-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
onno
£UU;7
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Richard Kidd, Director
Federal Energy Management Program
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Kidd:
Enclosed, as required, is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) FY 2009
Energy and Conservation Program Report. EPA looks forward to continuing its progress
and efforts to improve the environmental performance of its facilities and operations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact Bridget
Shea, Director, Facilities Management and Services Division at 202-564-2030.
Sincerely,
\.-4- t Craig E. Hooks
EPA Senior Sustainability Officer
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management
Enclosure
Internet Address (URL) « http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 50% Postconsurner content)
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
PROGRAM
FY 2009 ANNUAL REPORT
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 1 December 15, 2009
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 2 December 15, 2009
-------
FY 2009 HIGHLIGHTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently demonstrated leadership among
federal agencies in the challenge to reduce its environmental footprint and promote environmental
stewardship. In October 2009, EPA was honored to receive a Presidential Award for Leadership in
Federal Energy Management, one of only five federal agencies chosen, recognizing the Agency's
long-term and consistent success and leadership in energy and water conservation, green power,
green buildings, environmental stewardship, and the improved environmental performance of its
fleet.
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, EPA focused on meeting new federal requirements contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and new green building goals associated with
existing Executive Orders (E.O.s).
Energy Conservation
In FY 2009, EPA continued to exceed federal energy conservation requirements, though energy use
did not change significantly this fiscal year. The Agency's overall energy intensity reported in FY
2009 was 18.1 percent lower than its FY 2003 baseline intensity. EPA was required to reduce it
energy intensity by 12 percent. When green power purchases and source energy savings credits are
taken into account, the Agency actually reduced its energy intensity 24.4 percent from the FY 2003
baseline.
At the end of FY 2009, EPA awarded a construction contract for Phase III of the Infrastructure
Replacement Project at EPA's second largest laboratory, the Andrew W. Breidenbach
Environmental Research Center (AWBERC) in Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA also contracted for the
design contract of a heat recovery system for its largest laboratory, New Main in Research Triangle
Park (RTP), North Carolina, which should reduce energy use at that facility by 7 to 9 percent when
construction is completed in FY 2011. EPA achieved a 4.9 percent reduction in energy intensity at
RTP New Main in FY 2009, which had a significant positive impact on EPA's overall energy
performance.
EISA Energy and Water Assessments
In FY 2009, EPA conducted the first round of EISA-mandated energy and water audits and re-
commissioning evaluations at six facilities: New Main, National Computer Center (NCC), and the
Human Studies Laboratory, all in RTP, North Carolina; AWBERC and Annex 2 in Cincinnati, Ohio;
and the Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.
Advanced Metering
By the end of FY 2009, EPA was capturing more than 45 percent of its Agencywide energy
consumption through advanced metering hardware. EPA began commissioning a new version of its
national advanced metering software system in August 2009.
Green Power Purchases
In FY 2009, EPA continued purchasing enough green power to offset 100 percent of its
Agencywide electricity use via delivered green power and renewable energy certificates (RECs). Two
new contracts signed in 2009 ensure that EPA will purchase enough green power to offset 100
percent of its electricity use through March 2010.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 3 December 15, 2009
-------
National Onsite Renewable Energy Study
In September 2009, EPA completed a feasibility study on the potential for onsite renewable energy
projects at all owned laboratories. The study reviewed solar, wind, and geothermal potential at each
laboratory to identify the projects with the highest potential. The study concluded that EPA could
meet 9.8 percent of its energy needs through renewables at a cost of $115 million.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory and Reductions
EPA improved the scope and detail of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions inventory in FY
2009. This work gives the Agency a tremendous lead in implementing the GHG-related
requirements of E.O. 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, andEconomic'Performance,
issued October 5, 2009.
EPA estimated its FY 2003 Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to be 155,472 MTCO2e. As a direct
result of Agencywide energy efficiency improvements, these emissions in FY 2009 totaled 139,943
MTCO2e—a reduction of 15,528 MTCO2e, or approximately 10 percent. Under the Climate
Leaders' reporting methodology, EPA's purchases of green power and RECs enable it to adjust its
total Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to 139,201 MTCO2e in FY 2003 and to 53,903 MTCO2e in FY
2009. These data indicate that EPA has reduced its net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 85,298
MTCO2e, or approximately 61 percent, since FY 2003.
Green Buildings
In FY 2009, EPA obtained the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED ) certification for New Construction (NC) for two new facilities, and
LEED certification for Existing Buildings (EB) for two buildings. EPA received the ENERGY
STAR label for several facilities in FY 2009 as well. EPA extensively strengthened its GreenCheck
process in FY 2009 and completed GreenChecks for all major construction, renovation, and leasing
projects. The Agency also made significant updates to its Architecture and Engineering (A/E)
Guidelines and its Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions.
The Agency submitted an improved Sustainable building Implementation Plan to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in August 2009 and a more detailed Strategy for Meeting the Guiding
Principles in 15 Percent of Existing Buildings by Fiscal Year 2015 in December 2009. Based on guidance
from OMB and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE), EPA also performed
sustainable building assessments at six facilities in FY 2009.
Water Reductions
In FY 2009, EPA reduced its water intensity by 10.8 percent relative to FY 2007. This exceeds the 4
percent reduction required over that time period by E.O. 13423 by a wide margin.
Recycling
Under the umbrella of the "Strive for 45" initiative, EPA reinvigorated and improved its recycling
programs and waste diversion practices across Agency facilities in FY 2009. Based on available data
for FY 2008, the Agency met and exceeded its 45 percent goal with an estimated waste diversion
rate of 47 percent Agencywide. The "Strive for 45" initiative included a six-month waste reduction
competition among EPA facilities. Participating facilities achieved a cumulative waste diversion rate
of 66 percent.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 4 December 15, 2009
-------
Executive Order 13514
E.O. 13514 extends requirements of previous executive orders and introduces new requirements
regarding GHG emissions inventories and reductions. Based on the firm foundation EPA has in
energy conservation, water conservation, green buildings, GHG emissions accounting, green power,
and other work, EPA is well prepared to face the significant challenges of this new Executive Order.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 5 December 15, 2009
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 6 December 15, 2009
-------
CONTENTS
Management 9
Awards and Incentives 9
Performance Evaluations, Training, and Education 9
Energy Efficiency Performance 11
Renewable Energy and Green Power 12
Onsite Renewable Energy Study 12
Water Conservation 13
Advanced Metering 13
Federal Building Energy Efficiency Standards 14
High Performance Sustainable Buildings (HPSB) 14
Implementation Highlights 16
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 16
Energy 16
Energy Retrofits and Capital Improvements 19
ESPCs Provide New Ideas 20
Water 21
ENERGY STAR 23
Sustainable Building Design and High Performance Buildings 24
Energy Efficiency/Sustainable Design in Lease Provisions 26
Distributed Generation 27
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 28
Stormwater Management 30
Recycling and Pollution Prevention 31
Education for Others 32
FY 2009 Energy Management Data Report Appendix A
Source Energy Reductions Credit Calculations Appendix B
FY 2003 Energy Baseline Revision Appendix C
FY 2007 Water Baseline Revision and Summary of Revision to EPA's
Methodology for Reporting Water Consumption Appendix D
Summary of EPA Scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions Appendix E
Facility Inventory Appendix F
Sustainability Champion Winners Appendix G
Projects Which Filed Fully Completed GreenCheck Forms in FY 2009 Appendix H
National Onsite Renewable Energy Study Appendix I
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 1 December 15, 2009
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 8 December 15, 2009
-------
MANAGEMENT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to face increasing federal
responsibilities to reduce energy and water intensity with a variety of management techniques. The
Assistant Administrator (AA) for EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management
(OARM), Craig Hooks, serves as the Agency's environmental executive and delineates responsibility
for implementing sustainable principles throughout EPA's operations. The Office of
Administration's (OA), Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch (SFPB) includes mechanical
engineers, green building experts, and other staff devoted to developing and implementing strategies
for meeting the various federal requirements on energy and water reduction, green buildings, and
resource conservation. SFPB works with and supports OA's Architecture, Engineering, and Asset
Management Branch (AEAMB) and the Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Division
(SHEMD) in acquiring and maintaining high-performance, sustainable buildings. Training,
education, awards, and incentives encourage an ongoing commitment to efficiency throughout the
Agency, while guidelines for project management and commissioning ensure ongoing adherence.
Awards and Incentives
Each year, EPA recognizes and applauds its employees' commitment to energy reduction and
sustainability goals through incentive programs, including awards. The Agency's internal
"Sustainability Champion" awards recognize facilities and staff annually to honor their efforts in
energy efficiency, water conservation, sustainable buildings, green landscaping, pollution prevention,
and other environmental achievements. During the national Energy and Facilities Workshop in May
2009, EPA distributed awards in 10 different categories to recognize facility managers, building
design/maintenance personnel, and other EPA staff who have demonstrated exceptional efforts and
achievement in facility sustainability. (See Appendix G for a complete list of award recipients.)
In addition to internal awards, EPA actively participates in the White House Closing the Circle
(CTC) Awards, the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Federal Energy and Water Management
Awards and Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management, and other
opportunities for professional recognition. In October 2009, EPA was presented a Presidential
Award for Leadership in Federal Energy Management by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) for overall agency performance toward Executive Order (E.O.)
13423 goals for energy, environmental stewardship, and transportation management. EPA was
among five agencies selected for superior performance on the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Environmental Management Scorecards. EPA also received a Federal Energy and Water
Management Award for its leadership in water conservation at its New Main laboratory in Research
Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. Also in FY 2009, EPA's Region 8 office in Denver, Colorado,
received CTC Awards for its Environmental Management System (EMS) and for its electronics
stewardship activities. The Agency also received an honorable mention for the EMS at its Region 7
office in Kansas City, Kansas.
Performance Evaluations, Training, and Education
Senior managers and other key staff are held responsible for meeting sustainability goals through
annual performance reviews and other venues.
EPA uses a variety of venues, including workshops, conferences, an e-newsletter, and a Web site, to
train its personnel, as well as personnel from other federal agencies.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 9 December 15, 2009
-------
Energy and Facilities Workshop
In May 2009, EPA held a two-day training workshop in Cincinnati, Ohio. A total of 75 EPA
employees attended, including national facility managers from each of the Agency's regions. The
presentations, which were made available for review on EPA's intranet after the workshop, covered
many topics of interest, including Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
requirements, advanced metering, stormwater management, efforts to green EPA's fleet, the
Agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, and water conservation. The workshop helped facility
energy managers meet EISA training requirements and learn from each other about important
sustainability issues. Attendees also toured EPA's newest facility to receive the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) for New Construction (NC) Gold certification, Research Annex
2 at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC) in Cincinnati, Ohio,
and attended a construction site tour of Phase II of AWBERC's Infrastructure Replacement Project
(IRP). This multi-phased project to replace the 35-year-old mechanical system at AWBERC is EPA's
largest energy project currently under construction. AWBERC is EPA's second largest laboratory.
Laboratories for the 21st Century
Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) is the premiere program and conference for energy-
efficient and sustainable laboratory design in the United States. The Labs21 Annual Conference
includes in-depth technical discussions on issues faced by laboratory owners, users, designers, and
builders, including mechanical systems configurations, controls, commissioning, operations and
maintenance (O&M), and other sustainability issues. At the Labs21 Conference, senior professionals
in the field can share lessons learned and focus on current issues and new opportunities in
laboratory sustainability. In September 2009, 24 EPA facilities staff members attended and/or
presented at the conference. Labs21 educational efforts are jointly sponsored by EPA, DOE, and
the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2SL), the nonfederal conference co-
sponsor.
GovEnergy/Federal Environmental Summit (FES) East
GovEnergy, an annual energy training conference for federal energy managers, took place in
Providence, Rhode Island, in August 2009. The Federal Environmental Summit (FES), now known
as GreenGov, is an annual training conference for a wide range of federal sustainability issues,
including energy and water conservation, green buildings, GHG accounting, green procurement, and
green fleets. FES East took place in Bethesda, Maryland, in June 2009. EPA facilities staff were well
represented at both conferences as attendees and/or presenters.
For more on EPA's participation in and assistance to federal environmental training efforts through
Labs21, the GovEnergy Conference, and FES East/GreenGov, see page 33.
Building Buzz
In March 2009, EPA began distributing a monthly e-newsletter to its facilities personnel, Building
Bu%g. building Bu%g features news and updates about facility energy and water conservation projects;
renewable energy projects and green power purchases; green building achievements (e.g., LEED®
and ENERGY STAR®); awards won by EPA facilities and personnel; and other matters that are
important to the Agency's sustainable facilities community. In addition, 'Building Bu%g invites readers
to submit questions or requests for future articles, promoting communication between Headquarters
and field staff. Building Bu%g reaches approximately 230 EPA employees, including facility managers,
facility EMS coordinators, Headquarters staff, and contractors.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report \ 0 December 15, 2009
-------
Greening EPA Web Site
EPA's "Greening EPA" Web site (www.epa.gov/greeningepa) provides publicly accessible
information on energy conservation, water conservation, green building processes and projects,
green power and onsite renewable power, stormwater management, GHG emissions inventories,
and other environmental stewardship activities. Frequently updated, Greening EPA serves as a
practical resource for EPA staff, other federal agencies, and the public at large to learn how to
reduce the environmental impact of facilities.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE
EPA Reduces Energy Use 18.1 Percent
In FY 2009, EPA greatly exceeded federal energy conservation requirements, though Agency energy
use did not change significantly during the fiscal year. The Agency's overall energy intensity reported
in FY 2009 was 318,050 British thermal units per gross square foot (Btu/GSF), 18.1 percent lower
than its FY 2003 baseline intensity of 388,400 Btu/GSF1. To meet the requirements of EISA and
E.O. 13423, EPA needed to reduce it energy intensity by 12 percent. When green power purchases
and source energy savings credits are taken into account, the Agency actually reduced its reported
energy 24.4 percent from the FY 2003 baseline (see Figure 1). Although the pace of energy
reductions slowed significantly in FY 2009, EPA is still ahead of schedule for meeting its energy use
reduction goals.
