the analysis.
BUILDING USE
The Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms,
commons, a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical
support spaces. The building is occupied by 560 students and 40 staff members. It is occupied in the
following manner:
Offices & Commons: 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F)
Kitchen 6:00 am – 12:00 pm (M-F)
Classrooms: 7:30 am - 3:30 pm (M-F) - lighting controlled by teachers
Main Gym 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F) 30-40 people
Auxiliary Gym 3:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Auditorium 12:00 pm – 10:30 pm (Mon and Thur) 600 people – 8x per year
Building History
The building was fully renovated in four phases from 1994 to 1996. Subsequent improvements from
an energy perspective included complete mechanical and electric system replacements, in-house
interior lighting upgrades, roof replacement to the Humanity’s Wing in 2005, and a roof renovation of
the remainder of the building in 2011.
Energy Consumption
The building energy sources include an electric service and a fuel oil tank. Fuel oil is used for the
majority of the heating loads and domestic hot water while electricity serves all other loads and a
limited amount of space heating. The following table shows annual energy use and cost.
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Source Consumption Cost Energy,
MMBtu
Electricity 1,979,000 kWh $192,100 6,800 27%
Fuel Oil 134,900 Gallons $461,400 18,300 73%
Totals $653,500 25,100 100%
Electricity
This chart shows electrical energy use
from 2007 to 2010. The staff was unable
to offer insight into the reason for the
monthly fluctuations in energy use.
The effective cost—energy costs plus
demand charges—is 9.7¢ per kWh.
Fuel Oil
This chart shows heating energy use from 2007 to
2010. The chart compares annual use with the heating
degree days which is a measurement of the demand
for energy to heat a building. A year with a higher
number of degree days reflects colder outside
temperatures and a higher heating requirement.
The current cost of fuel oil in Ketchikan is $3.47 per gallon.
Assuming a fuel oil conversion efficiency of 70% and an
electric boiler conversion efficiency of 95%, oil heat at $3.47
per gallon equates to $35.79 per MMBtu. Since the current
cost of electricity at 9.7¢ per kWh equates to $29.95 per
MMBtu, electric heat is less expensive than fuel oil heat.
Section 3
Energy Efficiency Measures
The following energy efficiency measures (EEMs) were identified during the energy audit. The
EEMs are priority ranked and, where applicable, subjected to energy and life cycle cost analysis.
Appendix A contains the energy and life cycle cost analysis spreadsheets.
The EEMs are grouped into the following prioritized categories:
Behavioral or Operational: EEMs that require minimal capital investment but require
operational or behavioral changes. The EEMs provide a life cycle savings but an analysis is not
performed because the guaranteed energy savings is difficult quantify.
High Priority: EEMs that require a small capital investment and offer a life cycle savings. Also
included in this category are higher cost EEMs that offer significant life cycle savings.
Medium Priority: EEMs that require a significant capital investment to provide a life cycle
savings. Many medium priority EEMs provide a high life cycle savings and offer substantial
incentive to increase investment in building energy efficiency.
Low Priority: EEMs that will save energy but do not provide a life cycle savings.
BEHAVIORAL OR OPERATIONAL
The following EEMs are recommended for implementation. They require behavioral or operational
changes that can occur with minimal investment to achieve immediate savings. These EEMs are not
easily quantified by analysis because they cannot be accurately predicted. They are recommended
because they offer a life cycle savings, represent good practice, and are accepted features of high
performance buildings.
EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors
Purpose: The weather stripping on many of the single-wide exterior doors is in poor condition.
Energy will be saved if doors are properly weather-stripped to reduce infiltration.
Scope: Replace weather stripping on exterior doors.
EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing
Purpose: An unacceptably high number of window glazing units have failed at the high school.
Although 51 glazing units were replaced last year, an additional 10 window glazing
assemblies have since failed. Energy will be saved if the failed units are replaced.
Scope: Replace failed glazing sections.
EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan
Purpose: The AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. The supply air flow is short-circuiting
through an approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing — recirculating air back
to the fan cabinet while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor.
Scope: Properly align AHU-1 supply fan on the shaft.
EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating
Purpose: Energy will be saved if an electric boiler is installed to shift the heating load from oil to
electricity when there is surplus hydroelectric power.
Scope: Perform an analysis to determine if there is sufficient hydroelectric resource to invest in
an electric boiler to heat the building. Electric heat is currently less expensive than fuel
oil heat. With fuel oil inflation also predicted to be higher than electricity inflation,
shifting 75% of the current fuel oil consumption to electric could have a life cycle
savings of $4.9 million dollars.
HIGH PRIORITY
The following EEMs are recommended for implementation because they are low cost measures that
have a high savings to investment ratio. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative
values, in parenthesis, represent savings.
EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours
Purpose: The HVAC systems average 3,000 occupied mode operating hours per year. While
operating hours are rightly determined based on school and community use of the
building, this is significantly higher than the average of 1,600-2,400 hours for high
school. Energy will be saved if the operating schedules are reviewed and adjusted to
minimize the operating hours for the systems.
Scope: Optimize operating schedules. The following analysis is based on reducing fan system
occupied mode operation to 2,200 hours per year.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($67,010) ($67,010) $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6
EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers
Purpose: Only one boiler is needed to heat the building; however the other two remain on-line
and hot. In addition, the boilers are not turned off during the summer months when
heating requirements are very low. Circulating hot water through an isolated boiler in a
multiple boiler system can result in efficiency loss due to the isolated boilers acting as
heat sinks. Energy will be saved by turning off the boilers in the summer and isolating
the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons.
Scope: Isolate the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons and turn off the boilers
during the summer months.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$960 ($13,250) ($12,290) $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9
EEM-7: Perform a Boiler Combustion Test
Purpose: Operating the boiler with an optimum amount of excess air will improve combustion
efficiency. Annual cleaning followed by a combustion test is recommended.
Scope: Annually clean and perform a combustion test on the boiler.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$360 ($2,480) ($2,120) $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2
EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System (Lobby, Classrooms)
Purpose: The AHU-1 system has excessive outside air and exhaust air flows. Energy will be
saved if AHU-1 control sequences and air flows are optimized to ensure the system is
operating as efficiently as possible.
Scope: Optimize AHU-1 as follows:
- Reduce the minimum outside air volume by reducing the minimum outside air
requirement for the science fume hoods and the exhaust fan make-up. The analysis
is based on reducing the fume hood makeup from all fans to two fans operating
concurrently. The toilets rooms have sporadic heavy use between classes but are
lightly used much of the time. The analysis reduces the air exchange from 7.5
minutes per change to 10 minutes per change.
- Reduce Operating Hours: The system operates with the auditorium and gym
during non-school hours. We recommend not operating the system during these
periods unless the commons is heavily used.
- Modify the RF-1 pressure controls to preclude unnecessary exhaust of return air
from the building.
- Optimize the night setback.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($18,220) ($18,220) $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0
EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls
Purpose: The existing boiler burners do not properly modulate to increase the cycle time and
decrease the number of cycles. The DDC system starts the burners on low fire, quickly
modulates them up to high fire, and then overshoots the setpoint. Adjusting the DDC
response rate using a rate-of-rise control is necessary to keep from ramping up the
burner when the boiler is gaining on loop temperature. Energy will be saved if the DDC
burner control is set up to monitor the rate of rise so it does not overshoot its setpoint.
Scope: Modify the DDC control sequence to increase cycle run time.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($3,720) ($3,720) $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1
EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System (Vocational Education)
Purpose: The mixed air temperature control on AHU-13 is set at 50°F, which is bringing in more
outside air than required. Energy will be saved if a direct-measure outside air damper is
installed and the outside air flow reduced to match the exhaust air requirement.
Scope: Optimize AHU-13 as follows:
- Install direct-measure outside air damper.
- Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure.
- Optimize the schedules.
- Optimize the night setback.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($18,890) ($18,890) $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3
EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System (Gym Lockers)
Purpose: The lockers exhaust air flow rate is excessive due to minimal use of showers by the
students. Energy will be saved if the exhaust air flow is reduced and a direct-measure
outside air damper is installed so the outside air flow is constant.
Scope: Optimize AHU-12 as follows:
- Reduce locker room exhaust air flow.
- Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper.
- Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure.
- Optimize the schedules.
- Optimize the night setback.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($6,390) ($6,390) $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6
EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery
Purpose: The electrical room has a 225 kVA transformer in the space. The room has a 1,500 cfm
exhaust grille which highly over-exhausts the room, transferring more heat from the
building than the transformer produces. Energy will be saved if the heat generated from
these transformers is transferred to the AHU-1 return air plenum.
