High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: by Jennifer (Sochacki) Caldwell

HIGH-PERFORMANCE POLICIES IN LARGE BUILDING STOCK PORTFOLIOS: A METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING REPURPOSE-ABILITY AT UNC CHARLOTTE

by Jennifer Lynne Sochacki Caldwell

A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture Charlotte 2013

Approved by: ______________________________ Dale Brentrup, AIA, IES ______________________________ David Thaddeus, AIA, NCARB ______________________________ David A. Jones

iii ABSTRACT JENNIFER LYNNE SOCHACKI CALDWELL. High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: A Methodology for Assessing Repurpose-Ability at UNC Charlotte. (Under the direction of DALE BRENTRUP, AIA, IES) Various factors influence capital and improvement projects at UNC Charlotte, which makes the campus a compelling case study for researching policy behind architecture. The topic surrounds future energy, resource, or sustainability-policy issues, controlled by one entity and claims that high-performance policies should include a retrofit-potential assessment component upon its existing building stock. It examines existing architecture energy performance, assesses retrofit potential based on risk management practices. The assessment will suggest using multiple objective functions that propose a comprehensive analysis. As the campus moves toward its carbon neutralby-2050 goal, what are the actual realities behind changing over to sustainable policies? UNC Charlotteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing non-LEED certified building portfolio accumulates almost five million square feet of energy-consuming built space. By determining the repurposeability, campus decision-makers will be better equipped to make suitable budget decisions for renovation strategies or new construction at the University. This evidencebased type of method could be the driving force behind formulating sustainable policies for a case study district of UNCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT A special thank you for the guidance, direction, and opportunity: Dale Brentrup, AIA, IESNA, Professor of Architecture and Director of the Daylighting + Energy Performance Laboratory and Coordinator of the Integrated Design Labs at the School of Architecture UNC Charlotte David Thaddeus, AIA, NCARB, Professor of Architecture at the School of Architecture UNC Charlotte David A. Jones, Sustainability Coordinator UNC Charlotte

Thank you to my interview subjects: Thomas E. Stutts, Facilities Management Mechanical Engineer Tony Schallert, Facilities Management Energy Manager John Boal, Facilities Management Design Services Peter Franz, Facilities Management AVC John Fessler, Facilities Management Capital Projects Richard Preiss, Professor of Architecture and Building Liaison for Storrs Patricia Artis, Building Liaison for Bioinformatics Dan Rowe, College of Engineering, Facilities Engineering Specialist John Storch, Associate Director for Operations Department of Housing & Residence Life

v Thank you to the Green Building Initiative (GBI) for complimentary subscription to the Green Globes CIEB online evaluation and Jenna Granum, Project Manager for making it happen.

Thank you to those unidentifiable subjects who voluntarily participated in the occupant satisfaction surveys.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

VIII 1

1.1 Objectives

1.2 Research Review

1.2.1 Background

1.2.2 Sustainable Research

1.3 Thesis Approach & Methodology

1.3.1 Background Narrative

1.3.2 Methodology

1.3.3 Limitations & Assumptions

CHAPTER 2: OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Total Campus Energy CHAPTER 3: BUILDING CASE STUDIES

17 18 30

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Overview

3.2.1 Energy

3.2.2 Water

3.2.3 Resources

3.2.4 Emissions, Effluents and Pollution Controls

3.2.5 Indoor Environment

3.2.6 Environmental Management System

vii 3.3 Academic Overview 3.3.1 Red Flag Buildings

35 39

OTHER RED FLAG’S

3.4 Three Vintages

3.4.1 Smith Building Profile

3.4.2 Storrs Building

3.4.3 Bioinformatics Building 3.5 Dormitory

108 126

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS

142

4.1 Policy/initiative analysis

142

4.2 Barriers & Resolutions

144

4.3 Recommendations

145

4.4 Additional Research

150

REFERENCES

152

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

154

APPENDIX B: STORRS SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURED DATA

179

APPENDIX C-1: SMITH BUILDING INTERVIEW

191

APPENDIX C-2: STORRS BUILDING INTERVIEW

212

APPENDIX C-3: BIOINFORMATICS BUILDING INTERVIEW

243

APPENDIX D: OCCUPANT SATISFACTION SURVEY QUESTIONS

258

APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION MATERIALS

265

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 GSF and Energy Consumption Comparison of Campus Typologies

Figure 2 Baseline comparison to current energy consumption trends

Figure 3 Parking Deck Rooftop Analysis

Figure 4 UNC Charlotte Baseline year 2002-03 comparison UNC System campuses

Figure 5 Benchmarking and Targets for UNC Charlotte

Figure 6 Campus Typologies EUI Comparison

Figure 7 Energy Consumption Distribution by Typology

Figure 8 Academic typology EUI comparison.

Figure 9 Academic energy consumption EUI by Vintage

Figure 11 Energy Consumption for Kennedy building

Figure 10 Source: Atkins Library Special Collections

Figure 12 Energy Consumption for Colvard building

Figure 13 Energy Consumption for Cameron building

Figure 14 Three generations of Academic buildings

Figure 15 University archives photo of Smith building after finished construction.

Figure 16 Interior Variant Typologies within Smith building.

Figure 17 Energy performance trends of the Smith building

Figure 18 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Smith building

Figure 19 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Smith building

Figure 20 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Smith building

Figure 21 Green Globes percentage of points achieved by Smith for each module.

ix Figure 22 University archives photo of Storrs building main entrance.

Figure 23 Interior Variant Typologies within Storrs building.

Figure 24 Energy performance trends of the Storrs building

Figure 25 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Storrs building

Figure 26 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Storrs building

Figure 27 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Storrs building

Figure 28 Temperature readings at Storrs for five different typologies.

Figure 29 Relative Humidity readings at Storrs for five different typologies.

Figure 30 Temperature readings for five studio bays second level Storrs

Figure 31 Relative humidity readings for five studio bays second level Storrs

Figure 32 Percentage of points achieved by Storrs for each module.

Figure 33 University archives photo of Bioinformatics building

108

Figure 34 Interior Variant Typologies within the Bioinformatics building.

109

Figure 35 Energy performance trends of the Bioinformatics building

111

Figure 36 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Bioinformatics

112

Figure 37 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Bioinformatics 113 Figure 38 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Bioinformatics

114

Figure 39 Percentage of points achieved by Bioinformatics for each module.

117

Figure 40 Energy Consumption by Dormitory typology

127

Figure 41 Dormitory energy consumption by vintage

128

Figure 42 Dormitory responses from housing satisfaction survey

129

Figure 43 Energy consumption EUI for Sanford, Poplar, and Miltimore

138

Figure 44 Sanford energy consumption over time (kBtu)

139

x Figure 45 Poplar energy consumption over time (kBtu)