Figure 1. EPA Energy Intensity Relative to E.O. 13423/EISA Goals
450,000
Q 400,000
"s"
(5 350,000
g 300,000
n^
M 250,000
w
200,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2014 2015
Fiscal Year
— E.O. 13423/EISA Target
'EPA's Actual Btu/GSF
EPA ended FY 2009 with the award of a construction contract for Phase III of the IRP at its
AWBERC facility. This multi-year project should reduce energy use at this facility by more than 30
percent compared with a pre-project baseline. In addition, EPA contracted for the design of a heat
recovery system at its RTP New Main facility. This project is expected to reduce RTP New Main's
Verifications of conditioned gross square footage (GSF) at four facilities resulted in revised Agencywide GSF totals for
EPA's reporting facilities, affecting the FY 2003 energy intensity baseline.
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
11
December 15, 2009
-------
energy use by 7 to 9 percent when construction is completed in FY 2011. Another significant FY
2009 achievement was the 4.9 percent reduction in energy intensity at RTF's New Main campus,
which contributed significantly to EPA's overall FY 2009 energy performance. The RTP campus is
responsible for about one-third of the Agency's overall reportable energy use.
Renewable Energy and Green Power
For more than a decade, EPA has been a leader among federal agencies in supporting the renewable
energy market through its green power purchasing program. In FY 2009, EPA continued offsetting
100 percent of its Agencywide electricity use with delivered green power and renewable energy
certificates (RECs). EPA also conducted a feasibility study on the potential for onsite renewable
energy projects at facilities it owns.
New Green Power Contracts Signed
In March 2009, EPA signed a blanket contract to purchase 69 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of green
power RECs. Combined with eight existing contracts providing more than 193 million kWh of
RECs and delivered green power to facilities in FY 2009, this purchase allowed the Agency to
continue offsetting 100 percent of Agencywide electricity consumption through the end of FY 2009.
To take advantage of unusually low REC prices, EPA finalized an additional contract for 130 million
kWh of RECs in June 2009, which ensures that EPA will offset 100 percent of Agencywide
electricity use through March 2010. For a history of EPA's green power purchases see Figure 2.
Figure 2. EPA's Electricity Consumption Offset by Green Power
300,000
y—V
12
o
•
-------
reduce energy use and reduce fossil fuel use at EPA facilities. See page 27 for more information on
the study.
Water Conservation
Results
EPA has focused on water conservation for many years, long before E.0.13423 required 2 percent
annual reductions in water use. The Agency reduced its water use by 11 percent between FY 2000
and FY 2007. For E.G. 13423 reporting purposes, EPA's FY 2007 baseline was a low 35.0 gallons
per square foot. Despite this challenge, EPA reduced its FY 2009 water intensity by 10.8 percent
relative to FY 2007 (see Figure 3), surpassing the 4 percent reduction required under that period of
time by a wide margin. Water conservation efforts in FY 2009, directed by the Agency's Water
Conservation Strategy, focused on four areas:
o Landscape irrigation elimination, system size reduction, repairs and improvements.
o Air handler condensate recovery and cooling tower water supply systems.
o Elimination of single-pass cooling.
o Faucet replacements or retrofits.
Figure 3. EPA Water Intensity Relative to E.G. 13423/EISA Goals
EPA's Actual gai/GSF
E.O. 13423/EISA Target
<$
1)
PH
Cfl
O
3
-------
o Hardware Installation and Integration at the Agency's Two Largest Campuses: In December 2005, EPA
completed the installation of a Web-based advanced metering system for its primary research
campus in RTF, North Carolina. This initial advanced metering system allowed EPA to capture
approximately 33 percent of its Agencywide energy consumption with advanced metering
hardware. Also in October 2008, EPA completed the installation of advanced electric and natural
gas meters at AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio—the Agency's second largest energy-consuming
facility, which represents more than 12 percent of the Agency's reportable energy use. By the end
of FY 2009, EPA captured more than 45 percent of its Agencywide energy consumption with
advanced metering hardware.
o Hardware Design at Additional Facilities: In FY 2009, EPA initiated the design phase for new
advanced metering hardware at six laboratory facilities and two support buildings: the
Environmental Science Center in Fort Meade, Maryland; the New England Regional Laboratory
in Chelmsford, Massachusetts; AWBERC, the Testing and Evaluation Center, and Center Hill
Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio; the Human Studies Facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and the
First Environments Early Learning Center and Page Road Warehouse in RTP, North Carolina.
EPA plans to award and complete the construction of advanced metering hardware at these eight
facilities in FY 2010. With five additional laboratory advanced metering installations planned for
design and construction by the end of FY 2010, EPA anticipates capturing nearly 76 percent of
its Agencywide energy consumption with advanced metering hardware.
o Site-Specific Advanced Metering Implementation Plans: EPA's advanced metering team completed six
site visits in FY 2009. These visits, which evaluate the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of advanced utility metering at each reporting facility and serve as the basis for the design and
installation of new advanced metering hardware, will allow completion of the last of 34 site-
specific metering plans.
o National .Advanced Metering Software System: EPA ended FY 2008 by issuing a beta version of a
national advanced metering software system, which is designed to compile the Agency's advanced
metering data and provide a Web-based, user-friendly interface for streamlined data analysis and
reporting. EPA spent FY 2009 refining the capabilities of the software system and released an
updated version of the software at the end of July 2009. Comprehensive, third-party
commissioning of the July 30, 2009, version of the software system began in August 2009.
Federal Building Energy Efficiency Standards
No new designs for buildings owned by EPA have been started since the beginning of FY 2007. For
new building designs and mechanical system projects that are initiated, EPA's GreenCheck process
ensures they are reviewed for compliance with all federal requirements, including EPAct 2005's
requirement that they be designed to achieve energy consumption levels at least 30 percent below
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standard as long as it is life-cycle cost-effective. For more information on GreenCheck, see page 25,
and for more information on EPA's life-cycle cost analysis of a multi-phase laboratory design
project, see page 16.
High Performance Sustainable Buildings (HPSB)
5.3 Percent of EPA Buildings Meet HPSB Standards
Because of its historic commitment to green buildings, in FY 2009 EPA occupied nine LEED-NC
Gold or Silver certified buildings and two LEED for Existing Buildings (EB) Gold certified
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 14 December 15, 2009
-------
buildings. In December 2009, EPA will complete moving its Region 1 office into the General
Services Administration's (GSA's) historic, and recently renovated, McCormack Post Office and
Courthouse building in Boston, Massachusetts, which is expected to achieve LEED-NC Silver
certification.
EPA requires that all new construction and major renovation projects strive to achieve LEED-NC
Gold or LEED-EB: Operations and Maintenance Gold certification whenever possible, with a
minimum certification of LEED-NC or LEED-EB Silver required.
The Agency's FY 2009 progress toward achieving green building certifications for newly
constructed, newly leased, or newly occupied EPA facilities is detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Green Building Certification Activity in FY 2009
Facility
Computational and Geospatial
Sciences Building. Occupancy
January 2008.
Location
Gulf Breeze, Florida
EPA-Owned
Certifica tion
LEED-NC 2.2 Silver received April
2009.
Boston Regional Office. Move-in
completed Dec 14, 2009.
Boston, Massachusetts
GSA-Owned
LEED-NC 2.2 Silver expected in FY
2010.
AWBERC Annex 2. Occupancy
July 2007.
Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA-Owned
LEED-NC 2.1/2.2 Gold received
December 2008.
Seattle Regional Office (Existing
Seattle, Washington
GSA-Leased
LEED-EB 2.0 Platinum expected in
FY 2010.
Seattle Regional Office (New)
Seattle, Washington
(Procurement Underway)
Procurement documents require a
minimum LEED-NC or LEED-EB
Silver. EPA strives for Gold-level
certification.
San Francisco Regional Office
(Existing)
San Francisco, California
GSA-Leased
LEED-EB 2.0 Gold received in FY
2009.
San Francisco Regional Office
(New)
San Francisco, California
(Procurement Underway)
Procurement documents require a
minimum LEED-NC or LEED-EB
Silver. EPA strives for Gold-level
certification.
Kansas City Regional Office
(New)
Kansas City, Kansas
(Procurement Underway)
Procurement documents require a
minimum LEED-NC or LEED-EB
Silver. EPA strives for Gold-level
certification.
Using the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) inventory of EPA-owned and direct lease buildings,
5.3 percent of EPA-owned buildings greater than 5,000 square feet (as specified in E.O. 13514) meet
the Guiding Principles for High Performance Sustainable Buildings. Using the broader measure of
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
December 15, 2009
-------
EPA-owned and EPA-occupied buildings (which includes GSA-owned/EPA-occupied and GSA-
leased/EPA-occupied buildings) 12.8 percent of EPA's full inventory meets the Guiding Principles
for High Performance Sustainable Buildings.
IMPLEMENTATION HIGHLIGHTS
Having made a number of improvements to its most energy-intensive facilities over the past few
years, in FY 2009 EPA focused on identifying more energy and water improvement projects to
include in its projects pipeline. Moving forward, the Agency will continue to expand its energy and
water efficiency project portfolio with projects identified in master plans, from EISA assessments,
and through continuous commissioning.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
To ensure the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of EPA's efforts to achieve laboratory energy
performance that is 30 percent better than the ASHRAE 90.1.2007 standard, the Agency conducts
lifecycle cost analysis through energy modeling.
At the end of FY 2009, EPA initiated an energy modeling study as part of its initial design efforts for
a new laboratory in Houston, Texas. A contractor is simulating a hypothetical laboratory concept
with engineering criteria designed to meet the ASHRAE standard, then simulating a system designed
to perform 30 percent or higher than the standard. The study will compare the construction cost
differences and life-cycle costs of both concepts. The energy modeling will be completed in the first
phase of design to ensure that the facility is energy efficient and effective.
In addition, EPA is currently reviewing energy modeling results for its next long-term IRP, planned
for the Western Ecology Division laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. Again, EPA is using energy
modeling to confirm compliance with federal building energy efficiency standards (30 percent better
than ASHRAE 90.1) and to evaluate the life-cycle costs of various mechanical system design
approaches.
Energy
Energy Strategic Plan/Energy Forecasting
Since FY 2002, EPA has developed energy forecasts to determine if its proposed energy projects,
their timing, and their energy savings meet the energy use reductions required by legislation and
various executive orders. The Agency's energy forecast also includes estimated energy project cost
and is used to ensure that adequate project funding is available. In updating the energy forecast in
FY 2009, the Agency focused on adding projects identified in the EISA-mandated energy audits and
re-commissioning efforts, as well as updating project cost and implementation timelines. Continuing
a practice begun in FY 2007, EPA set facility-specific, tailored annual energy-reduction targets for
each reporting facility based on the Agency's Energy Strategic Plan and used these targets to evaluate
performance for the remainder of FY 2009.
EPA anticipates significant reductions in its energy intensity in the coming years, due to projects
already planned (see Figure 4).
EPA FY2009 AnnualEnergy and Water Report 16 December 15, 2009
-------
Figure 4. EPA Average Energy Intensity, FY 2003 to FY 2015, Projected2
^ •
C« FY Bas dine:
C
C
1
a
185,000
FY 2009:318,050
2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
E.0. 13423 /EISA Target
(3% Annual Reduction)
Histotical Enetgy Intensity
Fiscal Year
........ -"- Projected Eneigy Intensity Accounting for
Funded and Unfiindeil ftwjecti
ClT] */. 5% Natmal
EISA Section 432 Implementation
In December 2008, per the requirements of EISA Section 432, EPA designated its "covered
facilities" and named energy managers for each. EPA surveyed facility managers about professional
energy management training completed and identified additional training opportunities to ensure
effective facility energy management throughout EPA. The Agency also established an internal
policy that it would treat all facilities as if they were covered facilities, though EISA only requires
facilities representing 75 percent of energy use be designated as covered.
EISA Section 432 also requires that each federal agency conduct energy audits at and re-commission
25 percent of its covered facilities annually and return to those facilities for energy audits and re-
commissioning quadrennally. In FY 2009, during its first round of EISA-mandated energy audits
and re-commissioning, EPA focused on six facilities: New Main and the National Computer Center
(NCC) in RTP, North Carolina; the Human Studies Facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina;
AWBERC and Annex 2 in Cincinnati, Ohio; and the Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED)
laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota. The combined energy use at these facilities represented
approximately 29 percent of the total energy use of EPA's covered facilities based on FY 2008 data.
The Agency collected information on potential energy conservation measures from these
assessments and compiled the associated implementation cost, estimated annual energy savings, and
estimated annual cost savings in a comprehensive report submitted to the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) on June 30, 2009. These findings were also used to update and
expand EPA's Energy Strategic Plan and energy forecast:
o MED Laboratory — Duluth, Minnesota: In June 2009, EPA identified several opportunities for
energy savings, such as reducing the supply air temperature and decreasing the air flow rate in
The projection in this chart assumes full funding of EPA energy conservation projects.
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
17
December 15, 2009
-------
one of the facility's largest air handling units (AHUs). Re-commissioning focused on optimizing
the performance of the laboratory ventilation systems and minimizing air flow during unoccupied
periods.
o New Main—RTF, North Carolina: EPA conducted a detailed energy study of a heat recovery
system for three of the four major laboratory wings to meet EISA energy audit requirements.