Scope: Cap the existing exhaust grille and rebalance the exhaust fan. Install a transfer fan to
supply the warm air from the electric room to the AHU-1 return air plenum.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$50 ($4,750) ($4,700) $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7
EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads
Purpose: Energy and water will be saved by replacing the lavatory aerators and showerheads
with low-flow models.
Scope: Replace lavatory aerators and showerheads with water-conserving fixtures.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($1,960) ($1,960) $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4
EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System (Auxiliary Gym)
Purpose: AHU-8 is controlling to a 55°F mixed air temperature which is over-ventilating the
building. Energy will be saved by using a direct measure outside air damper to
maintain a constant outside air rate that matches the exhaust requirements.
Scope: Optimize AHU-8 as follows:
- Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper.
- Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure.
- Optimize the schedules.
- Optimize the night setback.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($14,900) ($14,900) $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1
EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers
Purpose: Currently, two of the boilers are kept hot but do not operate to supply heat. Air flow
through an idle boiler carries heat up the chimney. Energy will be saved if flue dampers
are installed on the boilers to reduce the air flow through the boiler when it is not firing.
Scope: Install a flue damper on each boiler.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$300 ($2,000) ($1,700) $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0
EEM-16: Electrical Room 208 Heat Recovery
Purpose: The electrical room in the mezzanine has a 150 kVA and a 250 kVA transformer in the
space. The heat from the transformers is exhausted to the outdoors via EF-34. Energy
will be saved if the heat generated from these transformers is used within the building
envelope.
Scope: Modify the EF-34 ductwork to supply the heated exhaust air to the gym.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$300 ($2,630) ($2,330) $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1
EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 (Music, Art, Kitchen)
Purpose: AHU-7 is over-ventilating the building by providing makeup air for the kitchen hood
which only operates 2 hours per week. Energy will be saved if the minimum outside air
rate is reduced to ensure the system is operating as efficiently as possible.
Scope: Optimize AHU-7 as follows:
- Install a direct-measure minimum outside air damper.
- Modulate the relief damper with building pressure.
- Optimize the fan schedules.
- Optimize the night setback.
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($5,010) ($5,010) $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8
EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 (North Wing)
Purpose: AHU-3 and AHU-4 are configured as full outside air systems. They are over-
ventilating the spaces, resulting in excessive energy consumption. Energy will be saved
if AHU-3 and AHU-4 controls and equipment are optimized to ensure the systems are
operating as efficiently as possible.
Scope: Optimize the AHU-3 and AHU-4 system by converting to mixed air systems.
Additional optimization recommendations include:
- Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure
- Optimize the fan schedules
- Optimize night setback sequence
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$200 ($18,210) ($18,010) $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0
EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils
Purpose: The cooling system for the school building was recently removed; however, cooling
coils still remain in the AHU systems. Energy will be saved if these unnecessary
cooling coils are removed to decrease the pressure that the supply fans are operating
against.
Scope: Remove the AHU-5 cooling coil and AHU-6 zone cooling coils.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
($180) ($260) ($440) $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9
EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery
Purpose: The boiler room utilizes a combustion air fan to cool the room when it gets too hot. The
audit team found the room to be 65°F due to nearly continuous cooling fan operation.
The boiler efficiency is lower if the combustion air is at a lower temperature. Energy
will be saved if the boiler room is kept warmer and the heat generated in the boiler
room is utilized within the building envelope rather than discharged outdoors.
Scope: Install a heat pump in the boiler room and transfer the heat a fan coil unit installed in
the gym.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$250 ($10,730) ($10,480) $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8
EEM-21: Heat Recovery from Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151
Purpose: Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151 contains switches, servers, a 75 kVA
transformer, and some additional heat generating electrical equipment. The spaces are
cooled by three A/C units, which reject the heat outdoors. Energy will be saved if heat
generated in the server spaces is transferred to Corridor 128.
Scope: Install a split A/C unit to cool the server room and electrical room. Circulate air from
the server and electrical rooms through the A/C unit evaporator to maintain the rooms
at 65°F. Transfer the heat to corridor 128/100 by circulating it through the A/C unit
condenser.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$300 ($8,080) ($7,780) $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Medium priority EEMs will require planning and a higher level of investment. They are
recommended because they offer a life cycle savings. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest
priority. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings.
EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters
Purpose: Energy will be saved if the ten unit heaters each have an automatic valve that shuts off
the heating flow when heat is not needed. Currently the coils in the unit heaters are
continuously hot and the thermostat turns on the fan to supply the heat to the room.
When heat is not needed, convective heat loss from the coil occurs; some of the heat
loss may be useful, but a large percentage is not.
Scope: Install automatic valves in the heating supply to each unit heater and control them from
the fan thermostat.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($680) ($680) $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7
EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers
Purpose: Existing transformers are not TP-1 rated. Energy will be saved if these less-efficient
transformers are replaced with energy efficient models that comply with NEMA
Standard TP 1-2001.
Scope: Replace less-efficient transformers with NEMA Standard TP 1-2001 compliant models.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($9,790) ($9,790) $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2
EEM-24: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency
Purpose: Although many motor labels were not accessible or had been painted during
preservation efforts, the equipment inspection identified thirteen motors that could be
upgraded with premium efficiency models to save energy. They are:
AHU-3 5 HP
AHU-5 20 HP
AHU-6 15 HP
AHU-11 3 HP
AHU-12 7-½ HP
AHU-13 15 HP
RF-12 1-½ HP
RF-13 7-½ HP
EF-1 5 HP
P-9A 3 HP
P-9B 3 HP
P-11A 7-½ HP
P-11B 7-½ HP
Scope: Replace identified motors with premium efficiency motors.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($1,300) ($1,300) $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0
LOW PRIORITY
Low priority EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended.
EEM-25: Replace Humanity’s Wing Roof Insulation
Purpose: A 112’ x 120’ section of the Humanity’s Wing roof uses an IRMA roof system with a
base layer of foam that is approximately 4” thick at the inspected roof drain with a 2”
layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at the inspected
location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the
expanded polystyrene foam; however the IRMA roof system is de-rated by
approximately 50% as outlined in the executive summary. This results in an overall
roof insulation value of only R-12 for over 13,000 square feet of roofing. Replacing
the Humanity’s Wing roof with a tapered roof system similar to that used in the school
re-roofing project, with an optimum insulation value of R-46, will save energy;
however, our analysis shows it will not produce a life cycle cost savings.
Scope: Replace Humanity’s wing IRMA roof system with R-46 tapered roof system.
Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs
Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR
$0 ($8,050) ($8,050) $357,000 $0 ($228,100) $128,900 0.6
EEM-26: Install Toilet Room Lighting Control
Purpose: Toilet room lighting is currently controlled with the corridor lights. Electric energy
would be saved if the corridor lighting hours were reduced by installing a separate
circuit to control the toilet room lighting with an occupancy sensor within the toilet
rooms.
Scope: Install separate circuit for toilet lights and control with occupancy sensors.
A preliminary analysis determined that this EEM will not realize a savings over a 25-
year life cycle because the lighting produces beneficial heat for the building. This heat
would otherwise be provided by the fuel oil boilers. Fuel oil heat has much higher
inflation than electric heat so over time the cost of the fuel oil heat is much higher than
the cost of keeping the corridor lighting on.
Section 4
Description of Systems
ENERGY SYSTEMS
This section provides a general description of the building systems. Energy conservation
opportunities are addressed in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures.
Building Envelope
R-value
Component Description (inside to outside) Existing Optimal
Exterior Wall Tile panel, studs, R-19 batt, 1” foil faced insulation, 5/8” gyp bd R-20 R-24
Main Roof Metal roof deck, 6” rigid insulation, ½” OSB, Membrane R-34 R-46
Humanity’s Roof Metal roof deck, EPDM, 4” EPS, 2” EPS w/ 1/2” aggregate R-12 R-46
Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-10
Foundation 8” concrete with 1-1/2” rigid insulation on interior surface R-8 R-15
Windows Aluminum double pane R-1.5 R-4
Doors Aluminum (main entries) and steel (all others) w/o thermal break,
glazing where used is double pane R-1.5 R-4
Domestic Hot Water System
Three indirect hot water heaters and an auxiliary storage tank supply domestic hot water to the
fixtures. The water conservation efficiency of the lavatory aerators and the showerheads can be
improved.
Cooling Systems
The building has three space cooling systems for temperature control of the two IT rooms.
Automatic Control System
The building has a DDC system to control the operation of the heating and ventilation systems.
Lighting
Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting
consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff has done
an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption within the building envelope through lighting
modifications. The interior lighting schedule and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by
photocells in an effort to minimize lighting operational hours.
Electric Equipment
Commercial kitchen equipment for food preparation at Ketchikan High School is located in the food
prep area.