140

Figure 46 Miltimore energy consumption 2011-12

141

Figure 47 Storrs RH 2nd Floor Lobby

179

Figure 48 Storrs RH 3rd Year Desk A

179

Figure 49 Storrs RH 3rd Year Desk B

180

Figure 50 Storrs RH 5th Year Desk

180

Figure 51 Storrs RH Room 255

181

Figure 52 Storrs RH Room 268

181

Figure 53 Storrs RH Room 274

182

Figure 54 Storrs RH Room 285

182

Figure 55 Storrs RH Room 290

183

Figure 56 Storrs RH Grad M1

183

Figure 57 Storrs RH Grad Studio

184

Figure 58 Storrs RH Salon from window in room 268

184

Figure 59 Storrs Second Floor Lobby Temperature

185

Figure 60 Storrs 3rd Year Studio Desk A Temperature

185

Figure 61 Storrs 3rd Year Studio Desk B Temperature

186

Figure 62 Storrs 5th Year Studio Temperature

186

Figure 63 Storrs Room 255 Temperature

187

Figure 64 Storrs Room 268 Temperature

187

Figure 65 Storrs Room 274 Temperature

188

Figure 66 Storrs Room 285 Temperature

188

Figure 67 Storrs Room 290 Temperature

189

xi Figure 68 Storrs M1 Grad Studio Temperature

189

Figure 69 Storrs Grad Studio Temperature

190

Figure 70 Storrs 2nd Floor Salon from Room 268 Temperature

190

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the Chancellor demonstrated the first steps toward addressing “global warming by garnering institutional commitments to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the research and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the earth’s climate” 1 at UNC Charlotte. Current sustainabilityrelated policies at UNC Charlotte do not identify its existing building stock as a unique type in desperate need of examination. There has been previous research conducted at the University, which supports the claim that existing buildings demand different energysaving strategies versus new construction standards. By having a whole other set of typologies within itself and variables that make retrofit analysis almost impossible to apply campus-wide, this thesis re-evaluates existing buildings on campus and compares them to the newly constructed LEED buildings on campus. Programmatic elements within existing buildings vary widely and consequently energy needs; something commonly overlooked when building uses stray from original intent. For example, a building originally designed to house classrooms may fail new sustainability metrics because expansion and growth forced computer labs into the spaces – changing the entire domesticity of its energy performance baseline standard. Within this plethora of uneven parameters, it would be virtually impossible to discern any long-term sustainable strategies for the future of UNC Charlotte’s campus. The proposed method examines a

UNCC Climate Action Plan

2 more comprehensive benchmarking strategy for each buildings individual performance that includes an occupant satisfaction component.

1.1

Objectives The proposed research investigates the importance of redefining traditional

policies, in order to achieve higher performance standards within the University campus. It will further evaluate the potential of retrofitting campus buildings, moving UNC Charlotte closer toward its ultimate carbon neutrality goal. Resultant of mandated Senate Bill 668, a primary objective is to exhibit discoveries that will inform decisions leading to overall campus sustainability practices.  Calculate multiple metrics of sustainability from 2002 to present, using existing available data of major resources.  Identify and interpret the trajectory of metrics through time for future benchmarking strategies  Establish methodology with facility management involvement and disseminate results

1.2

Research Review University budget recommendations will need a higher degree of accuracy, as

credit limitations increase and capital improvement projects decrease in funding because of recent economic trends. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s budget for sustainability-related projects although, have made a larger presence in sharing the capital

3 pie, largely due to the efforts of the campus Sustainability Committee Coordinator David Jones. The UNC Charlotte Sustainability Committee explains below, reasons sustainability is important to UNC Charlotte: Sustainability is clearly emerging as one of the central public policy issues of the 21st Century, one that has ramifications for everything from economic development to quality of life. Sustainability is also emerging as a key arena for interdisciplinary academic enquiry. For example, a quick review of literature through the Web of Science, online scholarly journal search engine, revealed 23,622 articles with a topic of “sustainability.” Of those, 17,958 articles, 76 percent, have been published between 2001 and 2010. With such a growing literature on the topic of sustainability, it seems only fitting that an academic focus on sustainability, be integrated into the University of North Carolina at Charlotte campus. In particular, it seems important for the university to ensure that it prepares students for a future in which both knowledge of and careers in sustainability are likely to be important. In addition, it is worth noting that ‘environmental awareness’ was one of the critical 21st century skills identified by the UNC Tomorrow report. UNC Charlotte currently does not have any formal curriculum that addresses this skill. In this respect, UNC Charlotte lags behind most of the other research-focused universities in the UNC system. Examples of these efforts include research centers at UNC Chapel Hill, UNC Wilmington, and NC State, and degree programs at Appalachian State and UNC Asheville. Indeed, a focus on sustainability is emerging at campuses nationwide, and the Princeton Review recently reported that the availability of sustainability related offerings is

4 an increasingly important factor influencing a students’ decision about which college to attend.2 Research experience has focused on a built-up approach where knowledge can formulate and develop onto more refined methodologies from preceding research and away from the previous ‘business-as-usual’ (or BAU) type practices. As UNC Charlotte continues to shape itself onto more sustainable practices, concerns for the future have nourished partnerships between academic, public, and private sector constituents, as well as design professionals within the community, region, and state. 1.2.1 Background The research conducted within this thesis has built upon previous research organized for the benefit of UNC Charlotte as a whole and campus facilities management efforts. Some of the contents of this thesis and its background constituents from previous research have been supervised and/or directed by the Integrated Design Labs – Charlotte. The Daylighting + Energy Performance Laboratory is an applied research unit of the School of Architecture at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Integrated Design Labs – Charlotte. The primary mission of the laboratory is the advancement of applied knowledge through the specific study of architectural energy systems and lighting technology research. Through the dissemination of its research, the laboratory takes an active role in shaping public policy, as well as facilitating economic realization of building energy performance across our regional community. The laboratory is dedicated to advancing evidence based professional practice through applied research methods and

Title of QEP: Sustainability Curriculum University of North Carolina Charlotte

5 architectural design education. The lab utilizes appropriate technology to achieve sustainable advantage for greater energy efficiencies, high-performing building simulations, and enhanced workplace productivity. By providing insight into proposed integrated design processes and systems in the development of advanced metrics, measurement, verification, and visualization methods, the Daylighting + Energy Performance Laboratory is deeply invested within its community endeavors surrounding architecture and engineering research. The application of this research knowledge to sustain the building energy futures of the Piedmont regions of the Carolinas has been the primary objective to guide the cooperative outreach and professional design assistance activities. 1.2.2

Sustainable Research The Climate Action Plan (CAP) for UNC Charlotte proves the campus-wide

commitment to sustainable practices and “through research we are able to determine realistic building EUI performance benchmarks that will enable us to achieve the goal of GHG neutrality” 3, says Jones. One of the first steps after UNC Charlotte signed the ACUPCC in 2009 was to conduct a baseline inventory report of campus emissions. This report depicts overall emissions and indirect emissions of UNC Charlotte but does not focus on ‘how’ energy is consumed on the campus, such as individual building performance profiles. These profiles could include a comprehensive analysis of each building’s energy performance. For a university-wide example, the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) at the University of Washington is focused on high-performance daylighting and

UNCC Climate Action Plan

6 energy infrastructure in the built environment and currently researching plug loads and human behavior. A building’s overall energy use can be cataloged using Enmetric meters and depict a comprehensive analysis of building operations, which is vital for obtaining a “thorough understanding of these energy loads” 4. Alternatively, universities across the nation are not the only contributors to this area of sustainability research. Perkins + Will, an international architecture firm, is currently seeking research partners for a study of Occupant Behavior and Energy Consumption, in addition to conducting an “annual energy savings competition among its offices who monitor their energy consumption” 5. The competition uses a ‘dashboard’ concept that has been studied at UNC Charlotte through a graduate thesis in 2009 and subsequently implemented into two buildings, the Energy & Production Infrastructure Center (EPIC) on the CRI portion of the main campus and the Center City Building (CCB) at the remote Uptown Charlotte campus. Thus, UNC Charlotte’s CAP initiative has served as the primary stepping-stone in evaluating the University’s energy performance and policies on sustainability. Graduate student work at The Daylighting + Energy Performance Laboratory has developed within the past five years to apply various methodologies for achieving energy target savings for the UNC Charlotte campus. Since our institution voluntarily signed the ACUPCC in 2009, many students have expressed research interest in technologies and methods for achieving sustainable architectural practices in our own backyard. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte continues to grant itself as a case study for

Stoeckle, Adam, Joel Loveland, and Rob Pena. Plug Loads and People: Observations and Analysis from the Field. University of Washington, 2012. 5 Driedger, Michael. “A Study of Occupant Engagement: Energy Reduction Using an Online Competition Dashboard” Perkins+Will Research Journal (Vol. 03.01): 7-20.