EPA also evaluated the performance of its re-commissioning of laboratory ventilation systems
completed in 2007. As part of this effort, the Agency conducted a system operating mode test
(SOMT) on major portions of the facility in April 2009. EPA analyzed actual occupied and
unoccupied flow in several buildings and identified measurement errors and O&M issues,
particularly with variable air volume (VAV) air distribution and ventilation systems. EPA used the
results of the SOMT to more accurately assess the changes in the facility's O&M procedures
required to maintain optimum system performance. EPA also examined air flow set-point
optimization on the sixth floor of the C Tower, an office building, and modified heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment to more efficiently condition the space.
EPA will apply the findings of this pilot re-commissioning project to the remaining floors with
similar layout at this building.
o NCC—RTF, North Carolina: A data center energy efficiency study DOE performed in FY 2008
identified energy conservation measures that could avoid more than $100,000 in energy cost with
an average payback period of 0.8 years (e.g., consolidating activities to reduce air conditioning
needs in unoccupied space). EPA initiated a commissioning report for NCC in FY 2009 as well.
o Human Studies Laboratory—Chapel Hill, North Carolina: An energy study explored options for the
long-term replacement of this facility's old and inefficient constant-volume HVAC system, as
well as short-term opportunities to conserve energy. Potential projects include manifolding fume
hoods, upgrading from constant volume conventional fume hoods to VAV high-performance
fume hoods, upgrading the facility's building automation system (BAS), and installing variable fan
drivers (VFDs) in the facility's AHUs. EPA initiated a commissioning report for Human Studies
in FY 2009 as well.
o AWBERC—Cincinnati, Ohio: The Cincinnati Energy Master Plan and associated energy modeling
served as the basis for design of Phase I of AWBERC's multi-year IRP. Construction, initial
commissioning, and the commissioning report of Phase I was completed in February 2009.
o AWT3ERC Annex 2—Cincinnati, Ohio: Completing construction and commissioning of
AWBERC's Annex 2 and achieving LEED-NC Gold certification produced the documents
necessary to meet EISA requirements for an energy audit and commissioning.
EPA began its second round of EISA energy audits and re-commissioning in Fall 2009. For FY
2010, the Agency plans to perform energy audits on and re-commissioning of facilities in Ann
Arbor, Michigan; Athens, Georgia (Office of Research and Development); Chelmsford,
Massachusetts; Fort Meade, Maryland; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Kansas City, Kansas; Montgomery,
Alabama; Narragansett, Rhode Island; and additional portions of AWBERC and RTP's New Main
complex. These assessments collectively represent nearly 27 percent of the energy use of EPA's
covered facilities, based on FY 2008 data.
EPA sees the quadrennial re-commissioning requirements contained in EISA as an opportunity to
help it dramatically improve its facility operations and as an important step in moving toward
continuous commissioning.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report \ 8 December 15, 2009
-------
Energy Retrofits and Capital Improvements
Ongoing Energy Projects
Although EPA focused in FY 2009 on meeting EISA reporting requirements, the Agency's existing
energy efficiency efforts have yielded great results, as summarized in Table 2 and as described in
further detail below.
Table 2. Energy Conservation Projects Underway or Completed
1
Facility Location Improvements
AWBERC
Cincinnati,
OH
Continued with IRP.
Savings
Once the IRP is complete, EPA projects energy
reduction of more than 30 percent compared to
the pre-renovation baseline, and avoided energy
costs of $800,000 per year in (total) utilities.
•ge Lakes
Research
Station
Grosse lie,
MI
Upgraded heating system
central plant.
FY 2009 energy intensity was down 13 percent
compared to FY 2008, and 26.6 percent compared
to FY 2003 baseline.
New Main
RTP,NC
Rejected energy saving
performance contract (ESPC)
option as uneconomic.
Initiated conventional design
and construction for heat
recovery.
Once the heat recovery project is complete, EPA
projects energy consumption savings of 9 percent
compared to FY 2008.
RTP,NC
Toxicology
Facility (RTF)
Developed plans to vacate and
transfer employees to RTP
New Main.
After transfer to RTP New Main, EPA projects
reducing energy 100 percent for a net savings of
approximately 42,179 million Btu per year.
Human
Studies
Chapel Hill,
NC
Developed short- and long-
term energy conservation
measures. Began addressing
many short-term projects.
After implementing all identified projects, energy
intensity is expected to drop by 25.5 percent
compared to a pre-implementation baseline.
o AW^BERC—Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA continued work on the multi-year IRP at the Agency's second
largest research laboratory, including: upgrading mechanical equipment such as fans, pumps, and
motors to replace older, inefficient models; installing high-performance VAV fume hoods with
automatic sash closers; manifolding laboratory exhaust systems; improving the air distribution
system (including ductwork and AHUs); rezoning office and laboratory space to eliminate
unnecessary one-pass air; and implementing a heat recovery system. EPA completed construction
of Phase I in December 2008. Phase II is under construction, with completion expected in
December 2009. EPA awarded contracts for the construction of Phase III and the design of
Phase IV in August 2009. Once the entire renovation project is complete, EPA estimates that it
will reduce AWBERC's energy consumption by more than 30 percent compared to the pre-
renovation baseline and result in avoided energy costs of $800,000 per year or more as energy
costs continue to rise.
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
19
December 15, 2009
-------
o Large Lakes Research Station—Grosse lie, Michigan: In FY 2008, EPA initiated a heating system
central plant upgrade. Completed in February 2009, the project included replacing two 34-year-
old steam boilers and installing a new hot water boiler, circulating hot water pumps, condensate
pump, expansion tank, and updated piping and controls in the boiler room. New controls were
connected to the BAS. As a result, EPA reduced FY 2009 energy consumption at this facility by
13 percent compared to FY 2008, or 26.6 percent compared to the FY 2003 baseline.
o New Main—ETP, North Carolina: In late Spring 2009, EPA concluded that an ESPC for heat
recovery in the RTP New Main facility was a poor value for the taxpayers and is now pursuing
heat recovery at this facility under a conventional approach. In FY 2010, EPA will begin
construction on glycol heat recovery systems for AHUs and exhaust fans. Once the project is
complete, EPA anticipates an energy savings of 7 to 9 percent compared to FY 2008. EPA also
revisited the laboratory re-commissioning effort that it completed in FY 2008 in order to
determine the changes in the need for laboratory ventilation and to analyze opportunities for
further reductions in air flow. Additional projects EPA initiated in FY 2009 include office re-
commissioning and installing a connector pipe at the central utility plant (CUP) serving RTP New
Main to increase the efficiency of the plant and reduce operating costs.
o Reproductive Toxicology Facility (RTF)—RTP, North Carolina: EPA is studying the consolidation of all
personnel and research currently located at the RTF into RTP New Main. This consolidation will
net absolute energy savings of approximately 42,179 million Btu per year, and an Agencywide
GHG Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reduction of approximately 3 percent. Energy intensity at
RTP New Main will rise slightly.
o Human Studies Laboratory—Chapel Hill, North Carolina: In FY 2009, EPA completed an energy
study of short- and long-term energy conservation measures for its Human Studies laboratory in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, which the Agency leases from the University of North Carolina. The
facility's HVAC system is a constant volume system, and its associated controls are outdated. In
FY 2009, EPA began addressing many of the short-term projects, including assessing the
performance of the facility's AHUs, making mechanical adjustments to the building's steam traps,
and upgrading lighting controls. Implementation of long-term, major mechanical upgrades—
including installing a full VAV air distribution system, replacing older fume hoods with high-
performance models, manifolding the facility's exhaust system, and balancing air systems—will
require a phased approach. Full implementation of all identified projects could result in a facility-
wide energy use reduction of 35 percent.
ESPCs Provide New Ideas
The Agency's first ESPC, completed in 2001 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, resulted in an initial 42
percent energy-use reduction, although the project has been revisited several times in an effort to
maintain performance. EPA's second ESPC, completed in 2004, at the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma, led to the Agency's first carbon-neutral
laboratory.
In FY 2008 and FY 2009, EPA spent considerable resources exploring an ESPC for a heat recovery
project at its New Main facility in RTP, North Carolina. An energy savings company (ESCO)
produced a conceptual design and a detailed energy study in Spring 2009. In June 2009, EPA chose
not to pursue this ESPC because of high implementation costs. The Agency is now pursuing the
project as a conventional design-bid-build project.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 20 December 15, 2009
-------
EPA pursued several other ESPCs in FY 2008 and FY 2009, but no interested vendors could be
identified. Based on the Agency's recent efforts, ESPCs currently do not appear to be the best tool
for improving performance at EPA's laboratories either because of the laboratories' small sizes, the
complexity of their laboratory mechanical systems, and/or the need to finance complete
replacements of their old and outdated mechanical systems. However, EPA will continue to evaluate
potential ESPCs when appropriate and cost-effective, in addition to pursuing other means to
increase energy efficiency.
Water
Water Conservation Strategy
Given EPA's successful water use reduction work between FY 2000 and FY 2007, the Agency had
some concern regarding its ability to meet the water use reduction requirements of E.O. 13423. In
early 2008, EPA collected all its water management plans (WMPs), listed the available water
conservation strategies and projects, identified for each facility which water conservation
opportunities remained, and calculated estimated water savings at each facility for each approach.
This first comprehensive Water Conservation Strategy showed that EPA could, in fact, meet E.O.
13423's requirements, and it detailed priority projects and the strategies needed to achieve the new
water use reductions. The strategy also identified short-term water conservation projects that could
be accomplished while longer-term conservation strategies were being implemented. The strategy is
designed to ensure that EPA meets or exceeds its 2-percent Agencywide water reduction target each
year. To help implement the Water Conservation Strategy, EPA sets annual facility-specific water
reduction targets to keep all of its facilities accountable for jointly meeting the Agency's annual goal.
Since it started in 2002, EPA has completed WMPs at all of its reporting facilities. The Agency uses
the mandatory EISA water audits as an opportunity to update and improve each facility's WMP.
EISA Water Assessments Identify Improvements
Per EISA requirements, in FY 2009 EPA completed water assessments to identify potential water
projects at six facilities: AWBERC and the Child Development Center (CDC), both in Cincinnati,
Ohio; the MED laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota; New Main and NCC in RTP; and the Human
Studies Facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. EPA updated WMPs for these facilities to document
their current major water-using processes and describe projects and water savings estimates
identified during the assessments. The Agency reported the potential water-saving projects described
in Table 3 from these assessments to FEMP on June 30, 2009, as required. The water assessments
and updated WMPs are used by EPA to regularly update its Water Conservation Strategy. EPA and
its facility managers are currently implementing or analyzing the water-saving projects described in
Table 3 for feasibility and cost-effectiveness.
In FY 2009, EPA also signed WMPs for the Center Hill Facility and the Testing and Evaluation
Center in Cincinnati, Ohio; the Science and Technology Center in Kansas City, Kansas; and the
Environmental Science Center (ESC) in Fort Meade, Maryland. EPA assesses each of its facilities
using FEMP's best management practice (BMP) areas for water efficiency. FEMP expanded from 10
to 14 BMPs in FY 2009, and EPA focuses on achieving BMP status in all 14 areas at each of its
facilities. EPA has also developed its own laboratory-specific BMPs, which it uses in its water
assessments.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 21 December 15, 2009
-------
Table 3. Potent
•^^^^^^^^^^1
AWBERC
Cincinnati
MED
Duluth
New Main
RTF
NCC, RTF
Human Studies
Chapel Hill
ial Water-Saving Projects From EISA Water Assessments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Replace toilets and urinals with high-efficiency models.
Retrofit steam sterilizers.
Replace liquid-ring vacuum pump with dry system.
Replace tempering water sensor on the flash tank to only
allow water flow when flash tank is discharging.
Capture air handler condensate and route it to the cooling
tower as part of IRP.
Eliminate single-pass cooling for an ice maker and a cold
water booster pump.
Replace toilets and urinals with high-efficiency models.
Replace or retrofit faucets.
Replace ice maker that uses single-pass cooling.
Repair tempering water sensor on flash tank to only allow
tempering water flow when the flash tank is discharging.
Replace urinals with high-efficiency models.
Take High Bay cooling tower offline.
Construct an air handler condensate recovery system.
More details are included on page 23.
Replace or retrofit faucets.
Replace or retrofit showerheads.
Replace toilets with dual-flush models and urinals with
high-efficiency models.
Retrofit steam sterilizers.
f^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^U
2.2 million gallons per year.
1.2 million gallons per year.
200,000 gallons per year.
750,000 gallons per year.
1.4 million gallons per year.
600,000 gallons per year.
320,000 gallons per year.
25,000 gallons per year.
280,000 gallons per year.
500,000 gallons per year.
560,000 gallons per year.
1.9 million gallons per year.
8 million gallons per year.
57,000 gallons per year.
52,000 gallons per year.
240,000 gallons per year.
240,000 gallons per year.
Water Conservation Retrofits and Capital Improvements
In addition to setting the facility-specific water reduction targets described previously, EPA
continued or completed several nationally important efforts in FY 2009:
o Landscape Irrigation Reductions: The Western Ecology Division laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, and
the Science and Ecosystem Support Division Laboratory (SESD) in Athens, Georgia, have
EPA FY2009 Annual'Energy and Water Report
22
December 15, 2009
-------
committed to planting native, drought-tolerant plants, practicing xeriscaping, and discontinuing
use of irrigation systems. The Corvallis laboratory improvements alone are estimated to save
980,000 gallons of water per year.
o Vacuum Pump Seal Projects: AWBERC is in the process of replacing its liquid-ring vacuum pump.
This project is expected to be completed in FY 2010 and is projected to save 200,000 gallons of
water per year.
o Condensate Recovery Systems: EPA's New Main laboratory in RTF, North Carolina, generates up to 8
million gallons annually in condensate from air handling unit cooling coils. EPA is evaluating
how RTF New Main can collect this condensate and route it to the cooling towers at the CUP
that serves RTP New Main. (EPA does not own the CUP that provides New Main with chilled
water). The study will evaluate the most economical approach to deliver the condensate to the
CUP cooling towers either directly over land or by feeding it to a lake between the RTP New
Main facility and the CUP cooling tower, then pumping the same amount of water from the lake.
The ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland, also completed a project in June 2009 to capture air handler
condensate and route it to a cooling tower. The initial engineering evaluation indicates that it may
be possible to capture up to 660,000 gallons per year. This water will significantly offset the
consumption of potable water for cooling tower make-up and avoid costs of approximately
$7,500 per year, offering a payback of less than one year.
o Faucet Replacements or Retrofits: Because high-efficiency faucets with a maximum rate of 0.5 gallons
per minute (gpm) are well-suited for use in hand washing in office and laboratory restrooms and
supported by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard A112.18.1-2005,
EPA launched a program to replace or retrofit lavatory faucets in all of its facilities. Ten EPA
facilities replaced or retrofitted their lavatory faucets in FY 2009, resulting in water savings of
more than 170,000 gallons per year.
o Toilets and Urinals Replacements: AWBERC began replacing older toilets and urinals in its main
building in FY 2009 with high-efficiency models and expects to complete restroom renovations
in FY 2010, with a projected savings of 420,000 gallons of water per year. The remainder of the
restrooms in the 10-story building will be renovated as funding is available, and are expected to
save an additional 1.8 million gallons per year.
o Eliminating Single-Pass Cooling: At AWBERC, EPA identified an opportunity to eliminate single-
pass cooling in the cold water booster pump used to maintain pressure on the domestic cold
water supply system. This project has not been funded yet but is anticipated to save
approximately 600,000 gallons of water annually. At NHEERL, EPA identified a project to
eliminate the use of single-pass cooling in a laboratory electron microscope, which could save
530,000 gallons per year. Other projects to eliminate single-pass cooling have been identified at
the Testing and Evaluation Center and the Center Hill Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio; the Large
Lakes Research Station in Grosse He, Michigan; and at MED in Duluth, Minnesota.
ENERGY STAR
In addition to requiring all new major office leases to obtain the ENERGY STAR label for
buildings after their first year of operation, EPA recently included a requirement in all new leases for
major office buildings to achieve the ENERGY STAR label every three years. As a result of these
requirements, EPA is close to achieving its goal of having all its regional office buildings be
ENERGY STAR labeled. Currently, nine of 10 regional offices and EPA's Potomac Yard One
Headquarters satellite building have achieved the ENERGY STAR building label (the ENERGY
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 23 December 15, 2009
-------
STAR building labeling program does not cover laboratory facilities). Recent developments in
ENERGY STAR labeling include:
o EPA Headquarters—Arlington, Virginia: A variety of energy-saving design features allowed
Potomac Yard One, a privately owned building leased through GSA, to achieve the ENERGY
STAR label in 2007 and again in October 2008. A highly reflective ENERGY STAR-qualified
roof reduces the amount of solar heat absorbed by the building, decreasing the building's cooling
load while minimizing the heat island effect of the building.
o Region 7 Office—Kansas City, Kansas: EPA's Region 7 office received the ENERGY STAR label in
FY 2009, in part due to energy efficiency improvements from the installation of a small chiller
that serves 24-hour-per-day loads and allows two large, main chillers to shut down as appropriate.
Motion sensors control general lighting in the building while timers control the exterior lighting.
Sustainable Building Design and High Performance Buildings
Sustainable Building Implementation Plan Updated
In FY 2009, EPA continued to refine its Sustainable Building Implementation Plan (SBIP). The
SBIP ensures that EPA takes the most efficient and effective path toward meeting E.O. 13423 and
other federal sustainable building requirements. It outlines EPA's tools, processes, and procedures
for implementing these requirements in its building projects, including the GreenCheck process
(described below), green architecture and engineering firm requirements, mandatory commissioning,
up-to-date Architecture and Engineering (A/E) Guidelines, continuously revised Best Practice
Environmental Lease Provisions, and sustainable master planning.
On December 1, 2008, the Interagency Sustainability Working Group (ISWG) released an update of
the Guiding Principles for Sustainable New Construction and Major Renovations and of the Guiding Principles
for Sustainable Existing Buildings. EPA updated its SBIP in FY 2009 to reflect these new guiding
principles and changes in previously released regulations, executive orders, and guidance. EPA
submitted its required annual update to the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE)
in August 2009.
Strategy for 15 Percent of Existing Buildings Meeting the Guiding Principles
by FY 2015
EPA has implemented four main strategies to ensure that 15 percent of its existing buildings meet
the high performance sustainable green building requirements by FY 2015:
1. Achieve third-party certification under a multi-attribute green building standard developed
by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited organization. EPA used this
strategy to meet the Guiding Principles at four major buildings. To use this approach, a
building had to be registered before October 1, 2008, and eventually certified. The U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED rating system is considered a multi-attribute
standard, and the USGBC is an ANSI-accredited organization.
2. Ensure that all new facilities construction projects comply with the Guiding Principles for
Sustainable Neiv Construction and Major Renovation.
3. Target facilities that will fund mechanical system upgrades to also receive funding for water
conservation projects. EPA will then focus at these targeted facilities on meeting the
remaining guiding principles through operational changes such as O&M improvements and
indoor environmental quality program implementation.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 24 December 15, 2009
-------
4. Continue to assess the Agency's existing "non-targeted" facilities for the potential to meet
the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Existing Buildings.
Currently, 5.3 percent of EPA's FRPP inventory meets the guiding principles through Strategy 1. In
addition, seven FRPP facilities are undergoing major renovations or are existing buildings that will
be assessed for the feasibility of upgrades to meet the guiding principles through Strategy 3.
Non-targeted buildings will continue to be subject to EPA's national energy conservation, renewable
energy, advanced metering, water conservation, and stormwater managemen programs, as well as
operating policy and contracting policy initiatives.
EPA revised its Strategy for 15 Percent of Existing Buildings Meeting the Guiding Principles by FY
2015 and delivered it to OFEE in December 2009.
Building Sustainability Assessments
In FY 2009, OMB and the OFEE introduced new requirements for sustainable building assessments
via the Environmental Stewardship Scorecard. To perform these assessments as efficiently as
possible, EPA coordinated its EISA assessments with corresponding sustainability assessments and
evaluated facilities against the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable
Buildings. EPA performed assessments at the following six facilities from April to June 2009:
o ESC—Fort Meade, Maryland
o AWBERC—Cincinnati, Ohio
o New England Regional Laboratory—Chelmsford, Massachusetts
o MED—Duluth, Minnesota
o New Main—RTP, North Carolina
o Human Studies Laboratory—Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The assessments focused on how each facility employs integrated O&M principles; optimizes energy
performance; protects and conserves water; enhances indoor environmental quality; and reduces the
environmental impact of materials.
EPA's assessment team determined the level of implementation of each of 26 guiding principle sub-
topics using one of four scores: 1) fully implemented, 2) significant process made, 3) introductory
steps taken, and 4) not currently addressed. The team determined that the six facilities have been
proactive in their approaches to sustainability and are already meeting many of the guiding
principles. The team identified opportunities for improvement, including developing comprehensive
building O&M plans; developing moisture control strategies; creating procurement policies to track
low-emitting material, recycled, and biobased content for all purchases; and developing phase-out
plans for ozone-depleting compounds. These sustainability assessments inform EPA's Strategy for
15 Percent of Existing Buildings Meeting the Guiding Principles by FY 2015.
Implementing and Refining GreenCheck
EPA initiated GreenCheck in FY 2006 as a system to clearly and formally identify environmental
performance goals for each new major EPA facility and each major construction project. Beginning
in FY 2009, EPA transformed the GreenCheck process into a much more rigorous, highly
structured, and detailed program to ensure that all real property projects meet the numerous
environmental requirements of EPAct 2005, E.O. 13423, EISA, and the Guiding Principles, as well
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 25 December 15, 2009
-------
as the Agency's own policy choices as reflected in its Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions
and updated A/E Guidelines. More specifically, GreenCheck:
o Establishes discrete environmental performance goals for each project that should be considered
during design, construction, renovation, and operation of each new major lease or construction
project.
o Reviews all real property-related construction, repair, and improvement projects, as well as lease
acquisitions (via GSA) that cost more than $85,000, affect 10,000 GSF, or increase the
impervious area by more than 5,000 GSF.
o Confirms that these projects meet federal environmental design requirements and EPA
guidelines.
GreenCheck consolidates these various requirements and guidelines into a user-friendly and time-
saving checklist that ensures EPA facility projects meet all applicable federal requirements and EPA
policy.
Of the 57 projects that went through the GreenCheck process in FY 2009, 15 were below the
thresholds for funding or square footage, and thus completed only the GreenCheck cover sheet. The
other 42 projects have fully completed GreenCheck forms on file. Seven of these GreenChecks
involved lease expirations. The remaining 35 are listed in Table 1 in Appendix H. Evaluated projects
in FY 2009 included major laboratory renovations, infrastructure design and construction, central
utility plant improvements, boiler replacements, large space alternation projects, and roof
replacements, among others.
A/E Guidelines
EPA uses a Facilities Manual composed of four distinct yet complementary resources for planning
and managing its facilities. The four volumes are meant to be used simultaneously to determine
design intent, requirements, and the ongoing evaluation of all EPA facilities. The Agency invested
significant resources in FY 2009 to revise Volume 2 of the manual, the A/E Guidelines, to capture
lessons learned from EPA's Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions and to include
requirements from EISA and the updated Guiding Principles.
Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions
EPA continues its program to continually update its Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions
based on lessons learned from recently completed lease projects with GSA, new understanding in
various conservation policy areas, new technologies, better environmental performance metrics, and
improved environmental performance measures.
Energy Efficiency/Sustainable Design in Lease Provisions
Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions
EPA compiles environmental provisions in a standard GSA Solicitation for Offer (SFO) format,
which it uses for new lease solicitations. This document includes provisions to pursue compliance
with EPAct 2005, E.O. 13423, EISA, and the Guiding Principles, and to obtain LEED certification
for new and existing buildings. The provisions are continually updated as lessons learned from
recent building projects suggest improvements to the provisions. Significant revisions took place in
FY 2009 based on work done for EPA's Seattle and San Francisco regional office SFOs. The Best
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 26 December 15, 2009
-------
Practice Environmental Lease Provisions also set forth EPA's basic building evaluation criteria used
to evaluate buildings on sustainability, design quality, and functionality.
Currently three regional office building leases are ending; these leases house the Region 7 office in
Kansas City, Kansas; the Region 9 office in San Francisco, California; and the Region 10 office in
Seattle, Washington. A competitive acquisition process is underway but has not been completed.
The Best Practice Environmental Lease Provisions were used extensively in this work.
Distributed Generation
National Onsite Renewable Energy Study
In FY 2009, EPA assessed the Agency's laboratory facilities to evaluate their suitability for
renewable energy projects above and beyond projects already underway at individual facilities. The
study included reviews of geographic and regional data available on solar, wind, and geothermal
potential to identify which facilities had the highest potential for each type of renewable energy, as
well as building systems analysis and site documentation for each facility. The study concluded that
EPA could meet 9.8 percent of its energy needs through renewables, at an estimated cost of $115
million.
The report also indicates that ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) appear to be the most promising
renewable energy technology for EPA facilities. EPA is pursuing GSHP projects at the Western
Ecology Division Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon; the Atlantic Ecology Division Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island; and the Region 6 Laboratory in Houston, Texas. For more information
on the projects identified by the study, see Appendix I.
Purchased Power Agreement in Edison, New Jersey
In FY 2009, EPA issued a Request for Proposals through the Defense Energy Support Center
(DESC) for a purchased power agreement (PPA) contract to install a photovoltaic (PV) array at its
Region 2 Laboratory in Edison, New Jersey. EPA is planning to install the array on a 105,000
square-foot site, where it is projected to provide approximately 725 kilowatts (kW) of electricity, or
1,587,750 kWh annually, to offset approximately 33 percent of the annual electrical needs of the
Edison laboratory. Through the PPA, a solar services provider will build and maintain the PV array,
and EPA will commit to purchasing the renewable electricity that it generates. New Jersey's
considerable tax incentives for PV installations and the availability of open space (approximately
500,000 square feet) make the Region 2 facility an ideal site for this project. EPA would like to
award the PPA contract by Spring 2010, with the expectation that the solar PV system would go
online in 2011. Upon completion, the Edison PV installation would far surpass in size and
production any existing EPA onsite renewable energy project.
Installed Onsite Renewable Energy Projects
EPA's existing renewable energy projects as of FY 2009 are described in Table 4.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 27 December 15, 2009
-------
Table 4. FY 2009 Onsite Renewable Energy Generation
„ .,. ... Type of Energy Generated Start
facility LOCatlOn _ , , _ . • mrnnnn n
J Renewable Project in FY 2009 Date
New England Regional Laboratory
NCC
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Center
Region 8 Laboratory
Region 10 Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
Laboratory
Chelmsford, MA
RTF, NC
Ada, OK
Golden, CO
Manchester, WA
Corvallis, OR
Solar awning
Solar array
Ground source heat
pump
Solar wall
Solar array
Solar array
689 kWh
99,364 kWh
29,598 million Btu
1.3 8 million Btu
2,180 kWh
4,598 kWh
2001
2002
2004
2002
1999
2004
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
In January 2008, to better understand and manage its carbon footprint, EPA voluntarily began
developing a GHG emissions inventory, following the GHG Inventory Guidance developed by
EPA's Climate Leaders Program. The Agency's initial GHG emissions inventory quantified direct
and indirect stationary emissions associated with energy consumption at the Agency's 34 reporting
facilities for three of the six major GHGs—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O)—and in FY 2009, EPA expanded its inventory to include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The inventory accounted for the efforts that EPA has made to "adjust" its
emissions (per Climate Leaders methodology) through green power and REC purchases. The
elements composing the inventory are further described in Table 5.