Heating System
The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems,
10 fan coil unit heaters, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters located in the
Humanity’s wing. The heating system has the following pumps:
P-1A and P-1B are the building circulation pumps
P-2A and P-2B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-3A and P-3B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-4A is a boiler circulation pump for boilers 1, 2, and 3
P-5 is a glycol make-up pump
P-6A and P-6B are utilidoor sump pumps
P-7A and P-7B are domestic hot water circulation pumps
P-8A and P-8B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-9A and P-9B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-11A and P-11B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-12A and P-12B are secondary building circulation pumps
P-13 is a secondary building circulation pump
P-14A and P-14B are domestic hot water circulation pumps
P-15A and P-15B are domestic hot water circulation pumps
Ventilation Systems
Area
Fan
System Description
Phase 1 Wing AHU-1 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing
box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil
East ½ Gymnasium AHU-2 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing
box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil
North Wing 1st Floor AHU-3 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan
North Wing 2nd Floor AHU-4 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan
Auditorium AHU-5 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Stage Area and Green
Room
AHU-6 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Music, Kitchen, and Art AHU-7 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Auxiliary Gym AHU-8 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Arts Room AHU-9 Not in service
Auditorium AHU-11 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan
Gym Lockers AHU-12 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Technology Complex AHU-13 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating
coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan
Phase 1 Wing RF-1 35,500 cfm return fan with (2) 10 HP motors
Auditorium RF-2 21,900 cfm 10 HP return fan
Gym RF-3 13,500 cfm 7.5 HP return fan
Classrooms RF-4 20,115 cfm 7.5 HP return fan
Auxiliary Gym RF-5 11,800 cfm 5 HP return fan
Toilet Rooms by
Commons
EF-1 739 cfm 5 HP
Science Room EF-2 190 cfm for animal dissections
Science Room EF-3 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood
Science Room EF-4 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood
Science Room EF-5 1495 cfm ½ HP fume hood
Science Room EF-6 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood
Ventilation Systems, continued.
Area
Fan
System Description
Science Rooms EF-7 2060 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust
Science Rooms EF-8 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust
Science Rooms EF-9 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust
Science Rooms EF-10 2440 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust
Utilidor EF-11 2200 cfm ¾ HP ventilation
AHU-3 Mechanical EF-13 9300 cfm 5 HP AHU-3 relief
AHU-4 Mechanical EF-14 1200 cfm ¾ HP AHU-4 relief
Auditorium EF-15 1000 cfm ½ HP spotlight exhaust air
Stage Craft EF-16 2000 cfm ½ HP
Stage Craft EF-17 500 cfm 1/6 HP bathroom exhaust
Kitchen EF-18 4400 cfm 3 HP roof top mounted kitchen hood exhaust fan
Kitchen EF-19 600 cfm ¼ HP roof top mounted dishwasher exhaust fan
Art/Music Restrooms EF-20 1200 cfm ½ HP rooftop mounted exhaust fan
Art Room EF-21 532 cfm ¼ HP art room main exhaust
Kiln Room EF-22 880 cfm ¼ HP kiln exhaust fan
Aux Gym Restrooms EF-23 2325 cfm ¾ HP exhaust fan
Training Room EF-24 725 cfm general exhaust fan
Locker Rooms EF-26 5,155 cfm 3 HP exhaust fan
Applied Technology EF-27 810 cfm ½ HP exhaust fan
Wood Shop EF-28 1,650 cfm 5 HP sawdust collection fan
Auto Shop EF-29 2,000 cfm 1 ½ HP solvent collection tank exhaust fan
Auto Shop EF-30 1,000 cfm 2 HP grinding table exhaust fan
Auto Shop EF-31 2,000 cfm 5 HP automotive exhaust fan
Hot Water Tank Room EF-32 1,500 cfm ½ HP general exhaust
Auto Shop EF-33 2,250 cfm 2 HP outboard engine exhaust
Electric Room EF-34 2,370 cfm ½ HP general exhaust
Section 5
Methodology
Information for the energy audit was gathered through on-site observations, review of construction
documents, and interviews with operation and maintenance personnel. The EEMs are evaluated using
energy and life cycle cost analyses and are priority ranked for implementation.
Energy Efficiency Measures
Energy efficiency measures are identified by evaluating the building’s energy systems and comparing
them to systems in modern, high performance buildings. The process for identifying the EEMs
acknowledges the realities of an existing building that was constructed when energy costs were much
lower. Many of the opportunities used in modern high performance buildings—highly insulated
envelopes, variable capacity mechanical systems, heat pumps, daylighting, lighting controls, etc.—
simply cannot be economically incorporated into an existing building.
The EEMs represent practical measures to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings, taking into
account the realities of limited budgets. If a future major renovation project occurs, additional EEMs
common to high performance buildings should be incorporated.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The EEMs are evaluated using life cycle cost analysis which determines if an energy efficiency
investment will provide a savings over a 25-year life. The analysis incorporates construction,
replacement, maintenance, repair, and energy costs to determine the total cost over the life of the
EEM. Future maintenance and energy cash flows are discounted to present worth using escalation
factors for general inflation, energy inflation, and the value of money. The methodology is based on
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 – Life Cycle Cost
Analysis.
Life cycle cost analysis is preferred to simple payback for facilities that have long—often perpetual—
service lives. Simple payback, which compares construction cost and present energy cost, is
reasonable for short time periods of 2-4 years, but yields below optimal results over longer periods
because it does not properly account for the time value of money or inflationary effects on operating
budgets. Accounting for energy inflation and the time value of money properly sums the true cost of
facility ownership and seeks to minimize the life cycle cost.
Construction Costs
The cost estimates are derived based on a preliminary understanding of the scope of each EEM as
gathered during the walk-through audit. The construction costs for in-house labor are $60 per hour for
work typically performed by maintenance staff and $110 per hour for contract labor.
The cost estimate assumes the work will be performed as part of a larger renovation or energy
efficiency upgrade project. When implementing EEMs, the cost estimate should be revisited once the
scope and preferred method of performing the work has been determined. It is possible some EEMs
will not provide a life cycle savings when the scope is finalized.
Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are based on in-house or contract labor using historical maintenance efforts and
industry standards. Maintenance costs over the 25-year life of each EEM are included in the life cycle
cost calculation spreadsheets and represent the level of effort to maintain the systems.
Energy Analysis
The energy performance of an EEM is evaluated within the operating parameters of the building. A
comprehensive energy audit would rely on a computer model of the building to integrate building
energy systems and evaluate the energy savings of each EEM. This investment grade audit does not
utilize a computer model, so energy savings are calculated with factors that account for the dynamic
operation of the building. Energy savings and costs are estimated for the 25-year life of the EEM
using appropriate factors for energy inflation.
Prioritization
Each EEM is prioritized based on the life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR) using the following
formula:
Prioritization Factor = Life Cycle Savings / Capital Costs
This approach factor puts significant weight on the capital cost of an EEM, making lower cost EEMs
more favorable.
Economic Factors
The following economic factors are significant to the findings.
Nominal Interest Rate: This is the nominal rate of return on an investment without regard to
inflation. The analysis uses a rate of 5%.
Inflation Rate: This is the average inflationary change in prices over time. The analysis uses an
inflation rate of 2%.
Economic Period: The analysis is based on a 25-year economic period with construction
beginning in 2010.
Fuel Oil
Fuel oil currently costs $3.47 per gallon for a seasonally adjusted blend of #1 and #2 fuel oil. The
analysis is based on 6% fuel oil inflation which has been the average for the past 20-years.
Electricity
Electricity is supplied by Ketchikan Public Utilities. The building is billed for electricity under their
commercial service rate. This rate charges for both electrical consumption (kWh) and peak electric
demand (kW). Electrical consumption is the amount of energy consumed and electric demand is the
rate of consumption.
Summary
The following table summarizes the energy and economic factors used in the analysis.
Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Rate
Electricity ($ / kWh ) $0.0897
Demand ( $ / kW ) $2.91
Customer Charge ( $ / mo ) $36.30
Summary of Economic and Energy Factors
Factor Rate or Cost Factor Rate or Cost
Nominal Discount Rate 5% Electricity $0.099/kwh
General Inflation Rate 2% Electricity Inflation 2%
Fuel Oil Cost (2012) $3.68/gal Fuel Oil Inflation 6%
Appendix A
Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
Basis
Economic
Study Period (years) 25 Nominal Discount Rate 5%General Inflation 2%
Energy
2011 $/gal Fuel Inflation 2012 $/gal
Fuel Oil $3.47 6% $3.68
Electricity $/kWh (2011)$/kW (2011)Inflation $/kWh (2012)$/kW (2012)
w/ Demand Charges $0.090 $2.91 2% $0.091 $2.97
w/o Demand Charges $0.097 -2% $0.099 -
EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Reprogram operating schedules 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$750
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725
Design fees 0 10%$748
Project management 0 8%$658
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -250,000 kWh $0.091 ($400,923)
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -12,000 gal $3.68 ($1,251,083)
Net Present Worth ($1,643,100)
EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers
Energy Analysis
Boiler Input MBH Loss %Loss MBH Hours, exist Hours, new kBtu η boiler Gallons
B-1 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 6,840 -43,086 68%-457
B-2 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573
B-3 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573
67 -339,300 -3,603
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Implement boiler operating procedure, DDC controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Annual Costs
Boiler shutdown and restart 1 - 25 16 hrs $60.00 $16,346
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,603 gal $3.68 ($375,604)
Net Present Worth ($354,300)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test
Energy Analysis
Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal
134,900 -0.5% -675
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Purchase combustion analyzer 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
Annual Costs
Combustion test 1 - 25 6 hrs $60.00 $6,130
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -675 gal $3.68 ($70,321)
Net Present Worth ($63,200)
EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-1 Existing -60,000 58 65 -454 1,800 -816,480 68%-8,669
Optimized 60,000 62 65 194 1,800 349,920 68%3,715
-466,560 -4,954
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Rebalance air systems 0 1 LS $4,000 $4,000
Control modifications 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$750
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725
Design fees 0 10%$748
Project management 0 8%$658
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,954 gal $3.68 ($516,480)
Net Present Worth ($507,600)
EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls
Energy Analysis
Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal
134,900 -0.75% -1,012
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Modify and commisison DDC burner controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,012 gal $3.68 ($105,482)
Net Present Worth ($100,500)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-13 Existing -14,930 50 66 -258 3,000 -773,971 68%-8,218
Optimized 14,930 60 66 97 3,000 290,239 68%3,082
.-483,732 -5,136
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000
Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475
Overhead & profit 0 30% $5,692.50
Design fees 0 10% $2,466.75
Project management 0 8% $2,170.74
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -5,136 gal $3.68 ($535,489)
Net Present Worth ($506,200)
EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-12 Existing -6,310 55 68 -89 3,000 -265,777 68%-2,822
Optimized 6,310 63 68 34 3,000 102,222 68%1,085
-163,555 -1,737
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Balance systems 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,050
Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,415
Design fees 0 10%$1,047
Project management 0 8%$921
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,737 gal $3.68 ($181,055)
Net Present Worth ($168,600)
EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery
Energy Analysis
Exhaust Grille
CFM Troom Tosa MBH Hours Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons
-1,510 70 40 -49 3,000 -146,772 82% -1,292
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Transfer ran, ductowrk, electrical, balancing 0 1 LS $5,500 $5,500
Estimating contingency 0 15%$825
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,898
Design fees 0 10%$822
Project management 0 8%$724
Annual Costs
Fan maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $50.00 $851
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,292 gal $3.68 ($134,736)
Net Present Worth ($124,100)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads
Energy Analysis
Fixture Existing Proposed Uses/day Days Water,Gals % HW kBTU kWh
Summer
Showerhead 20.0 10.0 20 60 -12,000 80% -6,405 -1,877
Lavatories 0.3 0.2 200 60 -2,160 80% -1,153 -338
School Year
Showerhead 20.0 10.0 30 180 -54,000 80% -28,823 -8,448
Lavatories 0.3 0.2 1,800 180 -58,320 80% -31,129 -9,123
-126,480 -19,786
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace lavatory aerators 0 60 ea $35 $2,100
Replace showerhead 0 27 ea $35 $945
Energy Costs
Electric Energy (Effective Cost)1 - 25 -19,786 kWh $0.099 ($34,313)
Net Present Worth ($31,300)
EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-8 Existing -15,100 55 70 -245 1,800 -440,316 68%-4,675
Optimized 15,100 68 70 33 1,800 58,709 68%623
-381,607 -4,052
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000
Balance system 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000
Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
Estimating contingency 0 15%$3,525
Overhead & profit 0 30%$8,108
Design fees 0 10%$3,513
Project management 0 8%$3,092
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,052 gal $3.68 ($422,438)
Net Present Worth ($380,700)
Gallons per Use
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers
Energy Analysis
Number CFM T,flue T,room MBH kBTU η boiler Gallons
3 -20 160 70 -6 -51,088 68% -542
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install flue dampers 0 3 ea $1,200 $3,600
Estimating contingency 0 15%$540
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,242
Design fees 0 10%$538
Project management 0 8%$474
Annual Costs
Flue damper maintenance 1 - 25 3 ea $100.00 $5,108
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -542 gal $3.68 ($56,555)
Net Present Worth ($45,100)
EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery
Energy Analysis
Transformer
kVA ηnew KW kWh Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons
150 98.9% -1.7 -14,454 -49,317 82% -434
225 99.0% -2.3 -19,710 -67,251 82% -592
-116,568 -1,026
Heat Pump Energy
Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons
-116,568 3 11,388 38,856 82% -342
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Seal EF-34 exhaust through roof 0 1 LS $600 $600
Install ductowrk to supply heated air to gym, balancing 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,140
Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,622
Design fees 0 10%$1,136
Project management 0 8%$1,000
Annual Costs
A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 11,388 kWh $0.091 $18,263
Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,026 gal $3.68 ($107,009)
Net Present Worth ($68,300)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-7 Existing -12,000 55 65 -130 1,800 -233,280 68%-2,477
Optimized 12,000 60.5 65 58 1,800 104,976 68%1,115
-128,304 -1,362
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000
Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475
Overhead & profit 0 30%$5,693
Design fees 0 10%$2,467
Project management 0 8%$2,171
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,362 gal $3.68 ($142,032)
Net Present Worth ($112,700)
EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4
Energy Analysis
Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons
AHU-3 Existing -6,900 40 65 -186 1,800 -335,340 68%-3,561
Optimized 6,900 62 65 22 1,800 40,241 68%427
AHU-4 Existing -4,000 40 65 -108 1,800 -194,400 68%-2,064
Optimized 4,000 62 65 13 1,800 23,328 68%248
-466,171 -4,950
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
AHU-3
Reconfigure ductwork 0 1 LS $4,100 $4,100
Toilet exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500
Copier room transfer fan 0 1 LS $2,700 $2,700
Convert EF-13 to return fan 0 1 LS $7,300 $7,300
General exhaust fan 0 1 LS $15,800 $15,800
Balancing 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