7 student research, which benefits both parties since a collaborative effort is most viable in the attempts to define high performance guidelines. In addition to working with oncampus Facilities Management personnel, graduate students have developed professional relationships within the State Energy Office. In 2010, graduate student Jennifer Todd compiled graphic documentation of utility data from seventeen UNC System campuses that was reported to the State Energy Office. The energy performance metrics reported in the document examines annual utility costs, gross square footage, and consumption use, and then compares the data to tuition costs for graduate and undergraduate residents and non-residents. Electricity, natural gas, and water consumption rates are evaluated in percentages across all UNC System campuses and represented in terms of dollars per student spent. Alternatively at a micro-scale on campus, the Kennedy building was used in 2011 as a case study to simulate two different software applications in comparing simulation capabilities. DesignBuilder and Vasari were utilized in the study to help decide which software works best at various stages of building design, and then compare simulated results with energy bills and utility data. Observations stated that Vasari has less flexibility with the input parameters and the output is not modifiable. Ultimately, Vasari was concluded a good tool for preliminary and initial mass and orientation studies, whereas DesignBuilder could be used for more sophisticated modifications in design, internal loads, HVAC systems, and altering construction and glazing materials. Simulations to reduce the annual energy consumption of Kennedy were determined to occur at a 45% reduction with the implementation of a new HVAC unit, Low E Double Glazing replacement, and natural ventilation.

8 A couple of Master’s theses have led to a more intensive research approach also supervised by the Center for Integrated Building Design Research. In 2009, a thesis presented by Lindsey Frizzell toward the careful monitoring, simulation, and calibration of energy uses for two buildings on campus, Fretwell and Education. A key component of the research was “to bring reality into consciousness” by making the data visual and streamlining it on a publicly available website. This thesis project perhaps eventually influenced the recent placement of two similar “dashboard” conceptual stations at the Center City building in Uptown Charlotte, as well as at EPIC, the latest addition to the CRI portion of UNCC’s main campus. Within personal graduate coursework, part of last year’s research led to the development of this thesis as an attempt to refine the methodology for determining retrofit potential, which would also act as the framework to hypothesize this topic as a missing link in the relationship between architecture and politics – an ongoing and multifaceted personal endeavor. Participation as the student coordinator for a research course developed for the Preservation Green Lab Survey (PGLS) sparked the initial development of the thesis. The course was a part of a joint initiative between the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and the New Building Institute (NBI) called Getting to 50 (GT50) – a target of 50% savings for existing buildings, which will enable deep energy savings (40% to 60%) by disseminating best practices and technical tools to support building upgrades. UNC Charlotte’s School of Architecture was approached by the NTHP, requesting students to participate in a ‘nation-wide’ building survey of older, smaller, commercial and mixed-use buildings. The PGLS of the NTHP was conducting a survey of older, smaller buildings as parts of a major national initiative to increase the

9 rate of building energy retrofits and thereby encourage adaptive reuse and preservation of existing buildings. Launched in March of 2009, the Seattle-based Preservation Green Lab was established with the mission to further the scientific understanding of the value of our existing building stock. In its work, the Preservation Green Lab develops and promotes strategic policies for integrating the reuse and retrofitting of older and historic buildings into city and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve other sustainability objectives. [The NTHP’s] focus is on commercial and mixed-use buildings smaller than 50,000 square feet, and interest is primarily in pre-1970 buildings. These “older, smaller” buildings represent 95% of existing building stock but are largely overlooked in the retrofit market, which means we are leaving energy and dollar savings on the table, and not capitalizing on opportunities to preserve and reuse many buildings. The fieldwork and building research component of this project compliments architecture, historic preservation and urban planning curriculum – the process of “reading a building” is essential to understanding the parts of a building and analyzing how the components work together, and comparison of buildings within distinct archetype categories and across categories will help students appreciate diverse combinations of architectural detail, and become familiar with vernacular architecture and compare to other regions and periods. Additionally, this building survey is a client-focused project that requires practical characterization and analysis, with direct applicability at the intersection of sustainable design, historic preservation

10 and adaptive re-use. 6 During the course, students collected technical data from small-scale buildings within two neighborhoods in Charlotte. The neighborhoods’ building stock divided into various typologies that fit particular uses and age categories (i.e. pre-WWII and post-WWII original construction). The survey constraints ranged from shape of a building footprint to structural elements, as well as HVAC and permit compilation. The field surveys conducted in the course were for mixed-use buildings in the area chosen districts, Elizabeth and Central-Plaza neighborhoods just outside of Uptown Charlotte, which would evaluate building Energy Retrofit Potential. These neighborhoods were both established in the early 1900s and existing architecture from 1905 still inhabits both districts. All student surveyors were seeking their Masters of Architecture degree “with a strong interest in building classification, preservation, building reuse and/or sustainability”. Surveyors conducted the building survey using the survey website www.greenlabsurvey.org - in combination with a printable copy of the survey and other associated supporting documents, including a survey handbook. In the course titled “Graduate Preservation Green Lab”, students were asked to create teams of two, which made six groups, including an individual volunteer for “permit research” only. Each team conducted surveys over the spring semester of 2012 and was advised by Dale Brentrup, AIA, IESNA Professor of Architecture, Director of the Daylighting + Energy Performance Laboratory, and coordinator of the Integrated Design Labs at the School of

Green Lab Survey. “Getting to 50,” the National Trust for Historic Preservation, http://www.greenlabsurvey.org/Getting_to_50_Building_Field_Verification/Introduction.html [accessed March 28, 2012].

11 Architecture UNC Charlotte. A conclusion from participating in the Green Lab Survey research suggests that those surveying methods locate individual buildings scattered across a neighborhood; it does not locate multiple buildings under one entity within a specific context – such as, a university setting like UNC Charlotte’s main campus. The method for determining potential renovations, technological innovations, or energy consumption reduction estimates for an individual building, does not apply necessarily in the same way for a whole district of buildings (or assets under one entity). Therefore, institutional complexes are premier case studies in architecture because of their district autonomy – in architecture and policies. Even though the majority of institutional entities are centralized in their organizational formation, according to Imrie and Street, “decentred organizational formations”, or non-state institutions, are more influential than “their state counterparts in shaping the design and development of urban space” 7. However, this thesis argues that UNC Charlotte has opportunity and means to lead premier spatial-redevelopment within its own assets and possibly its larger surroundings within the University-City Area, in exhibiting sustainable practices.

1.3

Thesis Approach & Methodology This thesis proposes a methodology for determining building stock re-purpose-

ability on UNC Charlotte’s main campus, with respect to the larger context of campus operations and budgetary concerns in policy-making. The study builds onto the existing

Imrie, Rob and Emma Street. “Regulating Design: The Practices of Architecture, Governance, and Control”. Urban Studies, 2009. (46: 2507).

12 sustainability policies and building performance evidence and standards set forth by the University of North Carolina institution system:  Master Planning  Design and Construction  Operations and Maintenance  Climate Change Mitigation and Renewable Energy  Systematic Integration of Sustainability Principles The research compares previous data sets with newer performance results and reestablishes a set of goals that ultimately reduce campus-wide energy consumption and costs. Conclusions reflect potential savings in energy and costs to the University; perhaps a future study would extend this methodology into all state-wide university performance measures, considering there are three major climate differences within the southeast region that in turn affect a building’s energy. Besides determining retrofit potential on a case-by-case building basis, the study examines public policy issues in architectural methodology as the underlying force driving the research. In general, this discourse attempts to ascertain the “context of a series of relational networks or socio-institutional and political interdependencies”, by examining the University as a district autonomous in statutes and as a result, its architecture. Comprehensive building profiles presented to decision-makers depict different energy-saving strategies, which allows continued exploration of “the interrelationships between regulation and the design and production of urban space, with a focus on the practices of architecture”. 8

Imrie, Rob and Emma Street. “Regulating Design: The Practices of Architecture, Governance, and Control”. Urban Studies, 2009. (46: 2507).