Table 5. Elements of EPA's Voluntary GHG Emissions Inventory
Mobile, or Scope 1,
Emissions
Onsite combustion of natural gas, fuel oil, propane, and kerosene for heating and
onsite power generation; fuel combustion in fleet and tactical vehicles; fugitive
emissions from stationary and mobile air-conditioning equipment and building fire
suppression equipment; and process emissions, including onsite waste incineration,
laboratory fume hood testing, and mission-oriented research.
Indirect Stationary, or
Scope 2, Emissions
Indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity, steam, chilled water, and
high-temperature hot water.
Inventory Adjustment From
Renewable Energy
Purchases
EPA has a long history of leading the federal government in supporting the
renewable energy market. This commitment to developing clean energy generation
has resulted in avoiding GHG emissions from combusting fossil fuel at
conventional power plants. EPA uses the Climate Leaders-approved methodology
to quantify the environmental benefits of its renewable energy purchases.
As a result of its calculations, EPA has estimated its FY 2003 Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to be
155,472 MTCO2e. As a direct result of Agencywide energy efficiency improvements since FY 2003,
these emissions in FY 2009 totaled 139,943 MTCO2e—a reduction of 15,528 MTCO2e, or
approximately 10 percent, from the Agency's FY 2003 baseline (see Figure 5). Furthermore, under
the Climate Leaders' reporting methodology, the Agency's purchases of green power and RECs
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
28
December 15, 2009
-------
enable EPA to adjust its total Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to 139,201 MTCO2e in FY 2003 and
to 53,903 MTCO2e in FY 2009. These data indicate that EPA has reduced its net Scope 1 and 2
GHG emissions by 85,298 MTCO2e, or approximately 61 percent, in the six years since FY 2003.
In FY 2009, EPA began to quantify its Scope 3 emissions associated with energy consumption at the
Agency's non-reporting facilities (approximately 140 offices and other leased facilities around the
country). Base information comes from three sources:
o GSA's Energy Center of Expertise, which provided EPA with FY 2003, FY 2007, and FY 2008
energy consumption data for GSA-owned facilities.
o EPA's multi-year effort to include mandatory energy and water use reporting requirements by
private landlords in GSA leases of space for EPA.
o Directly from cooperative building management representatives in buildings with older GSA
leases without mandatory reporting.
The new data set allowed EPA to expand the scope of its inventory beyond the Agency's owned
facilities and quantify the environmental impacts of EPA's day-to-day operations more
comprehensively. Scope 3 emissions from EPA regional offices, Headquarters buildings, and
miscellaneous leased support spaces are just one—but a significant—part of EPA's Scope 3 GHG
inventory efforts.
Figure 5. EPA's GHG Emissions in FY 2003, 2007-2009
3-
5
O
33
IV 2003
FY 2007
FY 200S
FY 2009
O Emission Reductions from Improved Enetgv I:! Ificicnoy
O Emission Reductions from Green Power Pufckases
• Net Emissions
Note EPA elected 10 uie FY 2003 as the base year For is GHG emissons inventory initiated in 200S to align with the
base year against which annual energy reduction requLremoisls arc outlined in E O 13423 and EISA EPA has not
developed annual GHG emission inventories for FY 2004-C6
EPA Joins Climate Leaders
In May 2009, EPA joined the Agency's Climate
Leaders Program as an official partner. In addition to
engaging in one of EPA's own partnership programs,
EPA demonstrated its commitment to improving its
environmental performance by agreeing to set an
CLIMATED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA FY2009 Annual Energy and Water Report
29
December 15, 2009
-------
emissions reduction target within two years. Consistent with the requirements of Climate Leaders
partnership, EPA developed a comprehensive Inventory Management Plan (IMP), which provides a
transparent and comprehensive record of the data sources and methodology for quantifying the
Agency's emissions for FY 2003 and FY 2007 through FY 20093.
Testing the Public Sector Protocol
With the growing momentum and interest in GHG accounting in the public sector, EPA recognized
the need for an established public-sector GHG accounting protocol. In FY 2009, the Agency
participated in a stakeholder review of the new Public Sector Protocol (PSP) for GHG emissions
accounting, developed by the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) in partnership with the World
Resources Institute (WRI) and DOE. The Agency is performing a "road test" of this new protocol
to evaluate its suitability for federal agencies.
More GHG Inventory Work From E.G. 13514
Having expanded the scope of its GHG emissions inventory in FY 2009, EPA gleaned a broader
perspective of the environmental impacts of various fuels used to condition buildings that the
Agency occupies (both owned and leased) and to operate its fleet and tactical vehicles. EPA's
proactive initiative to develop its GHG emissions inventory represents an important early step
forward for the federal government. The Agency is now poised to share valuable information as
other agencies seek to develop GHG inventories, set goals, and reduce their emissions to meet the
requirements of E.O. 13514.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
EISA Section 438 requires federal agencies to maintain or restore a site's predevelopment hydrology
when projects impact more than 5,000 square feet of a site. In FY 2009, EPA continued to work on
its intra-agency Green Infrastructure Program, involving the Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds, Non-Point Source Branch, and Office of Wastewater Management, Municipal
Branch. EPA also developed draft design specifications in its facility manual for stormwater
management at the Agency's facilities and continued implementing sustainable stormwater
management and low impact development (LID) projects such as:
o Inventorying Stormwater Management Techniques: In FY 2009, EPA compiled an inventory of
stormwater management systems and practices at its facilities, which will allow EPA to continue
identifying retrofit opportunities across the Agency to help satisfy the requirement of E.O. 13423
that 15 percent of existing building inventory meet the Guiding Principles established by the
Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings MOU by 2015.
o Region 2 Laboratory—Edison, New Jersey: In FY 2009, EPA began to upgrade a major parking lot,
enabling a long-term study to evaluate the quality of the lot's runoff from various types of
surfaces, including porous asphalt, porous concrete, and porous paver blocks. EPA's Office of
Research and Development compiled extensive documentation during construction to support
planned long-term research activity. The project was completed in early FY 2010.
3 EPA uses Climate Leaders protocol for GHG emissions estimates, which produces higher GHG emissions than
DOE's methodology. Refer to the Appendix E for more detailed GHG emissions information.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 30 December 15, 2009
-------
o AWBERC—Cincinnati, Ohio: As a training tool for EPA architects and engineers, and to assist
EPA's Office of Water (OW) in ground testing its stormwater management protocols, EPA
asked a civil design firm to re-envision the AWBERC site using as many LID strategies as
possible. The resulting "Not For Construction" design document serves as a teaching tool and
reference for designers and informed OW's work on stormwater management guidance. LID
practices in the design include: non-structural sand filter, vegetated filter box, vegetated swale,
bioretention basin, green roofs, porous concrete pavement, permeable open joint pavers, porous
asphalt pavement, cisterns, and sustainable planting area. The hypothetical design document is
available on the Greening EPA Web site for research and training purposes.
o Stormwater Training. EPA trained its facility managers and other personnel about how to use LID
and sustainable stormwater management techniques, giving a presentation on stormwater
management, wet-weather green infrastructure, and LID at the May 2009 Energy and Facilities
Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA is also developing a catalog of fact sheets that describe the
stormwater management practices and provide an example design detail for each.
o Atlantic Ecology Division Laboratory—Narragansett, Rhode Island: A 30-year-old, 3,000 square foot
roof was replaced with a green roof expected to reduce heating and cooling energy costs and
provide stormwater mitigation. Vegetated material in a planting media was installed over a
membrane. The project, completed in September 2009, includes sustainable materials and an
irrigation system for maintenance during drought periods.
o National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development—Athens, Georgia: EPA
created a stormwater management pond to capture stormwater runoff and overland flow. The
Agency also installed a retaining wall adjacent to the stormwater pond as an extension of a
landscaped barrier wall.
RECYCLING AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
Strive for 45 Initiative
In FY 2009, ahead of an E.O. 13423 requirement that all federal agencies set a waste diversion goal
by the year 2010, EPA launched Strive for 45, a campaign to divert 45 percent of all waste generated
Agencywide from the municipal solid waste stream through recycling, reuse, donation, composting,
and other waste reduction efforts. Strive for 45 provided facility managers at laboratories and offices
throughout the Agency with technical assistance resources and outreach materials to help improve
recycling and other waste diversion programs. To help invigorate recycling efforts Agencywide, EPA
started the Recycling Rally, a competition between facilities to reduce waste and increase recycling.
Based on data submitted for FY 2008, EPA facilities achieved a 47 percent waste diversion rate,
representing an increase of 7 percent over EPA's FY 2007 rate.
Recycling and Pollution Prevention Assessments
In FY 2009, EPA conducted recycling and pollution prevention assessments at four of its facilities:
the Region 8 Laboratory in Golden, Colorado; the Region 8 Office in Denver, Colorado; the
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory in Montgomery, Alabama; and the Gulf
Ecology Division (GED) Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida. The assessments reviewed each
facility's existing waste reduction program, identified and provided opportunities for improvement,
EPA FY2009 AnnualEnergy and Water Report 31 December 15, 2009
-------
shared best practices with other facilities, and collected recycling metrics to factor into the
Agencywide recycling rate.
EDUCATION FOR OTHERS
Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21®)
Labs21 is the premiere program and conference for energy-efficient and sustainable design of
laboratories in the United States. Labs21 education efforts are jointly sponsored by EPA, DOE, and
the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2SL), the nonfederal conference co-
sponsor.
The Labs21 Annual Conference includes in-depth technical discussions on issues faced by
laboratory owners, users, designers, and builders, including mechanical systems configurations,
controls, commissioning, O&M, and other sustainability issues. This year's conference was from
September 22 to 24, 2009, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The event was a success, attracting more than
607 laboratory architects, engineers, federal employees, builders, facility managers, owners, and other
laboratory professionals, including 24 EPA employees. The conference included three tracks of
technical sessions and two tracks of focused symposia that covered topics such as sub-metering and
benchmarking, O&M, and climate-neutral research facilities. EPA presented on the Agency's water
conservation and commissioning efforts at AWBERC during the conference.
I2SL also helped EPA coordinate Labs21 Design Courses in FY 2009. Labs21 courses trained 322
people in 15 different workshops across the country in FY 2009.
Five new partners joined Labs21 in FY 2009, bringing the total number of partners to 65 federal and
private sector organizations, including 13 federal agencies that receive information and technical
assistance for nearly 50 federal facilities. FY 2009 energy, emissions, and dollar savings from partner
projects are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6. Energy, Emissions, and Cost Savings from 17 Labs21 Partner Projects in FY 2008
Energy Reduction
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Reduction
Avoided Cost Savings
353,049 billion Btu — equal to the average annual electricity use of more than
9,200 U.S. homes.
96 million pounds — the equivalent of removing nearly 8,000 passenger
vehicles from the road and saving nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline.
$7.9 million
In addition to the annual conference and workshops described earlier, the Labs21 Web site
(www.labs21century.gov) provides additional information on the program, including regularly
updated conference details, opportunities to join the program as a Partner or Supporter, access to
the online Tool Kit, and a Laboratory Equipment Efficiency "wiki." During FY 2009, Labs21 added
a best practices guide on chilled beams to the Tool Kit. The Web site received nearly 2.8 million
visits in FY 2009.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 32 December 15, 2009
-------
Laboratories as a category of buildings still lack good energy benchmarking data that can be used to
help identify opportunities for better facility design and operation. EPA's Labs21 program has been
working to build benchmarking data for both public and private sector laboratories via the Labs21
Energy Benchmarking Tool. The benchmarking data in this tool cover overall building performance
metrics (thousand Btu per GSF per year), as well as building system metrics such as plug loads (watts
per square foot). To help increase the available data set and better understand how EPA
laboratories' energy performance compares with that of similar facilities, in FY 2009 The Agency
entered FY 2008 energy consumption data for its reporting laboratories into the Labs21
benchmarking tool. This tool allows facility managers to compare the more up-to-date energy
performance of their facilities to similar facilities and thereby help identify potential energy cost
savings opportunities for the Agency.
GovEnergy Conference and Federal Environmental Summit (FES)/GreenGov
GHG Emissions Track
EPA contributed financial and staff resources for the annual GovEnergy Conference in Providence,
Rhode Island, presenting topics such as federal requirements for specialty buildings, environmentally
preferable purchasing, benchmarking for data centers, water efficiency, and building sustainability
measurement. EPA helped plan and coordinate a "green jobs" seminar in conjunction with
GovEnergy 2009 by researching relevant Rhode Island businesses and agencies that could help
transition local unemployed workers back into these important careers. EPA also managed a booth
at the conference, sharing information with attendees on various program initiatives, including its
Labs21 program.
In June 2009, SFPB and DOE's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) led a three-day track
on GHG emissions at FES. The track included an overview of the current domestic climate
legislation, the status of regional GHG emissions tracking efforts, a workshop on GHG emissions
inventory development, several federal agencies' GHG inventory development lessons learned, and
other related topics. EPA has again joined with PPPL to manage the GHG track at GreenGov 2010.
Numerous EPA employees attended both GovEnergy and GreenGov.