AHU-4
Return ductowrk 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
New exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500
New return fan 0 1 LS $19,000 $19,000
Remove EF-14 System 0 1 LS $2,000 $2,000
Balancing 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
Estimating contingency 0 15% $10,710
Overhead & profit 0 30% $24,633
Design fees 0 10% $10,674
Project management 0 8%$9,393
Annual Costs
Fan maintenance 1 - 25 2 LS $100.00 $3,405
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,950 gal $3.68 ($516,050)
Net Present Worth ($385,800)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils
Energy Analysis
Fan Energy
Unit CFM ΔP η, fan BHP kW Hours kWh
AHU-5 21,300 -0.25 50% -1.7 -1.2 1,040 -1,300
AHU-6 CC 12,880 -0.25 50% -1.0 -0.8 1,040 -786
-2.0 -2,086
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Remove AHU-5 coil 0 1 LS $500 $500
Remove AHU-6 reheat coils 0 5 LS $300 $1,500
Annual Costs
Coil maintenance 1 - 25 -6 ea $30.00 ($3,065)
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -2,086 kWh $0.091 ($3,345)
Electric Demand 1 - 25 -24.1 kW $2.97 ($1,254)
Net Present Worth ($5,700)
EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery
Energy Analysis
Heat Recovery
Input, MBH Jacket Loss MBH Hours Loss, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons
4,848 -1.0% -48 8,760 -424,641 75% -318,481 82%-2,804
Heat Pump Energy
Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons
-318,481 3 31,114 106,160 82% -935
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Boiler room heat pump 0 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Gym fan coil unit 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
Piping between heat pump and fan coil 0 1 LS $22,000 $22,000
Controls 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,350
Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,905
Design fees 0 10%$7,326
Project management 0 8%$6,446
Annual Costs
Heat pump maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $250.00 $4,257
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 31,114 kWh $0.091 $49,897
Electric Demand 1 - 25 60.0 kW $2.97 $3,126
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,739 gal $3.68 ($389,819)
Net Present Worth ($245,500)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-21: Electrical 151 and Server Room 131 Heat Recovery
Energy Analysis
Server Room
Heat Recovery
Input, MBH Hours Heat, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons
-27 8,760 -239,113 100% -239,113 82% -2,105
Heat Pump Energy
Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons
-239,113 3 23,360 79,704 82% -702
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Split A/C Unit with ducted condenser 0 1 LS $37,000 $37,000
Ductwork amd grilles, balancing 0 1 LS $8,500 $8,500
Piping 0 1 LS $3,000 $3,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,275
Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,733
Design fees 0 10%$7,251
Project management 0 8%$6,381
Annual Costs
A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 23,360 kWh $0.091 $37,462
Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,807 gal $3.68 ($292,673)
Net Present Worth ($162,100)
EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters
Energy Analysis
Loss, BTUH Number Factor Loss, kBTU Boiler Effic Fuel, gals
-1,000 10 20% -17,520 70% -185
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Install automatic valves and connect to fan wiring 0 10 ea $400 $4,000
Estimating contingency 0 15%$600
Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,380
Design fees 0 10%$598
Project management 0 8%$526
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -185 gal $3.68 ($19,329)
Net Present Worth ($12,200)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers
Energy Analysis
Number kVA ηold ηnew KW kWh
2 75 97.4% 98.7% -1.95 -17,082
3 225 98.0% 99.0% -6.75 -59,130
1 300 98.0% 99.0% -3.00 -26,280
-11.7 -102,492
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Replace transformer, kVA 75 0 2 LS $10,400 $20,800
Replace transformer, kVA 225 0 3 LS $18,200 $54,600
Replace transformer, kVA 300 0 1 LS $22,800 $22,800
Estimating contingency 0 10%$9,820
Overhead & profit 0 30% $32,406
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -102,492 kWh $0.091 ($164,366)
Electric Demand 1 - 25 -140 kW $2.97 ($7,315)
Net Present Worth ($31,300)
EEM-24: Upgrade Motors
Energy Analysis
Equip Number HP ηold ηnew kW Hours kWh
RF-12 1 1.5 84.5% 86.5% -0.02 2,610 -58
AHU-11 1 3 86.5% 89.5% -0.07 2,160 -145
P-9A 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784
P-9B 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784
AHU-3 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 6,205 -694
EF-1 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 1,800 -201
AHU-12 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,530 -274
RF-13 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,800 -322
P-11A 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274
P-11B 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274
AHU-6 1 15 71.0% 92.4% -2.39 1,800 -4,310
AHU-13 1 15 90.2% 92.4% -0.25 1,800 -443
AHU-5 1 20 87.0% 93.0% -0.90 1,800 -1,611
-5.1 -12,177
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs HP
Replace motor 1.5 0 1 LS 955 $955
Replace motor 3 0 3 LS 1,080 $3,240
Replace motor 5 0 2 LS 1,290 $2,580
Replace motor 7.5 0 4 LS 1,690 $6,760
Replace motor 15 0 2 LS 2,660 $5,320
Replace motor 20 0 1 LS 3,160 $3,160
Energy Costs
Electric Energy 1 - 25 -12,177 kWh $0.091 ($19,529)
Electric Demand 1 - 25 -62 kW $2.97 ($3,218)
Net Present Worth ($700)
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
EEM-25: Replace Humanity's Wing Roof Insulation
Energy Analysis
Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons
Roof 13,440 12 40 30 -23.5 -206,035 68%-2,188
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost
Construction Costs
Remove pavers and foam insulation 0 13,400 sqft $1 $13,400
Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000
Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000
Tapered insulation 0 13,400 sqft $4 $53,600
Estimating contingency 0 15% $30,150
Overhead & profit 0 30% $69,345
Design fees 0 10% $30,050
Project management 0 8% $26,444
Energy Costs
Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,188 gal $3.68 ($228,080)
Net Present Worth $128,900
Appendix B
Energy and Utility Data
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
ELECTRIC RATE
Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service
Electricity ($ / kWh )$0.0897
Cost of Power Adjustment ($ / kWh)$0.0000
Demand ( $ / kW )$2.91
Customer Charge ( $ / mo )$36.30
Sales Tax ( % )0.0%
ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND
kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW
Jan 188,200 454 200,800 470 157,600 457 181,200 483 181,950
Feb 182,300 485 212,000 464 172,600 457 198,000 539 191,225
Mar 153,900 509 164,600 450 134,800 481 172,400 465 156,425
Apr 209,700 479 180,500 445 183,200 529 180,800 467 188,550
May 153,200 476 154,200 492 169,600 463 174,400 439 162,850
Jun 172,900 263 135,900 440 199,400 443 158,800 467 166,750
Jul 93,300 294 116,200 209 108,000 311 126,800 301 111,075
Aug 107,800 474 69,200 311 131,600 273 102,200 255 102,700
Sep 159,400 502 177,000 421 157,800 427 166,800 423 165,250
Oct 191,000 477 148,600 427 184,400 469 112,200 419 159,050
Nov 208,100 450 175,000 471 181,600 473 235,000 507 199,925
Dec 182,900 472 165,800 457 225,800 495 197,400 465 192,975
Total 2,002,700 1,899,800 2,006,400 2,006,000 1,978,725
Average 166,892 445 158,317 421 167,200 440 167,167 436 164,894
Load Factor 51%51%52%53%435
ELECTRIC BILLING DETAILS
Month Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total % Change
Jan $14,137 $1,257 $36 $15,430 $16,254 $1,333 $36 $17,623 14.2%
Feb $15,482 $1,257 $36 $16,776 $17,761 $1,496 $36 $19,293 15.0%
Mar $12,092 $1,327 $36 $13,455 $15,464 $1,280 $36 $16,781 24.7%
Apr $16,433 $1,467 $36 $17,936 $16,218 $1,286 $36 $17,540 -2.2%
May $15,213 $1,275 $36 $16,524 $15,644 $1,205 $36 $16,885 2.2%
Jun $17,886 $1,216 $36 $19,139 $14,244 $1,286 $36 $15,567 -18.7%
Jul $9,688 $832 $36 $10,556 $11,374 $803 $36 $12,213 15.7%
Aug $11,805 $722 $36 $12,563 $9,167 $669 $36 $9,873 -21.4%
Sep $14,155 $1,170 $36 $15,361 $14,962 $1,158 $36 $16,156 5.2%
Oct $16,541 $1,292 $36 $17,869 $10,064 $1,147 $36 $11,247 -37.1%
Nov $16,290 $1,304 $36 $17,630 $21,080 $1,403 $36 $22,518 27.7%
Dec $20,254 $1,368 $36 $21,658 $17,707 $1,280 $36 $19,023 -12.2%
Total $ 179,974 $ 14,486 $ 436 $ 194,896 $ 179,938 $ 14,346 $ 436 $ 194,720 -0.1%
Average $ 14,998 $ 1,207 $ 36 $ 16,241 $ 14,995 $ 1,196 $ 36 $ 16,227 -0.1%
Cost ($/kWh)$0.097 92% 7% 0% $0.097 -0.1%
Month 2007 2008 2009 Average
Electrical costs are based on the current electric rates.