13 1.3.1 Background Narrative The focus of this research project depends on an assessment of district energy and resources with an assessment on the political forces that shape development standards. Within the backbone of architecture exists an unavoidable political unit. Because politics have an undeniable influence on how architecture is conceived, built and eventually perceived over time, how can policies transform to ensure ethical energy conservation methods throughout the built environment? Architecture Politics is the directing and administrating of states, institutions, or other political units in the practice of architecture, providing policies and legislation across a community. Thomas Jefferson believed that buildings were a metaphor for American ideology, where its principles promote higher education in order to achieve the American dream. Political processes of its own manage a higher education system, the closest in relationship to a district that is autonomous. In an effort to provide data that is more accurate and as a suggestion from a professor, a small-scale city becomes a district autonomous in its energy performance standards, performance, and targets. These also act as past, present, and future analysis that designate appropriate research. Architecture is an undeniable face of political power and exudes that institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pride or character. Hence, the prideful use of UNC Charlotteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standard red brick across its main campus. The political nature of architecture also poses questions about ethics. Politically involved buildings are those in which a mass discussion consumes the locales within its given context. The retrofitting of existing buildings has been mainstream topic and an increasingly popular endeavor initiated by many governmental, institutional, and privatized contracts as an effort to combat the energy inefficiencies of their valuable

14 assets. “In October 2009, UNC Charlotte Chancellor Philip Dubois signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, thereby confirming that UNC Charlotte will strive to become greenhouse gas neutral.” The Climate Action Plan (CAP) for UNC Charlotte demonstrates a campus-wide commitment to reach greenhouse gas neutrality and as a part of this fast-greening future, “organizations are going to have to adopt strategies to minimize financial risk” associated with retrofitting a building’s baseline performance. 9 1.3.2 Methodology Initial investigations research the campus as a “district” – the sum of its parts at a macro scale. By progressing from a macro to micro scale, information is related to and subdivided more efficiently in a project that depends on a multitude of varying factors. The proposed method for conducting the case studies was based on research of what various databases illustrate in profiling a building. As an effort to ‘diagnose’ a building’s energy performance, many variable factors contribute to an accurate picture of building health or viability. The data that is examined and the resultant analysis provided attempts to materialize everything important for a comprehensive building analysis. A collection of functional and technical data methods was established that provided several ways to obtain the needed information. The kit-of-parts are listed below: Data Collection Tools:  (Functional) Self-Reporting methods: interviews or questionnaires

UNC Charlotte Climate Action Plan

15  (Functional) Observational Methods: elements or behaviors observed and recorded; walk-through tour  (Technical) Measurements: objectively measured data Multiple data loggers utilized to monitor indoor variant typologies such as classrooms, lecture halls, studios, offices, computer labs, etc.  (Technical) Records: analysis of metered data Historical recorded data retrieved from Facilities Management Occupant Satisfaction Survey: A survey conducted for faculty/staff and student satisfaction was carried out as an informative response analysis, in order to gauge building performance without measured data. The Center for the Built Environment “Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey” 10 was a primary resource for developing the questions outlined in the report. The introduction text for the surveys read as follows: Please take a few moments to complete this satisfaction survey. The survey is confidential and will take about 5 minutes – it includes questions relating to your thermal comfort, lighting effectiveness, cleanliness, etc. of your workspaces. The report will evaluate the effectiveness of improvements, communicate occupant

perceptions,

justify

expenditures,

and

ultimately

enhance

communications. We are also trying to increase the correlation between occupant/tenant satisfaction and productivity.

Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey. Center for the Built Environment, University of California Berkeley, http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm [accessed February 1, 2013]

16 1.3.3 Limitations & Assumptions 

When combined, it is assumed that all the aforementioned data collection methods will produce a well-informed argument based on multiple measures of comprehensive analysis.



As the subsequent analysis will show, the University metered data seems erroneous in some areas, which could be a result of faulty equipment and meter errors.



Some data is missing altogether, such as information relating to Regional Utility Plant (RUP) distribution and sub-metering. Also, no meters exist within the campus district steam system.



The RUPs provide hot and cold water (heating and cooling) as follows: RUP 1; SAC, Woodward, COE, COH it also provides heating to Belk Gym RUP2; EPIC, Duke, Grigg, Bio, Motorsports 2, and Portal RUP3; Student Union will provide the future new Science Bldg RUP4; South Village Dining and Phase 11 Dorm all under construction.



All the buildings have their own electricity and gas meters.



Data entered into EPA Energy Star Target Finder and Portfolio Manager 11 as a means of determining a rating, could only be listed under an “Office” typology because of limited national data. The office building type is the closest related to any kind of academic or instructional/research typology within higher education.



Similar to EPA’s typology limitation above, when entering data into The

EPA Energy Star Target Finder Tool

17 Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment, a Large Office Building typology was used in the analysis. Until more universities across the nation share data, this limitation might be avoided by hiring a Green Globes verifier to conduct a more thorough analysis. 

Limited feedback and responses were received from the Bioinformatics and the Housing survey. Possible explanations are examined within Chapter 3.



Limitations occurred for the “Measured” data collection within the Storrs building analysis because of router communication distance. Measurements were unable to be conducted on the first level.

CHAPTER 2:

OBSERVATIONS

UNC Charlotte is the “fourth largest university in the state system, with over 25,000 enrolled students and 900 full-time faculty members as of 2010. As UNC Charlotte approaches its forty-fifth year in the North Carolina system of higher education, its dedication to high-quality, research-intensive education grows”.12 Institutions of our higher education system are a prime target for surveying. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has over 5 million square feet of buildings on campus, which rely on its own facilities management system. This ‘mini-city’ is analyzed in an all-inclusive and comprehensive building survey that will produce technical analyses. It helps provide a revisable methodology of protocols to change University energy performance standards to compete in sustainability challenges. These observations will hopefully engage a discussion about each building’s

UNC Charlotte Campus Master Plan, 2011.

18 performance and retrofit potential on campus, as well as the architectural profession’s methodologies for promoting energy conservation and renewable technologies. The assessment exhibits substantial data interpretations and analysis for University sustainability metrics.

2.1

Total Campus Energy The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has eight typical building

typologies within its higher education institution program – Parking, Public Assembly, Research/Instruction, Healthcare, Food Service, Dormitory, Auxiliary13, and Administrative. Based on data provided from Facilities Management, the Parking and Research/Instruction typologies have the largest square footage on campus. Dormitory type buildings represent the third largest at 18% and fourth are the Public Assembly buildings at 9%. Interestingly, the parking typology represents 34%, the largest portion of the campus’ square footage breakdown; however, parking only consumes about 2% of the campus total energy. When examining energy consumption per gross square footage, the State Energy Office (SEO) receives data that includes parking structures in calculations from all UNC System Institutions.

Auxiliary-type buildings could include, but are not limited to Regional Utility Plants (RUP’s) and/or other facility management spaces that could be inaccessible by the public.

Figure 1 Gross Square Footage and Energy Consumption Comparison of Campus Typologies

This means that while it may benefit the facility as a whole district, the parking square footage as an “offsetting” feature does not paint an accurate picture of campus consumption. Therefore, the standard operating procedure for reporting all UNC System institution’s energy performance, does not accurately represent interior occupied space environments. In terms of benchmarking strategies and researching ways to reduce energy consumption, Facilities Management should examine the campus without the parking typology. In order to defend this reasoning, the following report examines energy consumption in two scenarios, the first titled “GSF-EC” considers Energy Use Intensity (EUI) with the Gross Square Footage (GSF) component excluding parking. The second titled “GSF-SEO” includes the parking within the GSF calculations, exactly what is reported to the State. Figure 2 observes the given 2002-03 Baseline year that the University measures all future data against, and compares the campus total EUI with 2011-12 fiscal year consumption data. The SEO calculations depict a decline of 10.99 kBtu/sq.ft., whereas the real energy decline was 7.41 kBtu/sq.ft. over the ten-year period.