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 33 December 15, 2009
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
EPA FY 2009 Annual Energy and Water Report 34 December 15, 2009
-------
Appendix A:
FY 2009 Data Report
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency FY 2009 Energy Management Performance Summary
Goal Performance
Energy Management Requirement
Reduction in energy intensity in facilities
subject to the NECPA/E.O. 13423 goals
FY 2003
Btu/GSF
388,400
FY 2009
Btu/GSF
293,541
Percent Change
2003 - 2009
-24.4%
FY 2009 Goal
Target
-12.0%
Renewable Energy Requirement
Eligible renewable electricity use as a
percentage of total electricity use
Renewable
Electricity Use
(MWH)
147,605.7
Total Electricity
Use
(MWH)
127,161.9
Percentage
116.1%
FY 2009 Goal
Target
3.0%
Water Intensity Reduction Goal
Reduction in potable water consumption
intensity
FY 2007
Gallon/GSF
35.0
FY 2009
Gallon/GSF
31.2
Percent Change
2007 - 2009
-10.8%
FY 2009 Goal
Target
-4.0%
Metering of Electricity Use
Standard Electricity Meters in FY 2009
Advanced Electricity Meters in FY 2009
Total Electricity Meters in FY 2009
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Mete red
32
3
35
Cumulative % of
Electricity
Metered
64.7%
35.3%
100.0%
Cumulative % of
Appropriate
Buildings
Metered
91 .4%
8.6%
100.0%
FY 201 2 Goal
Target
100%
Maximum Extent
Practicable
Federal Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
Percent of new building designs started since
beginning of FY 2007 that are 30 percent more
energy efficient than relevant code, where life-
cycle cost effective:
Percent of
New Building
Designs
N/A
FY 2007 forward
Goal Target
100%
Investments in Energy and Water Management
Sources of Investment
Direct obligations for facility energy efficiency
improvements
Investment value of ESPC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year
Investment value of UESC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year
Total
Investment Value
(Thou. $)
$3,875.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,875.0
Anticipated
Annual Savings
(Million Btu)
5,696.5
0.0
0.0
5,696.5
Total investment as a percentage of total facilty
energy costs
Financed (ESPC/UESC) investment as a
percentage of total facilty energy costs
Percentage
18.7%
0.0%
-------
Agency:
Date:
FY 2009 ENERGY MANAGEMENT DATA REPORT
Karen Murray
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
12/15/2009
Prepared by:
Phone:
202-564-2539
PART 1: ENERGY/WATER CONSUMPTION AND COST DATA
1-1. NECPA/E.0.13423 Goal Subject Buildings
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Purch. Renew. Electric.
Purch. Renew. Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
MWH
BBtu
FY 2009 Goal Subject Buildings
Gross Square Feet (Thousands)
Goal Subject Buildings
FY 2003 Baseline (Btu/GSF)
Annual
Consumption
126,777.9
157.9
382,691.7
7.0
0.0
37.1
335.1
384.0
0.0
Total Costs:
3,846.1
388,400
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
$10,299.0
$283.8
$3,911.8
$16.1
$0.0
$1,443.2
$4,720.0
$29.1
$0.0
$20,702.9
Unit Cost ($)
$0.08 /kWh
$1.80 /gallon
$10.22 /Thou Cu Ft
$2.31 /gallon
#DIV/0! IS. Ton
$38.90 /MMBtu
$14.08 /MMBtu
$0.08 /kWh
#DIV/0! /MMBtu
Total:
Btu/GSF:
Btu/GSF w/ RE
Purchase Credit
Btu/GSF w/ RE &
Source Btu Credit
Site-Delivered
Btu (Billion)
432.57
21.9
394.6
0.7
0.0
37.1
335.1
1.3
0.0
1,223.2
318,049
296,449
293,541
Est. Source Btu
(Billion)
1,502.3
21.9
394.6
0.7
0.0
51.6
335.1
2,306.2
599,613
Est. GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
(13,015)
1,606
20,971
41
0
4,948
44,692
59,242
* The estimated GHG emissions are calculated using DOE's default equations and emission factors provided as part of the data report template. Starting in FY 2008, EPA began
developing an internal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory and quarterly reporting system, representing an initiative to track and report the Agency's carbon footprint. This
approach is discussed in the narrative of the FY 2008 Annual Report to DOE. Please see Appendix E for additional information about and calculation of EPA's FY 2009 Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions.
1-2. NECPA/EO. 13423 Goal Excluded Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Purch. Renew. Electric.
Purch. Renew. Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
MWH
BBtu
FY 2009 Excluded Facilities
Gross Square Feet (Thousands)
Goal Excluded Facilities
FY 2003 Baseline (Btu/GSF)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
0
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Unit Cost ($)
8DIV/0! AWh
#DIV/0! /gallon
#DIV/0! /Thou Cu Ft
#DIV/0! /gallon
#DIV/0! IS. Ton
#DIV/0! /MMBtu
8DIV/0! /MMBtu
#DIV/0! AWh
8DIV/0! /MMBtu
Total:
Btu/GSF:
Btu/GSF w/ RE
Purchase Credit
Btu/GSF w/ RES
Site-Delivered
Btu (Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Est. Source Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
Est. GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
1-3. Non-Fleet Vehicles and Other Equipment (Does not include Fleet Vehicle Data Captured by FAST System)
Auto Gasoline
Diesel-Distillate
LPG/Propane
Aviation Gasoline
Jet Fuel
Navy Special
Other
Consumption
Units
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Gal.
BBtu
Annual
Consumption
8.0
182.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
$29.0
$360.0
$2.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$391.0
Unit Cost ($)
$3.63 /gallon
$1.98 /gallon
$2.00 /gallon
#DIV/0! /gallon
8DIV/0! /gallon
#DIV/0! /gallon
8DIV/0! /MMBtu
Btu (Billion)
1.0
25.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
Est. GHG
Emissions
(MTC02)
71
1,847
6
0
0
0
1,923
Optional 1 -3a. Fleet Vehicle Consumption and Costs Captured by the FAST System
(Input reflects format of Section IV, Part C, Annual Fuel Consumption Report, by Fuel Type of FAST SF 82 - Aggregate Combined Report)
Description
Biodiesel
Diesel
Electric
E-85
Gasoline
Hydrogen
M-85
LPG
NG
Other
TOTAL
Consumption
Units
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
GEG
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Annual Cost
(Actual $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu (Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
(New renewable energy is from projects placed in service after January 1, 1999. Include projects that did not retain RECs if they qualify under the grandfather clause.)
Renewable energy project types in service during FY 2009, by age and
source
Electricity from A/ew Solar projects (MWH)
Electricity from A/ew Wind projects (MWH)
Electricity from A/ew Biomass projects (MWH)
Electricity from A/ew Landfill Gas projects (MWH)
Electricity from A/ew Geothermal projects (MWH)
Electricity from A/ew Hydro/Ocean projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Sojar projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Wind projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Biomass projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Landfill Gas projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Geothermal projects (MWH)
Electricity from Old Hydro/Ocean projects (MWH)
Natural Gas from A/ew Landfill/Biomass projects (Million Btu)
Renewable Thermal Energy from A/ew projects (Million Btu)
Other A/ew Renewable Energy (Specify Type) (Million Btu)
Natural Gas from Old Landfill/Biomass projects (Million Btu)
Renewable Thermal Energy from Old projects (Million Btu)
Other Old Renewable Energy (Specify Type) (Million Btu)
Total New Renewable Electricity (MWH)
Total Old Renewable Electricity (MWH)
Total New Non-Electric Renewable Energy (Million Btu)
Total Old Non-Electric Renewable Energy (Million Btu)
Total Renewable Energy Generation (Million Btu)
Number of Projects
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
7
Annual Energy
Produced
119.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29,599.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
119.3
0.0
29,599.5
0.0
30,006.6
Energy Produced
on Federal or Indian
Land and Used at a
Federal Facility
119.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29,599.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
119.3
1-5. '
(This energy is only counted toward the renewable energy goal if the agency has enough new RECs to qualify for the on-site bonus.)
Renewable energy reported here comes from projects: 1) placed in service after 1/1/1999 (New); 2) where RECs have not been retained by
the government; 3) where the amount has not been reported elsewhere on this data report; and 4) where the energy or RECs have not been
sold to another agency that is counting it toward their renewable energy goal. (MWH)
Renewable energy reported here must come from projects: 1) placed in service before 1/1/1999 (Old); 2) where RECs have not been
retained by the government; 3) where the amount has not been reported elsewhere on this data report; and 4) where the energy or RECs
have not been sold to another agency that is counting it toward their renewable energy goal. (MWH)
Amount Produced
or Used
0.0
0.0
Amount Qualified
for Goal
0.0
0.0
-------
1-6. RENEWABLE ENERGY/RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATE PURCHASES IN FY 2009
(New renewable energy is from resources developed after January 1, 1999)
Type of Renewable Energy Purchase (Two rows are provided for each
type. Insert additional rows as necessary for purchases of same type for
different end-use categories (Goal or Excluded) or purchase terms (Short
Long). Insert rows between each color-coded category.)
Total Amount
Purchased
(MWH)
Total Amount
Purchased (Million
Btu)
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
Portion ofTotal
Purchased from
Projects on Federal
or Indian Lands
FY 2009 Goal Application
Renewable Energy Goal (RE)
Energy Efficiency Goal (EE) Credit
Purchase Term (Enter:
Short or Long)
End Use Category
(Enter: Goal or
Excluded)
Total Amount
Purchased for
Goal Buildings
(Billion Btu)
Total Amount
Purchased for
Excluded Fac.
(Billion Btu)
State or Region of Generation
or Source
Electricity from New Renewable Source
Southwestern MN
Corvallis (Main)
Electricity from Old Renewable Source
RECs from New Renewable Source
Long
FY 2009 Blanket Green Power Purchases
TX, FL, NY, GA, WA, CA, LA,
KY, SD,OK, KS, ND, GA, Ml,
I, IN, ND
RECs from Old Renewable Source
X
RECs from Old Renewable Source
X
Non-Electric Energy from New Renewable Source
X
Non-Electric Energy from New Renewable Source
X
Non-Electric Energy from Old Renewable Source
X
Non-Electric Energy from Old Renewable Source
Total Purchases of New Renewable Electricity
Total Purchases of New RECs
Bonus for Purchases from New Projects
on Federal or Indian Land
Total Purchases of Old Renewable Electricity
Total Purchases of Old RECs
Eligible Short-Term Purchase
Goal Building EE Credit (BBtu):
Eligible Long-Term Purchase
Goal Building EE Credit (BBtu):
Total Goal Building EE Credit (BBtu):
11.4
83.1
Eligible Short-Term Purchase
Excluded Fac. EE Credit (BBtu):
Eligible Long-Term Purchase
Excluded Fac. EE Credit (BBtu):
Total Excluded Fac. EE Credit (BBtu):
Total All Purchases
1-7. GOAL-ELIGIBLE RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY USE AS
A PERCENTAGE OF FACILITY ELECTRICITY USE
(Calculated from input above per FEMP Renewable Energy Guidance)
Components of Eligible RE Use
Eligible Renewable Electricity Total
New Renewable Electricity (without Bonus)
Bonus, Federal or Indian Land
Eligible Old Renewable Electricity
Renewable
Electricity Use
(MWH)
147,605.7
147,486.3
119.3
0.0
Total Facility
Electricity Use
(MWH)
127,161.9
RE as a
Percentage of
Electricity Use
116.1%
1-8. ALL RENEWABLE ENERGY USE (INCLUDING NON-ELECTRIC)
AS A PERCENTAGE OF FACILITY ELECTRICITY USE (WITHOUT BONUS)
(Calculated from input above for information only)
All Renewable
Energy Use
(Billion Btu)
532.8
Total Facility
Electricity Use
(Billion Btu)
433.9
RE as a
Percentage of
Energy Use
122.8%
-------
1-9. WATER USE INTENSITY AND COST
Potable Water
Buildings & Facilities Subject to Water Goal
Annual
Consumption
(Million Gallons)
120.0
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
$1,000.5
Facility Gross
Square Feet
(Thou.)
3,846.1
Approx. percentage of reported water consumption that is estimated:
Is the FY 2007 agency water intensity baseline preliminary or fma
7
Gallons per
Gross Square
Foot
31.2
Percent
0%
Final
* See Appendix D for additional information about revisions to EPA's FY 2007 Water Use Baseline.
PART 2: ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
2-1. DIRECT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
Direct obligations for facility energy
efficiency improvements, including facility
surveys/audits
Estimated annual savings anticipated from
obligations
FY 2009
(Million Rtin
5,696.5
(Thou. $)
$3,875.0
$48.3
Projected FY 2010
(Million Btu)
23,972.2
(Thou. $)
$10,229.8
$351.7
2-2. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS (ESPC)
Number of ESPC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year & annual energy
(MMBTU) savings.
Annual savings
(Million Btu)
0.0
Investment value of ESPC Task/Delivery Orders awarded in
fiscal year.
Amount privately financed under ESPC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year.
Cumulative guaranteed cost savings of ESPCs awarded in
fiscal year relative to the baseline spending.
Total contract award value of ESPCs awarde
(sum of contractor payments for debt repaym
other negotiated performance period services
I in fiscal year
3nt, M&V, and
Total payments made to all ESPC contractors in fiscal year.
(number/Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Note: EPA pursued several ESPCs in FY 2008 and FY 2009, However, based on the Agency's recent efforts, ESPCs do
not appear to be the best tool for improving performance at EPA's laboratories due to the laboratories' small sizes, the
complexity of laboratory mechanical systems, and/or the need to finance complete replacements of old mechanical
systems. EPA will continue to evaluate potential ESPCs when appropriate.
2-3. UTILITY ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACTS (UESC)
Number of UESC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year & annual energy
(MMBTU) savings.
Annual savings
(Million Btu)
0.0
Investment value of UESC Task/Delivery Orders awarded in
fiscal year.
Amount privately financed under UESC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year.
Cumulative cost savings of UESCs awarded
relative to the baseline spending.
n fiscal year
Total contract award value of UESCs awarded in fiscal year
(sum of payments for debt repayment and other negotiated
performance period services).
Total payments made to all UESC contractors in fiscal year.