2009 2010
2010
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Electric Consumption
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Use (kWh)Month of the Year
Electric Use History
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Demand (kW)Month of the Year
Electric Demand History
2007
2008
2009
2010
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Electric Cost
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School 2010
$ 0
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
$ 15,000
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Cost (USD)Month of the Year
Electric Cost Breakdown
2010
Electric Use (kWh) Costs
Electric Demand (kW) Costs
Customer Charge and Taxes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Electric Demand (kW)Electric Use (kWh)Month of the Year
Electric Use and Demand Comparison
2010
Electric Use
Electric Demand
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Fuel Oil Consumption
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Ketchikan High School
Year Fuel Oil Degree Days
2,007 136,000 7,430
2,008 106,835 7,385
2,009 131,125 7,538
2,010 137,556 7,390
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 Degree DaysGallons of Fuel OilYear
Annual Fuel Oil Use
Fuel Oil
Degree Days
Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data
25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226
Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Energy Cost $/MMBtu Area ECI EUI
Fuel Oil $3.47 $35.79 180,614 $3.66 139
Electricity $0.097 $29.95
Source Cost
Electricity 1,978,725 kWh $192,100 6,800 27%
Fuel Oil 134,894 Gallons $468,100 18,300 73%
Totals $660,200 25,100 100%
Annual Energy Consumption and Cost
Consumption Energy, MMBtu
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Fuel Oil ElectricityCost $ / MMBtuCost of Heat Comparison
Appendix C
Equipment Data
MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficP 2AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Unit Loop7.5 HP/ 480 VP 3AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Fan Loop3 HP/ 480 VP 4 P 1 Boiler Room Head Circulation2 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm/ 82.5% not usedP 5 P 1 Boiler Room Glycol Make up1/3 HP/ 120 V/ 3450 rpmP 6AB P 1 Utilidor Utilidor Sump Drain1/3 HP/ 120 VP 1AB Boiler Room Fuel Oil Circulation1/2 HP/ 120 V1/2 HP/ 120 V1 WP 2ABBoiler Room Generator Fee Water3 HP/ 208 VB1 Boiler Room Primary Boiler Weil Mclain 14943770 MBHPrimary Burner Gordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingB2 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15944070 MBHLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingAC 1 UtilidorLab SystemChampion HR7B-25275 CFM 7 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 1745 rpm/ 82.9% dual motorAC 2 Boiler Room Control System20 HP/ 480 VB3 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15942 HP/ 208 VLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingPMP 7 ABBoiler Room DHW18.5 GPM 3/4 HP/ 460 VPMP 8ABUtilidor Unit VentsSecondary Heading Circulation 125 GPM 3 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 9ABUtilidor Fan HCSecondary Heading Circulation 50 GPMPMP 11ABUtilidorSecondary Hydronic Loop260 GPM 7 1/2 HP/ 1150 rpmPMP 13 Boiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop62 GPM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 15ABBoiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop40 GPM 1/4 HP/ 120 VAHU 1 R1 Penthouse Phase 1 Constitution Temtrol DH-164P41000 CFM 60 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%SF AHU 160 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%AHU 2 R1 Penthouse GymTemtrol DH-27P13500 CFM 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpmAHU 3 Mechanical 303 Phase 2Pace6900 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 4 Mechanical 301Pace 1A24AFST4000 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 5 Mechanical Mezz.PACE 98-73200-0121900 CFM 20 HP/ 460 V/ 1758 rpm/ 87%Ketchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make Model
MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 6 Mechanical Mezz.PACE DF 33AFSWSI13730 CFM 15 HP/ 480 V/ 1785 rpm/ 71%AHU 7 Mechanical Mezz. ClassroomPACE PF-40AFSWSI22615 CFM 40 HP/ 480 V/ 1480 rpmAHU 8 Auxiliary GymPACE PF-33AFSWSI13500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%AHU 9 Art & Pottery900 CFM 10 HPAHU 10 Corridor4500 CFM 5 HPAHU 11 P IV Penthouse Gym West Side Haakon AIRPAK13500 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%SF for AHU 1115 HP/ 460 V/ 4130 rpmRF 1A P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%RF 1B P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%EF 1 P1 Penthouse Men's Bathroom Exhaust Greenheck SFB-18-50730 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 86.5%EF 2 Chemical Storage Animal Dissection Fan190 CFMLow UseEF 3 Room 123 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 4 Chemistry Lab 120 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 5 Physics Lab Fume hood1495 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 6 Science 115 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 7 Science 115 General Science Exhaust2060 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 8 Physics 1252180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 9 Chemistry Lab 120 General Science Exhaust2180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 10 Biology 117 General Science Exhaust2440 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 11 Boiler Room Utilidor Vent2200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpm Low UseCF 1 Boiler Room Combustion Air Fan4200 CFM 1 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpmEF 13 AHU 3 Mechanical Relief AHU 3 Pace U-30AFSTD9300 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%EF 14 AHU 4 Mechanical Relief AHU 4 Pace U-11FCSTD1200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmsecured, only used for 1 floorEF 15 BalconySpot Light Exhaust Air1000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1750 rpmnever runsEF 16 Mechanical Mezz. Stage CraftPace PF-16B1SWS12000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 17 Stage Craft Bathroom Exhaust Pace SCF65AM1500 CFM 1/6 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 18 Mechanical Mezz. Kitchen Fume Hood4400 CFM 3 HPEF 19 Above 247 Dishwasher Fan600 FRM 1/4 HPauto on w/dishwasher
MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelEF 20 Above 247 Bathroom Exhaust1200 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1725 rpmEF 21 Arts Room Art Main Exhaust532 CFM 1/4 HPEF 22 Kiln Room Kiln Exhaust880 CFM 1/4 HPEF 23Mechanical Room 8Auxiliary Gym BathroomPace SCF-124AM12325 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiency EF 24 Training Room Space Exhaust725 CFMRF 2Mech. Mezz. AuditoriumReturn AirPACE PF40 AFSWSQ21900 CFm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%RF 3Mechanical Mezz. StageReturn AirPACE PF36 AFS113530 CFM 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1765 rpm/ 91.7%RF 4Mech. Mezz. ClassroomReturn AirPACE PF44 AFSWS129225 CFM 7.5 HP/ 48 VRF 5Mech. Mezz. Aux. GymReturn AirPACE PF 36 AFSWS11800 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 89.5%EF 26Boiler Room PenthouseLocker RoomsSnyder General22RDKB1CW5155 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 89.5%EF 27Boiler Room PenthouseApplied Tech810 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1627 rpmEF 28 Sawdust 200A Collection Fan1640 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 3450 rpmEF 29Welding Shop CeilingSolvent Tank HoodSnyder General16RPKB1CCW10 2000 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1730 rpmEF 30 Auto Shop Grinding Table1000 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1047 rpmEF 31Boiler Room PenthouseAutomotive ExhaustSnyder General110TCCW2000 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpmEF 32 203Hot Water Tank Room McQuay1500 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 775 rpm offEF 33 Auto Shop Outboard Engine2250 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1810 rpmEF 34Boiler Room PenthouseElectric Room2370 CFM 1.5 HP/ 120 V/ 737 rpm 2nd deck191 Maintenance TransformerSquare D EE 150 T3HF150 KVA 115° Temp RiseTP RatedBoiler Room TransformerSquare D 225T3H225 KVA 150° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 75T3HETSNIP75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 300T90HFTSNLP 300 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 225T3HFTSNLP 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedUtilidorTransformerSquare D 35549-17222-022 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedRoofFridge/Freezer Condenser20 B 30 13 Amp 6.3 KVAServer Room TransformerSquare D 34349-17212-064 75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedAHU 12 P-IV Penthouse Gym LockersHaakon AIRPak6310 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1755 rpm/ 88.5%3" water columnRF 12 204 Penthouse Return1660 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 84%
MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 13 P-IV Penthouse Technology Complex Haakon AIRPak14930 CFM 15 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpm/ 90.2%RF 13 204 Penthouse Return10490 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1775 rpm/ 88.5%WH1 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH2 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH3 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectCH1 Roof70 tonsAC 3 Boiler RoomIngersol Rand2-253E55 HP/ 230 V/ 1725 rpm/ 81.5%AC 4 Boiler Room Air Compressor ShopIngersol Rand234 D-22 HP/ 208 V/ 1725 rpm/ 78.5%AC 5 Boiler Room Dry Pipe SprinklerIngersol RandP307120T7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1725 rpm/ 85.5%3 KitchenHot Food Service Seco Elite 3-HF3 KVA 208 V/ 14 Amps5a KitchenBeverage Dispenser Servend MD-250.30 KVA 120 V/ 2.5 Amps5b KitchenIce DispenserServend Series C41.85 KVA 120 V/ 15.4 Amps8a KitchenShake Machine Sanserver 826E1.49 KVA 208 V/ 4.14 Amps8b KitchenSoft Serve Machine Sanserve 826E2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps9 KitchenHot CabinetPrecision RSU-4011.01 KVA 120 V/ 8.40 Amps10a KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps10b KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps11 KitchenRangeLang 3 6-521 KVA 208 V/ 58.29 Amps13 KitchenVentilatorLighting0.60 KVA 120 V/ 5 Amps14a KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge21.18 KVA 208 V/ 58.5 Amps14b KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge2.4 KVA 120 V/ 2 Amps15 KitchenSteamerMarketForge9.01 KVA 208 V/ 25 Amps17 KitchenKettle24.14 KVA 208 V/ 67 Amps20 KitchenWalk-in Freezer6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps22 KitchenWalk-in Cooler6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps25 KitchenDisposer2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps27 KitchenDishwashing44.17 KVA 208 V/ 51 AmpsP 1A Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LegPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93% 71 TPH
MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelP 1B Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LeadPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93%P 7A Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiencyP 7B Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpmP 12ASecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H1C220 370 gpm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 96.7%P 12BSecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H16760 370 gpmP 14AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 14BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 2A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 2B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 3A UtilidorAHU 1&2Paco162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 3B UtilidorAHU 1&2 Heating Loop Paco painted over162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 11A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 11B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 9A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 208 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 9B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 203 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 8A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-14421 HP/ 208 V/ 1745 rpmP 8B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-1442
Appendix D
Abbreviations
AHU Air handling unit
BTU British thermal unit
BTUH BTU per hour
CBJ City and Borough of Juneau
CMU Concrete masonry unit
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CUH Cabinet unit heater
DDC Direct digital controls
DHW Domestic hot water
EAD Exhaust air damper
EEM Energy efficiency measure
EF Exhaust fan
Gyp Bd Gypsum board
HVAC Heating, Ventilating, Air-
conditioning
HW Hot water
HWRP Hot water recirculating pump
KVA Kilovolt-amps
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LED Light emitting diode
MBH 1,000 Btu per hour
MMBH 1,000,000 Btu per hour
OAD Outside air damper
PSI Per square inch
PSIG Per square inch gage
RAD Return air damper
RF Return fan
SIR Savings to investment ratio
SF Supply fan
UV Unit ventilator
VAV Variable air volume
VFD Variable frequency drive
E6 – Tt Engineering Cost Estimate
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
April 8, 2013
Mike Carney
Airport Director
1000 Terminal Way
Suite 210
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Subject: Quotation for Engineering Design and Permitting Services - Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School Building
Ketchikan, Alaska
Dear Mr. Carney:
We appreciate your interest in engaging Tetra Tech Inc. (Tetra Tech) to support you and your colleagues in seeking
engineering design services. This quotation is for design services for the Wood Pellet Boiler and District Heating
Project for Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Ketchikan Borough) including the heating system upgrades at the
Ketchikan Airport and Ketchikan High School. This is a quotation in accordance with the application requirements
for the 2013 USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant.