Figure 2 Baseline comparison to current energy consumption trends

In order to accurately inspect the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy consumption, we must eliminate parking deck structures from any analysis in the attempts for reduction goals. The parking decks on campus clearly do not consume the same amount of energy as other building typologies. If there is a desire to achieve a net-zero campus, parking structures could eventually produce a sufficient amount energy for itself by implementing a photovoltaic structure on the rooftops of every deck.

Figure 3 Parking Deck Rooftop Analysis

Parking deck construction and maintenance are not funded by the State but from fees charged to students, faculty, staff, and guests who all utilize these facilities. In Figure 3, the rooftop square footage was estimated by dividing each parking deck structure by the number of levels. Energy production is based on 5 hours per day and 70% production days per year, which could produce over twice the amount of energy needed to operate the parking structures across campus. This means that other buildings on campus could â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;borrowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; energy from the parking structures. At the most recent campus electricity calculated rate of $0.0642/kWh, the savings could be around $366,475 annually. If the PV system costs $20/sq.ft, which totals just over $11 million, the payback period would be about 30 years. (Note: Of course, these are all estimates and with incentives and rebates offered by local utilities and photovoltaic companies, the costs and payback period could be much less. The parking calculations for a hypothetical PV system array

22 was conducted arbitrarily more so, than as a planned portion of the thesis document. In comparison to all of the UNC System campuses as seen in Figure 4, UNC Charlotte is depicted with and without the parking GSF; however all institutions are allowed to report parking structures in their GSF to the SEO. The National Median EUI from 2003 CBECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) data is 104 kBtu/sq.ft. and highlighted with the red dashed line. The majority of the state campuses do not meet the national median; UNC Charlotte would meet this target provided a thirtypercent (30%) reduction goal by the year 2030 (Figure 5).

Figure 4 UNC Charlotte Baseline year 2002-03 comparison to other UNC System campuses

Both scenarios are examined in Figure 5, with and without parking as previously discussed, when setting up UNC Charlotte for benchmarking the baseline year of 200203, the current EUI on campus, the targets of 30% reduction by 2030, and ultimately, a net-zero consumption by the year 2050. A steady reduction is implemented for the 2030

23 year target versus a more drastic approach afterwards, which takes into account emerging technological advances within the energy industry afterward.

Figure 5 Benchmarking and Targets for UNC Charlotte

Scenario A: UNCC “Gross Square Footage for Energy Calculations” (GSF-EC) No parking (NP) square footage included; Baseline EUI is 154 kBtu/sf-year 2002-03; Current EUI is 146 kBtu/sf-year 2011-12: Current EUI (year 2011-12) x 30% (year 2030) = (146.38 Kbtu/sf-yr) x (0.30) = 43.91 Kbtu/sf-yr (146.38 Kbtu/sf-yr) minus (43.91 Kbtu/sf-yr) = 102.47 Kbtu/sf-yr (2030 Challenge) A thirty-percent (30%) reduction by the year 2030 would result in an EUI of 103. This reduction target would meet CBEC’s 2003 National College/University (campus level) Median Site EUI of 104 by the year 2030 with narrow margins.

Scenario B: UNCC “Gross Square Footage for State Energy Office” (GSF-SEO) Parking square footage included; SEO Baseline EUI is 121 kBtu/sf-year 2002-03; SEO Current EUI is 110 kBtu/sf-year 2011-12: Current SEO - EUI (year 2011-12) x 30% (year 2030) = (120.51 kBtu/sf-yr) x (0.30) = 36.15 kBtu/sf-yr (120.51 kBtu/sf-yr) minus (36.15 kBtu/sf-yr) = 84.36 kBtu/sf-yr (2030 Challenge)

A thirty-percent (30%) reduction by the year 2030 would result in an EUI of 84.

How much of a cost savings will result if Energy Conservation Measures (ECM’s) are implemented to reduce UNCC total campus energy consumption to 30%14 by the year

Assuming GSF by Energy Calculations, not GSF reported to State Energy Office (SEO)

25 2030? The current (2011-12) EUI corresponds to $1.56/sf-yr and the 2030 year EUI corresponds to $1.09/sf-yr. In order to determine Energy Cost Intensity Savings (ECI), the calculations below represent an â&#x20AC;&#x153;as-isâ&#x20AC;? campus, as well as with an additional 1 million square feet. If no NEW construction added to campus by 2030: ($1.56/sf-yr) minus ($1.09/sf-yr) x (GSF Energy 2011-12; 5,825,742 sf) ECI Savings = $2,738,099 per year

If the GSF increases 1 million square feet by 2030 (assuming net-zero buildings built) ($1.56) minus ($1.09) x (6,825,742 sf) ECI Savings = $3,208,099 per year

26 Campus Typologies

The Energy Use Intensity (EUI) figures are illustrated above for UNC Charlotte, in terms of Median and Average along with a comparative Median from CBEC’s 2003 Climate Region 4 data. In certain cases it is appropriate to analyze the data by using the “Median” as a lens – mostly if there is substantial data range to support it; otherwise it is more beneficial for the University to examine its data within “Averages” because of its smaller pool of data range. The typologies above are UNC Charlotte Building Typologies from left to right: Academic, Administrative, Public Assembly, Auxiliary, Dormitory, Food Service, Healthcare, and Parking. A baseline year 2002-03 was established by the University from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report; this reported data is compared to a recent fiscal year of 2011-12 median EUI with its average EUI highlighted in grey. Academic buildings median has remained the same but it will be described later in the report that the average has increased significantly. The EUI median for almost all typologies has increased except for the Dormitory and Food Service type buildings.

Figure 6 Campus Typologies EUI Comparison

Figure 7 Energy Consumption Distribution by Typology

29 The UNC Charlotte typologies are examined by fuel source (electricity and natural gas) in Figures 6 and 7 within the earlier proposed comparison years 02-03 and 11-12. It is important to note the large amount of natural gas consumption within the Auxiliary typology relates to some distribution to other buildings on campus but remains unmetered. Therefore, it is possible for skewed data analysis and reaffirms the need for a revised campus methodology for energy analysis. The data points out at most campus typologies consume higher percentages of electricity for both fiscal years 2002-03 and 2011-12.

CHAPTER 3:

3.1

BUILDING CASE STUDIES

Introduction

The chosen case studies examine buildings within the “Academic” and “Dormitory” typologies on campus. These two building types represent two of the largest square footages (except for parking structures) and combined they amount to 56% of the total energy consumption on campus. This section of the thesis observes Academic (Instruction/Research) buildings first. Initial observations consist of “Red Flag” buildings, where anomalies are reported from the researched data in hopes of provoking further investigation. Second, buildings Smith, Storrs, and Bioinformatics are described in detail – three structures built in different generations, with various energy consumption profiles and consequently retrofitting needs. The most recently constructed Bioinformatics building is investigated as a control comparative because it is LEED Silver certified. Finally, the Dormitory buildings are examined in the same manner; however, there is less detail because the typology overall has experienced significant energy consumption reductions from the campus baseline year as will be explained later.

3.2

Overview

The following case studies are reviewed in modules (3.2.1-6)15, which highlight specific features from the Green Globes report recommendations. Each module is reviewed below. Please see Appendix A for “Supplementary Information” not contained in the main body of the referenced report. This supplementary information is important when specific recommendations need further examination. Green Globes for New Construction, including Major Renovations, incorporates a comprehensive energy section beginning with “design energy performance”. The ENERGY STAR commercial building award program is the primary basis for rating the proposed energy performance for building projects. Accessed through their online Target Finder program, the ENERGY STAR benchmarking protocol measures design performance against actual building energy performance data, specific to the building occupancy type and region. Additional inputs into Target Finder are used to normalize the benchmarking results. Green Globes utilizes the same achievement threshold as the ENERGY STAR award program for existing buildings, 75%, to begin awarding credit for energy performance. The primary benefit to the Green Globes user is that the project's energy performance design is compared against actual regional performance data rather than a hypothetical base building model making it a more accurate predictor of energy savings. Additionally, building owners may save design costs by using

Referenced text in ‘Supplementary Information’ provided from Green Building Initiative: Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment Report

32 ENERGY STAR where the ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G model is not required. Another benefit is the additional ENERGY STAR output that also lists source energy efficiency and potential CO2e emissions. The regional building performance data utilized by ENERGY STAR is contained in the US Department of Energy's

3.2.1 Energy Energy is an important operational cost as well as an environmental parameter because energy use relates directly to climate change and global warming as well as a variety of air emissions. These atmospheric emissions include hydrocarbons, CO2, and airborne particles as well as sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, which produce acid rain. From a cost perspective, there is a direct relationship between energy savings and cost savings. HVAC systems, lighting and heating of water use large amounts of energy. The ANSI / ASHRAE / IESNA Standard 90.1-2010 focuses on improving the energy consumption performance of commercial buildings based on both the building envelope and the building systems and equipment. 3.2.2 Water This section assesses the water-conserving features of the building as well as its water management. A successful water management program begins with an understanding of how the facility and its occupants use and dispose of water. This makes it possible to plan effective measures to achieve reductions.