(number/Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-------
2-4. METERING OF ELECTRICITY USE
FY
2009
2010 planned
Standard Meters
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Metered
32
18
Cumulative % of
Electricity Metered
64.7%
32.1%
Advanced Meters
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Metered
3
17
Cumulative % of
Electricity
Metered
35.3%
Appropriate Buildings
# of Appropriate
Buildings for
Metering
35
35
Cumulative % of
Buildings
Metered
100.0%
100.0%
* EPA officially reports annual energy and water data for 34 NECPA/E.O. 13423 Goal Subject facilities. Of these 34 facilities, three
separately-metered facilities on the Edison, NJ campus are collectively grouped together as one Goal Subject facility. In FY 2008, the
number of Goal Subject facilities equated to the number of appropriate buildings for metering. During its FY 2009 advanced metering
implementation progress, however, EPA decided to consider each of the three Edison, NJ individually. Doing so has increased the number
of appropriate buildings for metering from 34 to 35.
2-5. FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Total new building designs started since beginning of FY 2007:
Total new building designs started since beginning of FY 2007 that are expected to
be 30 percent more energy efficient than relevant code, where life-cycle cost
effective:
Percent of new building designs started since beginning of FY 2007 that are
expected to be 30 percent more energy efficient than relevant code, where life-cycle
cost effective:
Number of
New Building
Designs
0
0
Percent
N/A
2-6. TRAINING
Number of personnel trained in
FY 2009/Expenditure
(number)
122
(Thou. $)
$109.3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
List of New Federal Building Designs and Construction
(Note: Only new buildings which began the design phase after the beginning of FY 2007 need to be listed.
Buildings for which construction was completed in FY 2007 and after do not need to be listed if they were designed prior to FY 2007.)
New Construction Project Information
Project ID
Building Name
Please see note below
Location
(City, State)
Total new building designs started since beginning of FY 2007:
Total new building designs started since beginning of FY 2007
expected to be 30% more energy efficient than relevant code,
where life-cycle cost effective:
Design
Design
Started (FY)
0
0
Percentage below
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 -2004
in terms of energy use
If not at least 30% below
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2004, will design
achieve maximum level of energy
efficiency that is life-cycle cost-
effective?
Completed New Construction
Date
Construction
Completed
(FY)
In terms of energy use,
percentage below
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2004
achieved
Note: EPA has not initiated any new building designs since the beginning of FY 2007.
-------
AGENCY COMPILATION WORKSHEET FOR CREDIT FOR PROJECTS THAT
INCREASE SITE ENERGY USE BUT SAVE SOURCE ENERGY
(See http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/sec502e_%20guidance.pdf)
EPACT Goal Subject Buildings
Name of Project Saving Source Energy
in Current Fiscal Year (insert additional
rows as necessary)
Project No. 1
Project No. 2
Project No. 3
Totals
Annual Site
Energy Increase
with the Project
(Million Btu)
5,918.3
2,481.4
0.0
8,399.6
Annual Source
Energy Saved
with the Project
(Million Btu)
8,996.1
6,712.2
0.0
15,708.3
Adjustment to
Annual Site
Energy
(Million Btu)
6,405.9
4,779.5
0.0
11,185.4
EPACT Excluded Facilities
Name of Project Saving Source Energy
in Current Fiscal Year (insert additional
rows as necessary)
Project No. 1
Project No. 2
Project No. 3
Totals
Annual Site
Energy Increase
with the Project
(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Annual Source
Energy Saved
with the Project
(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adjustment to
Annual Site
Energy
(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
-------
Appendix B:
Project-Specific Calculations for
Source Energy Reductions
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Appendix B
Calculations for Project-Specific Source Energy Reductions
Project 1: Replacement of aging heat pumps with new, energy-efficient, gas-fired boilers
Oregon Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch Laboratory, Newport, OR
Project completed in FY 2006
Base Case (without Project)' is defined as the annual energy used from FY 2001 to FY 2005.
Base Case (without Project)
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used
25,859
7,446
MMBtu
MMBtu
With Project
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used After Project
16,863
13,364
MMBtu
MMBtu
Annual Source Energy Saved After Project
|8,996 |MMBtu
Annual Site Energy Increase After Project
|5,918 |MMBtu
502(e) Adjustment to Annual Site Energy, per DOE guidance |6,406 |MMBtu
Annual electricity displaced as a result of the project:
[759,168 |
kWh
Project 2: Installation of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) unit for electricity and hot water
Region 9 Laboratory, Richmond CA
Project completed in FY 2006
'Base Case (without Project)' is defined as the annual energy used from FY 2003 to FY 2005.
Base Case (without Project)
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used
21,707 | MMBtu
14,769 | MMBtu
With Project
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used After Project
14,995 | MMBtu
17,251 |MMBtu
Annual Source Energy Saved After Project
|6,712 |MMBtu
Annual Site Energy Increase After Project
|2,481 |MMBtu
502(e) Adjustment to Annual Site Energy, per DOE guidance |4,780 |MMBtu
Annual electricity displaced as a result of the project:
|566,427 |kWh
-------
-------
Appendix C:
EPA's Revised FY 2003
Energy Baseline
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Appendix C - FY 2003 ENERGY DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - EXISTING ON RECORD
Karen Murray
Agency:
Date:
EPA
12/31/2008
Prepared by:
Phone:
202-564-2539
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123 REPORTING CATEGORIES
1-1. Standard Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Standard Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
1-2. Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy-Intensive Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S.Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Energy-Intensive Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,647.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
395,520
1-3. Exempt Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S.Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Exempt Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site- Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
ENERGY POLICY ACT 2005 REPORTING CATEGORIES
EPACT Goal-Subject Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
EPACT Goal Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,647.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
395,520
EPACT Excluded Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
EPACT Excluded Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
All Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,647.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
395,520
-------
Appendix C - FY 2003 ENERGY DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - REVISED BASELINE
Karen Murray
Agency:
Date:
EPA
12/15/2009
Prepared by:
Phone:
202-564-2539
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123 REPORTING CATEGORIES
1-1. Standard Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Standard Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
1-2. Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy-Intensive Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Energy-Intensive Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,713.9
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
388,400
1-3. Exempt Facil ties
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
Exempt Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
ENERGY POLICY ACT 2005 REPORTING CATEGORIES
EPACT Goal-Subject Buildings/Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
EPACT Goal Buildings/Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,713.9
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
388,400
EPACT Excluded Facilities
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
EPACT Excluded Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Costs:
0.0
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Btu/GSF:
Site- Delivered Btu
(Billion)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#DIV/0!
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED
Energy
Type
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG/Propane
Coal
Purch. Steam
Other
Consumption
Units
MWH
Thou. Gal.
Thou. Cubic Ft.
Thou. Gal.
S. Ton
BBtu
BBtu
All Facilities
(Thou. Gross Square Feet)
Annual
Consumption
133,543.2
525.4
354,470.0
9.8
0.0
13.1
534.5
Total Costs:
3,713.9
Annual Cost
(Thou. $)
$7,844.1
$513.9
$2,604.7
$18.3
$0.0
$526.1
$5,257.8
$16,764.8
Btu/GSF:
Site-Delivered Btu
(Billion)
455.6
72.9
365.5
0.9
0.0
13.1
534.5
1,442.5
388,400
-------
Appendix D:
EPA's Revised FY 2007
Water Baseline
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Summary of Revision to EPA's Methodology for
Reporting Water Consumption
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Research Triangle Park (RTF), North
Carolina, campus is located adjacent to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS). EPA's RTP buildings receive high temperature hot water and chilled water produced by a
central utility plant (CUP), which is owned by NIEHS and operated by a contractor under the
supervision of NIEHS.
As with other EPA facilities served by central district heating plants or chilled water plants, EPA
does not report on energy received at those plants, but rather on the energy it receives at its facilities
in the form of steam, high temperature hot water, and chilled water. In FY 2009, EPA realized that
it was reporting energy received from the CUP at its buildings, but was estimating and reporting
water use from the cooling tower makeup water at the CUP. Thus, there was an apparent
discrepancy on how EPA reports its energy at its RTP campus (energy received at each building) and
water (water received at each building, plus a share of CUP cooling tower water).
EPA proposes to align its water reporting framework for its RTP facilities with its energy reporting
framework by only reporting water received at its buildings. EPA adjusted its FY 2007 water
intensity baseline for the following reasons:
Lack of Operational Control. EPA originally elected to report a pro-rated portion of estimated
CUP water consumption in its FY 2007 water intensity baseline and annual water reporting in error.
EPA does not exercise day-to-day control of NIEHS's CUP operations.
Incongruence with Energy Reporting. EPA has been reporting only energy received at its
buildings in RTP, while it reports water at its buildings in RTP and a share of water received at the
CUP and associated cooling towers.
Accurate CUP Water Data Not Available. After two years of discussions with NIEHS, it is still
unclear to EPA that NIEHS water use at the CUP is all metered accurately.
Due to these issues, EPA no longer reports water consumption associated with the NIEHS CUP in
its Annual Energy and Water Conservation Report to DOE. Rather, EPA plans to use data from
meters that directly measure the water consumed in its buildings as the basis of its water use
reporting.
-------
Appendix D
FY 2007 WATER DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - EXISTING ON RECORD
Agency:
Date:
EPA
12/31/2008
Prepared by:
Phone:
Karen Murray
202-564-2539
Potable Water
Buildings & Facilities Subject to
Water Goal
Annual Consumption
(Million Gallons)
166.6
Annual Cost (Thou. $)
$1,258.2
Facility Gross
Square Feet
(Thou.)
3,723.3
Approx. percentage of reported water consumption that is estimated:
Is the FY 2007 agency water intensity baseline preliminary or final?
Gallons per
Gross Square
Foot
44.7
Percent
0%
* After the finalization of EPA's FY 2007 Energy Management and Conservation Program Annual Report, EPA received
updated water consumption data from several utility companies that supply the Agency's laboratories. These updates
reduced the previously reported year-end FY 2007 water consumption total of 168,116,231 gallons to a new 166,613,412
gallons. These updates, in addition to retroactive adjustments to the FY 2007 GSF figures for two of EPA's reporting
facilities, lowered the FY 2007 water intensity baseline from 45.2 gallons per GSF to 44.7 gallons per GSF.
FY 2007 WATER DATA BASELINE WORKSHEET - REVISED BASELINE
EPA Prepared by: Karen Murray
Agency:
Date:
12/15/2009
Prepared by:
Phone:
202-564-2539
Potable Water
Buildings & Facilities Subject to
Water Goal
Annual Consumption
(Million Gallons)
133.6
Annual Cost (Thou. $)
$949.2
Facility Gross
Square Feet
(Thou.)
3,820.3
Approx. percentage of reported water consumption that is estimated:
Is the FY 2007 agency water intensity baseline preliminary or final?
Gallons per
Gross Square
Foot
35.0
Percent
0%
Final
* After the finalization of EPA's FY 2008 Energy Management and Conservation Program Annual Report, EPA formally
decided to remove water consumption and costs associated with the central utility plant (CUP) serving EPA's Research
Triangle Park campus from its FY 2007 water baseline and annual water reporting. This change adjusts the previously
reported year-end FY 2007 water consumption total from 166,613,412 gallons to a new 133,619,199 gallons. Furthermore,
EPA made additional adjustments to more accurately account for actual FY 2007 GSF figures at two of EPA's reporting
facilities. These combined adjustments lowered the FY 2007 water intensity baseline from 44.7 gallons per GSF to 35.0
gallons per GSF.
-------
Appendix E:
Summary of EPA FY 2009
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scope
1 and 2 Emissions
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Appendix E
Summary of EPA's FY 2009 Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG Emissions
Background
This appendix presents EPA's best estimate of the various components of the Agency's FY 2009 Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions. (Note: Hilighted
cells below indicate FY 2008 proxy data values pending finalization of FY 2009 GHG emissions data).
Scope 1 and 2 Emissions
Emissions Category
SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS
Stationary fuel (natural gas, fuel oil, propane, kerosene) combustion at
reporting facilities
Direct emissions from all Agencywide fuel consumption in EPA's fleet (e.g.,
passenger cars, minivans, trucks) and tactical vehicles (e.g., trailers,
generators, boats)
Fugitive emissions in reporting facilities from refrigerant leakage in air-
conditioning equipment
Fugitive emissions in reporting facilities from fire suppression equipment
Fugitive emissions from EPA's fleet and tactical vehicles (e.g., refrigerant
leakage from air-conditioning equipment)
Process emissions from laboratory fume hood testing
Process emissions from NVFEL vehicle and engine testing
Process emissions from furnace testing at RTP-High Bay
Process emissions from RTP-lncinerator/Waste Handling facility's stack
Sub-total
Total Scope 1 Emissions
Emissions Category
FY 2009 GHG emissions (MTCO2e)
Gross
Estimate
^^^H
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,818
0
2,818
Reasonably
Good
Estimate
^^^H
0
5,566
6,609
57
507
302
175
0
53
13,269
Formal
Calculations
^^^H
22,604
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,604
38,692
Percent of Total
Scope 1 & 2
Emissions
^^^^H
16.2%
4.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
2.0%
0.0%
27.6%
FY 2009 GHG emissions (MTCO2e)
Gross
Estimate
Reasonably
Good
Estimate
Formal
Calculations
Percent of Total
Scope 1 & 2
Emissions
SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
Purchased electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water in reporting
facilities
Sub-total
Total Scope 2 Emissions
0
0
0
0
101,251
101,251
101,251
72.4%
72.4%
[Total Scope 1 & 2 Emissions
139,943
SCOPE 1 & 2 INVENTORY "ADJUSTMENTS"
Adjustments to Scope 2 emissions resulting from green power and REC
purchases at EPA's reporting facilities
EPA's purchased offsets
Sub-total
Total Adjustments to Scope 1 & 2 Emissions
0
0
0
0
0
0
-86,040
0
-86,040
-86,040
Total Reportable Scope 1 & 2 Emissions (w/
Adj.)