Project Understanding
The Wood Pellet Boiler and District Heating Project includes two systems. These systems are not currently
connected. Preliminary feasibility studies have been performed. A list of parameters established in the Feasibility
Study (FS) are tabulated in Table 1 below. A summary of each System is as follows.
System 1:The current heating system in this complex (32,000 sq. ft.) consists of 2 Cleaver Brooks oil fired
boilers installed in 1971. They supply heating and domestic hot water to the facility. These oil-fired
boilers, are at the end of their economic life and are scheduled for replacement. Based on FS data, it is
proposed that they be replaced with a 450kW Wood Pellet boiler and a 360kW electrical backup.
System 2:The heating area of system 2 is approximately 110,000 square feet and is heated by one
3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers. The existing
boilers run on fuel oil, are original to recent renovation work in the mid 1990’s and are in good condition.
FS work estimates that a 4.7 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler would be sufficient to meet base load demands.
One or more of the existing boilers may remain to accommodate peak loads and biomass boiler
downtime.
The new system upgrades are also summarized in Table 1 in accordance with the FS documentation. The fuel for
the proposed units is woody biomass pellets.
Quotation for Engineering Design and Permitting Services -
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 2
Table 1: Existing and New System Parameters
System 1 System 2
Existing System Fuel Loads
Peak Month (MMBTUs) 464 (Jan 2011) Unknown
Low Month (MMBTUs) 87 (June 2011) Unknown
Average Month (MMBTUs) 264 (2010-2012) Unknown
Annual (MMBTUs) ~3,170 ~18,300
New System Requirements
Number of Boilers Desired 1 1
Single boiler rated capacity 1,500,000 BTU/hr 4,700,000 BTU/hr
Fuel Wood Pellets Wood Pellets
Output Hot Water Hot Water
Combined Boiler Capacity 1.5 MMBTU/hr 4.7 MMBTU/hr
Expected CapEx $600,000 $1,500,000
Site Considerations
Heating Area 32,000 sq. ft. 110,000 sq. ft.
Backup boiler available? No – Backup considerations will
need to be part of design
Yes – existing boilers will
serve as back-ups.
New building required for boiler housing? No – It is assumed new boilers will
fit into existing boiler space.
Yes – Boiler housing and pellet
silo. Space is available
adjacent to the HS. Piping
from new building to school
estimated 94 ft.
Pellet silo (or equivalent) required for
fuel storage?
Yes Yes
Natural gas available? Unknown (unlikely) Unknown (unlikely)
Stated system integration concerns? None None
Scope of Work
Task 1: Process and Design Engineering
The process and design engineering, with associated vendor design review for basis conformity, included in this
quotation includes the following components:
Receiving/handling/storage facilities
Pellet boiler system
Housing (where applicable)
Mechanical, Electrical and Piping (MEP) and instrumentation
The process and design engineering will include the mechanical, electrical, piping (MEP), civil, and structural
engineering conducted in three phases.
Quotation for Engineering Design and Permitting Services -
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 3
A.30% Conceptual Design & Permitting Analysis
Tetra Tech will identify all major components including the process, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP),
site, civil, and structural components of the system. This design package will not include a specific vendor for each
component, unless otherwise deemed necessary by Ketchikan or the project sites. This task will include several
components as outlined in the project timeline found in the appendix. Concurrent with the 30% design, the
contractor will conduct a full permitting analysis in order to obtain all necessary construction, operation, and
environmental permits. Additionally, Tetra Tech Inc. will investigate and evaluate the existing hot water
distribution system within the buildings to be heated. We will make an assessment and evaluate the existing
systems for (1) adequacy of the fluid and heat exchange systems (2) expected interconnection and (3) anticipated
operation of the new integrated system. This assessment will become part of the 30% design package such as
equipment specifications and will ultimately be used to discuss with potential vendors for the new equipment.
B.60% Design – Site, Civil, Structural and MEP + Vendor Interface
This aspect of the project will include preparation of the specification packages and interface with potential
vendors. We will supply the specification package as part of Requests for Information (RFIs) from the potential
vendors. The contractor will work with these vendors’ responses and complete the 60% design package including
all of the components described in the 30% design as well as the Site, Civil, Structural and MEP components
C.95% Design- Entire Site, Civil, Structural and MEP + Vendor Interface
This aspect of the project will include further refinement and interface with vendors. At this point, the vendors will
provide final pricing of materials and/or equipment packages. Tetra Tech will support Ketchikan to allow them to
conduct and complete the procurement process outside of this scope. As a critical component to the 90% design
package, Tetra Tech will provide a full technical evaluation of the vendor design packages. Tetra Tech will work
with these vendors and complete the 95% design package including all of the components described above. In
addition, the detailed piping design for interconnection of produced energy to existing facility heat loops will be
included in this phase.
Task 2: Permitting
Once the design is complete, permitting will be assessed and completed for the project. At this time the types of
permitting are not well defined. Permitting for a project of this nature is likely to include a comprehensive
evaluation of media and resources for local, state, and federal jurisdiction, as appropriate. Based upon the
completion of more than 200 similar projects permitted across the United States the variability of the permitting
needed varies significantly. One critical factor, for example, is if the USFS grant is allocated to this project will it
require compliance with NEPA regulations. Table 2 identifies media and resource items are likely to be addressed
in permits required for this project. In addition, regulatory checklists and forms including background information
and places for responses to questions regarding the following environmental elements will be addressed:
Quotation for Engineering Design and Permitting Services -
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 4
Table 2: Media and resources that may require permit evaluation
Earth Resources
(geology and soils)
Solid Waste Energy and Natural
Resources
Health/Safety and
Noise
Light and Glare
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases
Transportation Housing Impacts Historic and Cultural
Preservation
Public Services
Water Resources,
Quality and Wetlands
Socioeconomics Land Use Utilities Operation
Environmental Plants/Animals
Cost Quotation
Tetra Tech’s cost quotation for this work is included in Table 3. Note that the costs for each unit have been broken
out and then summarized below.
Table 3: Cost Quotation
Cost Proposal Summary
Biomass Design
for: Ketchikan Borough, Ketchikan, AK
by: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Task and Description LaborTravelTotal1 ProposalTypeLabor Cost
Ketchikan System 1
Task 1 - Design - small unit $ 69,317 2,153$ 71,470$
Task 2 - Permitting - small unit $ 14,490 488$ 15,147$
Ketchikan System 2
Task 3 - Design - large unit $ 86,095 1,952$ 88,047$
Task 4 - Permitting - large unit $ 16,063 423$ 16,486$
TOTAL $ 185,965 $ 5,015 $ 191,150 FFP1
Totals by Subject
Design 159,517$
Permitting 31,633$
TOTAL $ 185,965 $ 5,015 $ 191,150 FFP1
Notes:
1. Total costs include estimation of incidentals.
2. FFP - firm fixed price (includes a comprehenisve not to excced value)
Quotation for Engineering Design and Permitting Services -
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 5
Considerations and Assumptions
Tetra Tech’s considerations and assumptions are listed below:
1.A refinement of the scope of work including definition of pre-design/design parameters and
permits/permit requirements are required in order to provide a firm fixed price proposal to conduct the
services noted above to Ketchikan Borough. Therefore, the pricing included is an estimation of cost.
2.Tetra Tech is prepared to begin this scope immediately upon refinement of the parameters noted in item
1 in a mutually agreeable manner with Ketchikan Borough.
Confidentiality Statement and Disclaimer
The content of this Quotation is not intended for the use of, nor is it intended to be relied upon, by any person,
firm, or corporation other than Ketchikan Borough. Tetra Tech denies any liability whatsoever to other parties
who may obtain access to this Proposal for damages or injury suffered by such third parties arising from the use of
this document or the information contained herein.
This Proposal is based upon information provided to Tetra Tech by Ketchikan Borough. If the items received are
flawed or incorrect then cost adjustments may be required. This Quotation is not a formal proposal until
additional design parameters and permitting requirements can be determined.