33 3.2.3 Resources Buildings consume many resources, including the land they are built on, the materials used in their construction, the products used for their maintenance, and the equipment and products used by the tenants. This section evaluates the waste generated by the building as well as site stewardship. The original building materials used in the construction of the building are not included in the assessment of existing buildings. 3.2.4 Emissions, Effluents and Pollution Controls For the purposes of this evaluation, pollutants include emissions from boilers, ozonedepleting substances found in refrigerants and fire-fighting equipment, asbestos, PCBs, radon, pesticides, and hazardous materials such as those found in cleaning products, lubricants, water treatment chemicals and fuels. Their environmental impacts relate to the degree of toxicity of each product and their release into the environment. 3.2.5 Indoor Environment Environmental management of a building needs to be done in a comprehensive way that also considers the health and comfort of occupants. Many environmental features actually enhance occupant well being. This section addresses issues such as indoor air quality, lighting and noise. There are many pollutants in the indoor air of most buildings. Satisfactory indoor air quality can be achieved by removing pollutants at source, diluting them with fresh air or doing both. 3.2.6 Environmental Management System This section evaluates the likelihood that the building will achieve continuous improvement thanks to its management system. Although a building's management may

34 have an unwritten culture of strategic planning, as well as a commitment to conform to regulations and achieve energy efficiency through stringent operations and maintenance, these efforts can be greatly enhanced by a more formal documented approach. Ecopurchasing is a procurement strategy that reduces the volume and toxicity of wastes. It is based on the premise that all the environmental resources and costs of materials, manufacturing, labor, transportation, packaging, merchandising, storage and disposal are wasted when a product is discarded. The purpose of an environmental emergency response program is to limit the adverse effects of any man-made or natural disaster on the occupants and the environment. Communication with tenants serves to inform them of environmental initiatives in the building, increase their environmental awareness and motivate them to implement measures of their own.

35 3.3

Academic Overview Academic buildings at UNC Charlotte consume the most energy

on campus. Comprising 47%, or more for consideration that some of the Auxiliary energy is being distributed to Academic buildings, the Instructional/Research buildings are graphically represented in Figure 8. Each building is shown with its 200203 Baseline and 2011-12 Comparison Year for energy consumption in metered electricity and natural gas. “Black” dashed lines depict the ten-year change period “average”, whereas the “orange” dashed line shows the “median” on campus. A “red” dashed line depicts CBEC’s Climate Region 4 “median” EUI for Academic buildings in higher education. In Figure 8, the first grouping of buildings characterize construction methods used prior to ANSI / ASHRAE / IESNA 90.1-1989, which became the first building code the state implemented that had any energy requirements for new construction. The last building built under the old building code was Fretwell, which had the opportunity to comply with the new energy requirements but was designed and planned prior to the effective date. In March 1995 the Building Code Council adopted Volume X (Energy) as the new energy code for North Carolina. These new energy requirements became effective July 1, 1996. Volume X is a reprint of ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 (codified version) with North Carolina amendments. The code applies to commercial buildings, including those used for assembly, business, education, and storage, as well as institutions and merchants. High-rise and multi-family residential buildings are also covered under Volume X.

Figure 8 Academic typology EUI comparison.

37 Effective July 1, 2006, the base document for the 2006 North Carolina Energy Conservation Code is the 2003 IECC. The 2006 NC Amendments are replacements to the Sections printed in the base document. The 2004 Supplement to the I-Codes is referenced in various Sections of the 2006 NC Amendments. On March 11, 2008, the 2009 North Carolina Energy Conservation Code was adopted. Based on the 2006 IECC (and referencing ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for commercial buildings), the code includes strengthening amendments to the base code, requiring fenestration U-factor and SHGC values of 0.40 across the state. 16 From 1996 to 2005, there were no academic-type buildings built on campus, similar to the respite dormitory-type buildings experienced from 1995 to 2004. The third grouping represents buildings built to LEED certification standards. Figure 9 illustrates the three different generations of buildings on campus and their respective energy consumption in electricity and natural gas for the fiscal year 2011-12. Vintage A also gives an idea to the percent of change from the Baseline Year of 2002-03; electric consumption increased 22% and natural gas decreased 7% within that ten-year period. Within the newest Vintage C Academic buildings, the electric EUI is reduced; however, Natural Gas EUI increases with the more recent construction methods. The total combined EUI is lowest in newer construction. A conclusion for the reasons behind high electric EUI in older buildings could be the “Band-Aid” renovation methodology. Another reason could be that there are different indoor variant typologies from the original intended use, like the Kennedy building which has changed ‘indoor uses’ several times since its construction in 1961.

U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “Building Energy Codes Program for North Carolina” http://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/north-carolina [accessed March 28, 2013].

Figure 9 Academic energy consumption EUI by Vintage

39 3.3.1 Red Flag Buildings

Kennedy is one of the first two buildings on the main campus and it was named for Woodford A. “Woody” Kennedy, also known as the ‘spiritual father of Figure 10 Source: Atkins Library Special Collections

Charlotte College’. Both Kennedy and

Macy were constructed at an original cost of $418,000. Designed by architect Arthur Gould Odell (Odell & Associates) and built in 1961, the Kennedy building has gone through extensive changes over the years. Electric consumption increased over 12 times from the baseline year 2002-03 (CBEC’s Climate Region 4 Median EUI is 78 kBtu/sq. ft.

Figure 11 Energy Consumption for Kennedy building

40 and UNC Charlotte’s Median is 66 kBtu/sq.ft.). This energy spike should be a considerable alarm to the University especially since the building had HVAC upgrades performed in 2006. During the year following the upgrade, Kennedy’s use classification changed again, from classrooms to IT Central boasting enormous computer usage and offices in 2007. This building is a real cause for concern – during 2011-12 Kennedy consumed over 47 million kBtu of electricity! For comparison, the entire Food Service or Dormitory typology consumed just over 37 million kBtu of electricity during the same year.

41 Colvard was built in 1979 and designed by architect Harry C Wolf. It is composed of classrooms, offices, and lecture halls totaling around 120,000 square feet. The analyzed data reveals that the building may or may not have accurate readings from the meter considering the sudden large increase and subsequent decrease in EUI within a ten-year period. The building went under recent renovations with improvements like vermiculite insulate roofing in 2010, insulated walls, and a heat reclaimer. Colvard could be an example of what building retrofits look like without taking a reduction-in-energy approach to them, otherwise â&#x20AC;&#x153;Band-Aidâ&#x20AC;? approach.

Figure 12 Energy Consumption for Colvard building

Figure 13 Energy Consumption for Cameron building

Progressive increase in electricity energy consumption over 8 times since the baseline year, which was less than the current campus median EUI of 66 kBtu/sq.ft.