53,903
Cells highlighted in yellow indicate a FY 2008 proxy value
-------
-------
Appendix F:
EPA Facility Inventory
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Appendix F
FY 2009 EPAct Goal Subject Building Inventory1
Facility Name Location Site Energy Manager
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Laboratory
New England Regional Laboratory
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center
Test and Evaluation Facility
Center Hill Test and Evaluation Facility
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory - Western Ecology
Division
Willamette Research Station
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory - Mid-Continent Ecology
Division
Region 2 Laboratory
Environmental Science Center
Region 8 Laboratory
Large Lakes Research Station
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory - Gulf Ecology Division
Region 6 Environmental Laboratory
Kansas City Science and Technology Center
University of Nevada, Las Vegas -
On-Campus EPA Facilities
Region 10 Laboratory
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory -Atlantic Ecology
Division
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory -Western Ecology
Division
New Consolidated Facility
New Computer Center
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Human Studies Facility
New Page Road
Central Regional Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Athens, Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Corvallis, Oregon
Corvallis, Oregon
Duluth, Minnesota
Edison, New Jersey
Fort Meade, Maryland
Golden, Colorado
Grosse lie, Michigan
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Houston, Texas
Kansas City, Kansas
Las Vegas, Nevada
Manchester, Washington
Montgomery, Alabama
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Newport, Oregon
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Research Triangle Park (Chapel Hill),
North Carolina
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Richmond, California
Frank Price
Steven Dorer
Rick Pittman
Betty Kinney
Bob Beane
Rich Koch
Rich Koch
Rich Koch
Primo Knight
Primo Knight
Rod Booth
Joseph Pernice
Rick Dreisch
Craig Greenwell
Rod Booth
Clay Peacher
L.C. Miner
John Begley
Robert Andrews
Linda Donahue
Mike Clark/
Jonanthan Aplin
Russ Ahlgren
Primo Knight
Sam Pagan
Sam Pagan
Sam Pagan
Sam Pagan
Sam Pagan
Jennifer Mann
1EPA is required to report to DOE and OMB the energy use at facilities for which the Agency pays utility bills. Although EPA
occupies other facilities, utility expenses for those facilities are paid by GSA.
-------
-------
^ PRO^
Appendix G:
FY 2009 Annual Report
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Sustainability Champion Winners
Btu Buster Award
o Betty Kinney of the Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) laboratory in
Athens, Georgia, helped achieve energy savings of 7.8 percent in FY 2008 compared to
FY 2007, mostly by instituting nighttime setbacks that reduced energy use during
unoccupied times in non-laboratory spaces.
o The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) staff, led by Amy
Caldwell, Robert Caldwell, Robert Cresmen, Steven Dorer, Dan McBryde, Maria Peralta,
Kevin Roller, and David VanAmburg in Ann Arbor, Michigan, achieved energy savings
of 5.5 percent in FY 2008 compared to FY 2007. By monitoring and controlling test cell
energy use, the staff helped to ensure that during the 99 percent of the time that air
handlers were not in use, they were turned off, thus significantly reducing energy use and
allowing the facility to meet its annual energy reduction goals.
H2Ovemchiever Award
o Frank Price of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma,
helped the laboratory achieve water savings of 27.7 percent in FY 2008 compared to FY
2007 by reducing the amount of water used in the laboratory's irrigation practices and
installing water-efficient aerators on the facility faucets.
o Steven Dorer and Amy Caldwell of the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, retrofitted and upgraded the water infrastructure to
achieve water savings of 22.7 percent in FY 2008 compared to FY 2007. Their efforts
included installing high-efficiency toilets and urinals, upgrading equipment with a closed-
loop temperature conditioner, and preheating all humidification water for rooftop air
handlers with a heat exchanger using the building hot water loop, allowing the water to
be better absorbed into the air stream, which requires much less water.
o The Water Team for EPA's Main campus in RTF, North Carolina, including team
members Dan Amon, Greg Eades, Bill Gaines, Marshall Gray, Bucky Green, Dexter
Johnson, Alex Montilla, Billy Morris, Sam Pagan, Carol Purvis, Bill Ridge, Pete Schubert,
and Robert Wippich, achieved water savings of 15 percent in FY 2008 compared to FY
2007 due to several water conservation activities, including eliminating single-pass
cooling from two laboratories on the RTF Main campus and retrofitting lavatory faucets
and steam sterilizers with more efficient models or kits.
1 Partner of the Year Award
o Rick Dreisch of the Environmental Science Center (ESC) in Fort Meade, Maryland,
successfully implemented a three-phased ventilation upgrade project that helped
contribute to a decrease in energy intensity of more than 3 percent in FY 2008 compared
to FY 2007.
Leading Edge Award
o David Shoffner and Jason Mangum of EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory in RTF, North Carolina, installed a solar powered air
compressor that provides free air for tire inflation to RTF employees. The laboratory
gave out miniature tire inflator gauges at the annual Environmental Management System
-------
(EMS) training to ensure proper tire inflation and save gasoline through improved
vehicle efficiency.
Pollution Prevention Partner of the Year
o Ruth Schenk and Dorothy Richards of NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan, made efforts to
increase recycling, which in FY 2008 resulted in approximately half of the facility's waste
being diverted from the waste stream. This rate includes the electronics recycling
through the Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition (READ) contract.
o The Electronics Stewardship Team in the EPA Region 8 office in Denver, Colorado—
Chris Ayala, Kim Bartels, Carl Truszynski, Kendra Wilborn, and Greg Zurla—developed
an award-winning electronics management program that emphasizes a cradle-to-grave
approach to electronics stewardship.
o Gate Berard of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, played an integral role in advancing electronics stewardship within
EPA and across the broader federal community.
Appreciation Award
o Scott Tharp and Bill Wise of AWBERC in Cincinnati, Ohio, provided reliable and
exceptional service in supporting the EPA Facilities Management and Services Division's
(FMSD's) construction contracting efforts.
Reporter of the Year
o Vicki Blackmon of the Gulf Ecology Division laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida,
consistently submitted timely, accurate invoice packages and reporting forms for the
Gulf Breeze facilities.
o Andy Franke of EPA's Cincinnati, Ohio, campus consistently submitted timely, accurate
invoice packages for the entire Cincinnati campus.
Green Thumb
o The Rain Garden Team at ESC in Fort Meade, Maryland, designed and installed a rain
garden to prevent excess runoff from the building roof and to prevent soil from eroding
around the front entrance of the building. Team members included Robin Costas, John
Curry, Joe Dorsey, Jennifer Gundersen, Rebecca Pines, Lynda Podhorniak, Mary Price,
Al Robertson, Dave Russell, Chuck Stafford, Narda Terry, Skip Weisberg, Stevie
Wilding, and Peggy Zawodny.
Lifetime Achievement
o Bob Beane of the New England Regional Laboratory in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, has
contributed to sustainable design and facility conservation at EPA for nearly four
decades. Under his management, in 2001 the New England Regional Laboratory became
the first U.S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)® certified laboratory to be built by the Agency.
o Harvey Holm of the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, spent
years in dedicated service to EPA, including designing a low-cost air handling unit
condensate recovery system using existing infrastructure and installing water-efficient
-------
sanitary fixtures that helped the laboratory reduce water consumption by more than 26
percent in FY 2008 compared to FY 2007.
Sustainable Partner of the Year
o The Cincinnati Infrastructure Replacement Project (IRP) Team—Bucky Green,
Stephanie James, Abbas Keshavarz, Rick Koch, Bill Ridge, Scott Tharp, Evelyn Toro,
and Bill Wise—made significant efforts to complete Phase I of the IRP, a multi-year,
multi-phase project that will replace all of the air handlers, vertical and horizontal supply
ductwork, control systems, exhaust systems, and associated equipment at AWBERC.
The IRP is expected to help the facility cut its energy use by more than 30 percent, once
all four phases of the project are completed.
o Joe Gillian of EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, assisted with the design and award
of a contract to install a green roof at the Atlantic Ecology Division laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island. The roof will mitigate stormwater runoff and drain excess
water to rain barrels or cisterns, allowing the facility to reuse it.
-------
-------
^ PRO^
Appendix H:
FY 2009 Annual Report
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
Table 1. Projects Which Filed Fully Completed GreenCheck Forms in FY 2009
The National
Exposure
Research
Laboratory and
Radiation and
Indoor
LaPlaza Security
Fence/Construction
National
Laboratory
Las Vegas,
Nevada
Western Ecology Phase 1A Construction
Division Mechanical & Electrical
Laboratory Systems for WED-COR
Corvallis, Update WED Main
Oregon Building Mechanical &
Electrical System Design
Phase 1A
AWBERC
Cincinnati, Ohio
Infrastructure Replacement
Construction (Phase 3)
Infrastructure Follow-on &
Commissioning - Phase 3
Renovation of LRPCD
Laboratories during
Infrastructure Replacement
Project (IRP)/Design
Lab Decon - Phase
3/Decommissioning
Infrastructure Design -
Phase 4/Design
WSWRD Lab
Consolidation and
Upgrading/Design
WSWRD Laboratory
Human Studies
Facility
Chapel Hill,
North Carolina
Replace Roof at Human Studies
Facility/Construction
New England
Regional
Laboratory
Chelmsford,
Massachusetts
Laboratory Recommissioning and
BMS Energy Use Reduction
Modifications/Design &
Commissioning
EPA
National Metering Contract -
Phase 1
Durham, North
Carolina
Grand Slam Audit Finding
Corrections-Page Road H&S
Repairs/Construction
Atlantic
Ecology
Division
Laboratory
Narragansett,
Rhode Island
New Sprinkler System
Phase 1, Lab Modernization,
Renovate/Construction & Phase
Services & Commissioning
National
Vehicle & Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory
Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Equipment Protection System
(EPS)/Design & Construction
Fuel Handling, Blending,
Conditioning and Dispensing
Upgrade/Replacement/Design &
Construction
-------
Modernization - AWBERC
IRP Phase II & III/Design
ADA Upgrades (AWBERC
Restrooms) - Phase
B/Construction
Infrastructure Construction
- Phase 1
Infrastructure Design -
Phase 3/Design
Office of Water Lab
Renovation - Labs 176,
178,180,182 184
Advanced Metering
(Electric) /Construction
Region 2
Laboratory
Edison, New
I Jersey
MED
Duluth,
Minnestoa
Green Parking Lot Construction
Phase II of Edison Regional
Response Center - ERRD Staff
Offices/Construction
Roof Replacement - Main
Building
National Air Facility Control System Upgrade
& Radiation
Environmental
Laboratory
Montgomery,
Alabama
Federal Triangle
Headquarters
Washington,
DC
HQ Space
Alterations /Construction
Center Hill
Cincinnati, Ohio
Center Hill Lab 125 -
HVAC
Upgrade/Construction
Nen> Main
RTF, North
Carolina
ESC
FortMeade,
Large Lakes
Research
Station
Controls Master Plan (EPA-RTP
Main Campus)/Phase
3/Construction
Recoat Building A Green
Floor/Construction
Utility Submetering for EPA-
RTP Campus/Construction
Independent AC for Computer
Center
Replace Roofing of Main Lab
Building /Construction
Replace Steam Boilers
-------
^ PRO^
Appendix I:
FY 2009 Annual Report
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2009 Annual Report
-------
-------
National Onsite Renewable Energy Study
Following the study to evaluate EPA's laboratory facilities for new renewable energy
projects, EPA developed a spreadsheet complete with recommendations for opportunities to
apply the following technologies at some of its facilities:
o Solar. EPA looked at the costs, benefits, and feasibility of solar hot water, rooftop
photovoltaic (PV) panels, solar pre-heat walls and ground-level onsite lighting.
Secondary benefits, such as the potential for PV panels to extend the life of the roof,
were also considered. Sites were prioritized based on expected average daily and annual
solar radiation for the facility, available roof area, and potential shading impacts.
o Wind: EPA evaluated whether it made sense to place wind turbines on site to generate
base-load and stand-by power for its facilities, taking into account local conditions for
wind power, including weather, regulations, utility restrictions, state and local rebates
available to lower investment costs, and other factors that affect feasibility. The
evaluation primarily focused on facilities located in Class 4 or higher wind areas;
however, EPA noted any location that could have potential for future review in its
renewable energy analysis spreadsheet.
o Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP): EPA considered geothermal options as a source of
base-load and stand-by heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) capacity.
Local considerations for GSHP included soil conditions, regulatory or utility restrictions,
state and local rebates available to lower investment costs, and other factors that affect
feasibility.
Other renewable technologies were included as appropriate. EPA put a priority on using
GSHPs for buildings with older HVAC systems approaching the end of their useful life and
requiring replacement. Buildings with existing water source heat pump systems were also
given priority. After this initial screening assessment to evaluate the technical feasibility of
each technology at each facility, EPA analyzed facilities with the highest potential more fully,
considering the following questions: What is the estimated cost, as an order of magnitude?
What is the payback period in which cost would be recouped in energy savings? How many
Btu are estimated to result from the project?
EPA documented potential energy savings, the initial cost of installation, and ongoing costs
of maintenance, interconnectivity, and utility stand-by charges. The Agency plans to review
the results of this analysis with facility managers and senior management to develop an
onsite renewable energy strategy across the Agency. At the end of FY 2009, draft reports had
been completed for all 11 facilities that were identified for facility-specific analysis, as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. High Renewable Energy Potential EPA Facilities
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Atlantic Ecology Division Laboratory
NERL
^^^^^^^^^^^H
Narragansett, RI
Athens, GA
1 Geothermal 1
Heat Pump 1
X
X
^^^^^^^9
X
X
^H
X
-------
Table 1. High Renewable Energy Potential EPA Facilities
NAREL
New Main
Human Studies
NCC
FEELC
NVFEL
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch Laboratory
Western Ecology Division Laboratory
Montgomery, AL
RTF, NC
RTF, NC
RTF, NC
RTF, NC
Ann Arbor, MI
Ada, OK
Newport, OR
Corvallis, OR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
------- |