Conclusion
Tetra Tech is excited about the opportunity to continue to support Ketchikan Borough on this Project. Tetra Tech
provides you an outstanding, experienced, performance focused team. We will add value to Ketchikan Borough in
executing their respective business plans. Our complete team is ready to immediately commence work.
Please call me (412-921-8398) or email me at Keith.Henn@tetratech.com if you have any questions and to discuss
our next steps on this Project.
Sincerely,
Keith W. Henn, PG
Director of Remediation and Energy
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Appendix F – Tt Construction Costing Calculations
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
September 20, 2013
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
1900 First Avenue
Suite 210
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Subject: Cost Estimate for Construction - Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School Building
Ketchikan, Alaska
Dear Ketchikan Gateway Borough:
In support of your application for Phase IV construction funds under Round VII of the Renewable Energy Grant
Fund and Recommendation Program administered by the Alaska Energy Authority (Requests for Grant Applications
(RFA) AEA 2014-006), Tetra Tech is pleased to present this engineering analysis and preliminary cost estimate for
construction of biomass heating systems at the Ketchikan Airport and Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School.
Project Understanding
The Wood Pellet Boiler and District Heating Project includes two systems. These systems are not currently
connected. Preliminary feasibility studies have been performed. A list of parameters established in the Feasibility
Study (FS) are tabulated in Table 1 below. A summary of each System is as follows.
System 1: The current heating system in this complex (32,000 sq. ft.) consists of 2 Cleaver Brooks oil fired
boilers installed in 1971. They supply heating and domestic hot water to the facility. These oil -fired
boilers, are at the end of their economic life and are scheduled for replacement. Based on FS data, it is
proposed that they be replaced with a 450kW Wood Pellet boiler and a 360kW electrical backup.
System 2: The heating area of system 2 is approximately 110,000 square feet and is heated by one
3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers. The existing
boilers run on fuel oil, are original to recent renovation work in the mid 1990’s and are in good condition.
FS work estimates that a 4.7 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler would be sufficient to meet base load demands.
One or more of the existing boilers may remain to accommodate peak loads and biomass boiler
downtime. The biomass boiler envisioned is a containerized system secured to a poured slab foundation
external to the High School buildings and interconnected to the existing heating system.
The new system upgrades are also summarized in Table 1 in accordance with the FS documentation. The fuel for
the proposed units is woody biomass pellets.
Cost Estimate for Construction
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 2
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
Table 1: Existing an d New System Parameters
System 1 System 2
Existing System Fuel Loads
Peak Month (MMBTUs) 464 (Jan 2011) Unknown
Low Month (MMBTUs) 87 (June 2011) Unknown
Average Month (MMBTUs) 264 (2010-2012) Unknown
Annual (MMBTUs) ~3,170 ~18,300
New System Requirements
Number of Boilers Desired 1 1
Single boiler rated capacity 1,500,000 BTU/hr 4,700,000 BTU/hr
Fuel Wood Pellets Wood Pellets
Output Hot Water Hot Water
Combined Boiler Capacity 1.5 MMBTU/hr 4.7 MMBTU/hr
Expected CapEx $600,000 $1,500,000
Site Considerations
Heating Area 32,000 sq. ft. 110,000 sq. ft.
Backup boiler available? No – Backup considerations will
need to be part of design
Yes – existing boilers will
serve as back-ups.
New building required for boiler housing? No – It is assumed new boilers will
fit into existing boiler space.
Yes – Boiler housing and pellet
silo. Space is available
adjacent to the HS. Piping
from new building to school
estimated 94 ft.
Pellet silo (or equivalent) required for
fuel storage?
Yes Yes
Natural gas available? Unknown (unlikely) Unknown (unlikely)
Stated system integration concerns? None None
Construction Cost Estimate
Construction cost estimates are included below for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School and Ketchikan
Airport projects, respectively.
Cost Estimate for Construction
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 3
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
Table 2: Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School Construction Cost Estimate
TASK UNIT QTY UNIT $TOTAL BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Site Prep $1,632 Source: RS Means median price with 10% location factor.
1.1 Fine Grade SY 72 $2.00 $144 Assumes that craft labor and material available from local sources.
1.2 Gravel Base CY 24 $62.00 $1,488
Boiler Slab $7,977 Source: RS Means median price with 10% location factor.
2.1 Insulation SF 540 $2.00 $1,080 Assumes that craft labor and material available from local sources.
2.2 Forms LF 94 $14.00 $1,316
2.3 Rebar TN 0.7 $2,833.00 $1,983
2.4 Concrete CY 14 $257.00 $3,598
2.5 Finish SF 540 $0.50 $270
Pellet Boiler $683,000 Source: Consultant Estimate
3.1 4.7 MMBTU Pellet Boiler LS 1 $320,000.00 $320,000
3.2 Containerized Boiler Surround LS 1 $306,000.00 $306,000
3.3 Pellet Silo LS 1 $27,000.00 $27,000
3.4 Delivery 1 $30,000.00 $30,000
Site Utilities $20,000
4.1 Electrical / Coms LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 200 amp 3 phase 4 wire UG service to existing utility pole
Process Equipment Installation $135,420
5.1 Set Equipment LS 1 $7,120.00 $7,120 Assume 2 days effort for millright crew and misc material
5.2 Mechanical Connections LS 1 $9,680.00 $9,680 Assume 3 days effort for mechanical crew and misc material
5.3 Electrical Connections LS 1 $7,120.00 $7,120 Assume 2 days effort for electrical crew and misc material
5.4 Piping interconnection to HS ft 150 $370.00 $55,500 4"Hot Water Pipe Boiler House to HS (75 linear ft)
5.5 KGB-HS Integration LS 1 $56,000.00 $56,000 Source: Applicant Records
Professional Staff Month 4 $33,090 $132,360
6.1 Project Manager Day 3 $960.00 $2,880
6.2 Site Superintendent Day 22 $800.00 $17,600
6.3 Project Services (Back Office)Day 3 $640.00 $1,920
6.4 Per Diem Day 30 $223.00 $6,690 Outside CONUS rate for location listed by DOD
6.5 Travel Trip 2 $2,000.00 $4,000
Subtotal $980,389
Contingency 20%$196,077.82
TOTAL COST $1,176,467
Ketchikan Gateway Borough Equipment Schedule and Capital Estimate
Cost Estimate for Construction
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 4
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
Table 3: Ketchikan Airport Construction Cost Estimate
Considerations and Assumptions
Tetra Tech’s considerations and assumptions are listed below:
1. A refinement of the scope of work including definition of pre-design/design parameters and
permits/permit requirements are required in order to provide a firm fixed price proposal to conduct the
services noted above to Ketchikan Borough. Therefore, the pricing included is an estimation of cost.
Confidentiality Statement and Disclaimer
The content of this Cost Estimate is not intended for the use of, nor is it intended to be relied upon, by any person,
firm, or corporation other than Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Tetra Tech denies any liability whatsoever to other
Ketchikan Airport Capital Estimate*
TASK TOTAL BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Pellet Silo and auger $18,000 Applicant Records
Pellet Foundation $5,000 Applicant Records
Pellet Boiler - installed in existing building $119,000 Applicant Records
Demolition of Existing Boilers $5,000 Applicant Records
Back-up electric heater (360 KW)$60,000 Applicant Records
Biomass Circulating Pump Assembly $4,000 Applicant Records
Mixing Valve $4,000 Applicant Records
Building Circulating Pump Assembly $4,000 Applicant Records
Hydronic Thermal Expansion Tank $5,000 Applicant Records
Piping and insulation $6,000 Applicant Records
Valves and instruments $3,500 Applicant Records
Pipe hangers $1,000 Applicant Records
Heat Exchanger $7,600 Applicant Records
Misc (hardware, room/board/fuel/rent)$10,000 Applicant Records
Freight $30,000 Applicant Records
Equipment rental $20,000 Applicant Records
Electrical $15,000 Applicant Records
Labor $75,000 Applicant Records
Professional Staff $99,270 Source: Consultant Estimate (3 mo staff)
SubTotal $491,370
20% Contingency $98,274
Total $589,644
Cost Estimate for Construction
Wood Pellet Boiler Heating Project
Ketchikan Airport & Ketchikan High School
Page 5
Tetra Tech, Inc.
661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745
Tel 412.921.7090 Fax 412.921.4040 www.tertratech.com
parties who may obtain access to this Proposal for damages or injury suffered by such third parties arising from the
use of this document or the information contained herein.
This Proposal is based upon information provided to Tetra Tech by Ketchikan Gateway Borough. If the items
received are flawed or incorrect then cost adjustments may be required. This Quotation is not a formal proposal
until additional design parameters and permitting requirements can be deter mined.
Conclusion
Tetra Tech is excited about the opportunity to continue to support Ketchikan Gateway Borough on this Project.