Other RED FLAG’s UNC Charlotte’s Average 2002-03 EUI was 75.73 kBtu/sq.ft. and the 2011-12 Average EUI is 145.04 kBtu/sq. ft. – a drastic increase for the Academic typology as a whole. With the newest Academic Buildings, Woodward Hall’s total EUI is 129.22 kBtu/sq. ft. and the Center City Building (CCB) total EUI is 128.33 kBtu/sq.ft. – both well above the medians for UNCC and CBEC’s data.

Within the older Academic building typology, McEniry has highest water consumption at 9,627,616 CF and McEniry has a high EUI of 101.36 kBtu/sq.ft. Also, Storrs electricity consumption increased over 4 times since the campus baseline year of 2002-03.

43 3.4

Three Vintages

Figure 14 Three generations of Academic buildings

Within this section, academic buildings Smith, Storrs, and Bioinformatics are described in detail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; three structures built in different generations, with various energy consumption profiles and consequently retrofitting needs.

44 3.4.1 Smith Building Profile Building Information: Smith is a 91,539 square foot building that was built in 1966 at a construction cost of $1.6 million. It is a three-story structural steel and precast concrete envelope system that is home to the Engineering Technology & Construction Management Departments at UNC Charlotte. There are 24-hour computer

Figure 15 University archives photo of Smith building after finished construction.

labs that run about 200 personal computers (PCs) out of the estimated total 375 PCs within the entire building. Operating hours on the main shift (a typical 40 hour work week) are 168 with 125 faculty, 50 staff, and 500 students that occupy the Smith building. The building shape consists of two rectangular or square shapes connected and oriented on a North – South axis with a built-up flat roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 26-50% and the glazing is original single pane and operable. The storefront glazing systems have been upgraded to double pane. There are also no protective shading devices or reflective film on the glazing. The gaskets and sealant are in visibly bad condition and it is reported unlikely that the current performance and condition of the building envelope has been assessed in terms of condensation. Asbestos is present in the building but it is unknown if there is an up-to-date inventory based on a survey that includes records of locations and the condition of all asbestos; it is likely “hot” in 9” floor tiles, old insulation on pipes, and old doors. The program variants (Figure 16) primarily

45 consist of classrooms, class labs, open laboratories, and offices totaling about 65% of the total occupancy typology. The remaining spaces include corridors, building service, storage, restrooms, and conference spaces.

Figure 16 Interior Variant Typologies within Smith building.

Energy Profile: The HVAC heating equipment utilizes District Heat with a fuel type of Natural Gas (NG). A chiller and cooling tower runs the cooling equipment from the McEniry Regional Utility Plant (RUP). There are two boilers that are new with the building’s HVAC system upgrade in 2007, but during normal heating season the building is on the district’s plant steam. The boilers are high efficiency with automatic vent dampers and external air combustion within an isolated room. Temperature setback and weather compensation are implemented and the HVAC has an automated system. The air handlers were replaced within the upgrade and the terminals are ducted air registers. Energy consumption data reveals the Smith building is currently performing worse than its performance during the baseline year of 2002-03. Since the baseline year of 2,235,201 kBtu, electric energy consumption has more than doubled to 4,967,056 kBtu per year in 2011-12. Figure 17 is a graphic representation of the Smith building’s energy consumption totals from 2002 to 2012. The Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of Smith has increased almost 60% since its baseline. The Green Globes Building Report conducted on Smith shows the building achieved a score of 80% for its energy consumption, based on the entered individual building rating of 90 from the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager.

Figure 17 Energy performance trends of the Smith building. Electricity is colored blue, natural gas is green, and the magenta dotted line is a trend line throughout the years.

48 Based on the reported energy consumption total of 5,175,924 kBtu/year (198,752 cu. ft. of gas and 1,455,761 kWh of electricity) for the period of twelve months ending June 2012, the current energy performance of Smith for that period was 53.61 kBtu/Sq.Ft./yr. GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) were 1,134.67 tons/yr. Energy costs were $84,563, or $0.92/ft2/year. If all energy savings measures recommended by Green Globes were implemented, the annual saving potential could be in the order of $16,500, or total $0.74/ft2/year – and overall reduction would result in 20%. A 30% reduction target would be $0.65/ft2/year. The energy data analyzed reveals the building consuming 96% electricity and only 4% natural gas; a possible inconsistency in the data occurs here and it is likely the building consumes more NG from a portion of the “Auxiliary” typology that the campus provides for its district. Figure 18 & 19 chart the monthly consumption trends of

Figure 18 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year for Smith building

Figure 19 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year for Smith building

electricity and natural gas during the fiscal year 2011-12. The table below represents the data provided in the EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Energy Star Target Finder Tool, which reveals a climate region median, an as-designed building (Smith), and a target performance standard for the building. ENERGY

Median

Design

Target

Energy Performance Rating (0-100)

100

Energy Reduction (%)

Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

333

184

Site Energy Use (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

102

Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu)

30,442,585

16,798,112

9,069,320

Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)

9,361,887

5,165,857

2,789,052

Total Annual Energy Cost ($)

$206,276

$84,563

$61,453

1,365

753

407

45%

70%

POLLUTION EMISSIONS CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

Table-A Energy Star's Target Finder Results for Smith building

The hot water equipment is an inefficient central heater and the fuel source is District Steam (DS). There are low flow restrictors in the faucets but complaints have led students to damage the improvement with screwdrivers. Hence, there are no low flow toilets, urinals or laminar faucets within the building or any other energy-efficient water saving devices except for some automatic valve controls. None of the labs use once-through water-cooled units like some other labs on campus that use a closed-loop system. There are no changing facilities or showers within in the building. It is probable that there arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t any floor drains in protected areas where chemicals are stored. Also, it is unknown if the drinking water has been tested safe recently.

Figure 20 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Fiscal Year for Smith building

51 Occupants and Operations Twenty-three (23) total responses were received from the occupant satisfaction survey distributed to the Smith building faculty and staff. The majority of occupants have worked in the building for more than five (5) years. Two initial questions are asked in order to gauge how familiar the occupants are with the building â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it may not mean that they are experts in operation but more accustomed occupants would have a better sense of the buildings daily, weekly, and seasonal operational changes. The third questions inquires

52 about the space in which the occupants work. An overwhelming 91% of the faculty/staff responses work within an enclosed office that is private from other occupants. The graphic below represents a rating scale of various statements that inquire about the occupants satisfaction levels with storage, visual privacy, space, colors, textures, temperature, thermal comfort, etc. Most of the Smith building faculty and staff

53 are satisfied with the amount of space available for work and storage, the amount of visual privacy, and the ease of interaction with other people. These first three statements are likely to mean that the building program is working efficiently for the occupants in Engineering Technology & Construction Management. Most occupants agree that they are neutral in deciding if they are well informed about the features discussed in these statements. The majority of occupants is not satisfied with the temperature in the building but may or may not think that thermal comfort interferes with work performance.

It appears that most of the occupants believe their productivity levels are neither worse nor better when considering lighting and cleanliness in the building; however, thermal conditions may have an impact on productivity for some of the faculty and staff.

Therefore, if thermal comfort levels were stable for the building’s occupants, it would more than likely increase their productivity at work. “classrooms we use (267, 269, 272) have very poor to no air circulation and heating/cooling ineffective. My personal office space not so much of a problem, it is the classrooms that cause the most heartburn with respect to an effective teaching environment. Also, need additional dedicated storage space for our classroom equipment, apparatus and supplies - since we teach in three separate classrooms at various times and days, and the rooms are not secure, we need better storage space.” Almost half of the faculty and staff responded to whether they have brought in a personal portable heater or fan to increase their comfort level. Most of the responders use a portable heater versus a fan suggesting that during the winter months, thermal comfort is more of an

55 issue than spring or summer months. This leads to the next set of three questions that examine warm/hot weather issues versus cool/cold. It is interesting to note that the following responses are virtually the opposite condition for the Storrs building.

56 These responses indicate a strong likelihood that there is a significant amount of thermal bridging or air transfer from exterior to interior because the building is not sealed properly. The occupants were given a chance to answer why they thought their own discomforts were occurring â&#x20AC;&#x201C; most people agree that the thermostat is inaccessible or adjusted by others, or that the heating/cooling system does not respond efficiently. A responder even suggested that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;HVAC renovations seems to have made things worseâ&#x20AC;?.

Occupants were asked about the building’s cleanliness and maintenance – more than half of people responded which leads one to think why the other 8 respondents did not answer this question? For this question, open comments left in the “Other” field are listed below:  Can not open window for fresh air  Bathrooms are atrocious  We empty our own trash cans!  Bathrooms and stairwells are not sufficiently cleaned  Trash cans provided are not large enough  Smith building is clean, but very old and needs to have floors replaced and up-date the bathrooms because them always look dirty, but I know they have been cleaned. Another response in the general comments said, “the bathrooms really need to be updated. They are in poor condition and no amount of cleaning will make them better”.

A little over half of the surveys responded to the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lighting features question. Half of the people who did respond thought there was not enough daylight in the building, even though seventy percent of faculty/staff have control over window blinds or shades. The additional survey comments or recommendations are listed below:

59  Hallways look gloomy

entrance needs transformation,

 Bathrooms are nasty

lighting, flooring, and relocation of

 Would it be possible to make

recycle containers and trash

faculty/staff bathrooms key accessible?  Gut to structure, remediate asbestos

containers.  The building is old and needs updating. The floors need to be

and refurbish classrooms with

replaced with modern flooring. The

appropriate seating, sight lines and

stairwells are dirty and needs

acoustical treatments. It may be less

updating with new flooring in them.

expensive to just demolish the

Also, the trees outside between

building.

Smith and the Prospector need to be

 I know I am typically the coldest

cut down. They are too big and they

natured one in the office so I adjust

drop pine needles and pine cones all

by using a blanket or scarf while I

the time. If fact, it is dangerous

work.

when it is wet and rainy because the

 Building could use some cosmetic

needles and cones are slippery when

touch-ups/ major facelift - it is over

wet and the cones are unsafe if you

50 years old and time for some work.

happen to step on one.

 Smith 267, 269, and 272 are now

 Sometimes it's too hot and

classrooms, not laboratories. We

sometimes it's too cold, but not

need additional cooling!

enough so that it affects my

 Entrance of building needs to be enhanced both exterior and interior. Over grown trees, and landscaping

productivity.  Building needs total renovation especially the bathrooms

need to be replaced. Interior 17

See Appendix for full survey report and voluntary comments from responses

60 Recommendations The Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment produced the following report on Smith. The report is divided into six (6) modules and Smith’s scores for each is listed below:

Figure 21 Green Globes percentage of points achieved by Smith for each module.

Smith achieved an overall rating of 62% considering all modules. For “ENERGY” out of a possible applicable score of 350, Smith achieved 212 points earning a rating of 61% based on the assessment of best-case practices for energy efficiency in office buildings.

Lighting Recommendations: 1. Consider a lighting retrofit. Re-lamping with energy efficient lighting is one of the most common building retrofits because it can produce significant savings. 18 2. Install daylight sensors, or occupancy sensors in areas such as stairwells and storage rooms.

See Appendix A-1

61 3. Smith may benefit from installing a full or partial building automation system (BAS) that would automatically manage its heating/cooling, ventilation, air quality, lighting and security systems.

Hot Water Recommendations: 1. As the building undergoes future retrofits, consider either condensing water heaters for storage of large quantities of water or tankless (instantaneous) hot water heaters for where the demand for hot water is occasional rather than continuous, and the volume required is relatively low. Solar water heating can also be effective where there is good solar access. 2. Maintain hot water between 105째 and 120째 F for clinical areas, 120째 F for dietary, and 160째 F for laundry.

Other Energy Efficiency Features: 1. Consider installing variable speed drives on fans and pumps, which can have a simple payback ranging from 6 months to 1.25 years. 2. Consider installing cogeneration, which captures and recycles rejected heat that would otherwise escape from existing electricity generation in the building. 3. Consider installing an energy recovery ventilation system which reclaims waste energy from exhaust air and uses that heat to condition the incoming fresh air. 4. Evaluate the potential of harnessing a renewable energy source on site.

62 Envelope Recommendations: 1. Consider doing a performance and condition assessment of the building envelope in terms of water infiltration condensation, moist air transfer, air flow and heat transfer. Evaluate the maintenance and life cycle cost of all building and roof materials. Thermal imaging equipment may be used to complete the assessment. 2. As the building undergoes future retrofits, consider replacing existing doors and windows with high-efficiency ones. Double glazed, low-E, gas-filled windows have window frame spacers with high thermal integrity to reduce heating and cooling costs by up to 20%. Alternatively, install window film. High performance weather stripping on doors and windows also increases their thermal performance. 3. Consider installing appropriate shading. Exterior shading by deciduous trees, awnings, solar blinds or low-e film over large glass areas can reduce solar heat gain by 55%. Overheating can be also reduced by green roofs and high-albedo (reflective) roof coatings. 4. Conduct air-sealing of the top part of the building (i.e. the upper one third of the building and the mechanical penthouse). Conduct air-sealing of the bottom part of the building (i.e. the lower one third of the building, the parking area and entrance doors). Conduct air-sealing of the vertical shafts and elevators.

Energy Management: A comprehensive energy management program can contribute significant savings to the bottom line. Smith achieved a score of 36% for energy management. 1. Smith might benefit from having an energy policy. This is a declaration of principles

63 that guides planning operations with respect to energy management. The policy should be signed by senior management. 2. An energy audit for Smith would help to specify cost-effective measures to conserve energy, by pointing out areas that unnecessarily consume too much. The energy audit should have been performed within the past three years. 3. Prepare an energy management (reduction) plan to address energy issues raised in the energy audit. 4. Setting realistic goals and targets can serve as a basis for establishing benchmarks and comparing the energy performance over time. 5. As there does not appear to be movement towards energy targets, review progress so far and re-evaluate the potential for building upgrade. 6. Monitor monthly usage and peak demand in 15 or 30 minute increments, and hourly energy demand for a typical weekday and weekend day for each of the four seasons. Investigate measures to flatten the load profile, thereby rendering the facility more attractive to power vendors. 7. Develop an ongoing training plan for each building staff member with updates for key procedures that affect energy usage such as the efficient operation of the HVAC system. Ensure that new staff receive necessary training early. All training and updates should be documented. 8. Ensure that funds for improvements are available, either by having an energyefficiency improvement budget or participating in an energy-efficiency financing program. 9. Provide energy sub-metering for each major tenant.

64 10. The building should have sub-meters for monitoring major energy uses to establish building load profile and demand structure.

Transportation Recommendations: 1. Consider installing shelter devices over bike racks. 2. Consider providing changing facilities for staff including showers and facilities for hanging and drying clothes.

Water Recommendations: Smith achieved 51% for installing water-conserving features and implementing watermanagement best practices. The water consumption of Smith is less than 0.5 m3/m2/year. 1. As water fixtures need replacing, or even earlier, consider installing: 

Low flow toilets that use less than 1.6 GPF



Low flush urinals that use less than 1.0 GPF



Low flow or laminar flow faucets 2.2 GPM (7.5 liters/min.)



Other water-saving devices such as low flow showerheads 2.5 GPM (9.0 liters/min.), waterless urinals, greywater systems, etc.

2. Incorporate indigenous species to landscape the property. Consider the following water-conservation measures: 

Using automatic timed irrigation systems



Setting irrigation times early in the morning or late in the afternoon to reduce high evaporation and the development of moss



Watering less frequently (twice weekly instead of daily)

65 

Maintaining a higher grass level to maximize water retention (two inches high).

3. Consider using collected rainwater for irrigation. 4. Consider the feasibility of using “grey water” for irrigation in the event of a major retrofit. 5. Establish a written water conservation policy that is intended to minimize water use and encourage water conservation. 6. Consider doing a water audit. It should provide recommendations including maintenance procedures that may need to be revised, and should identify equipment that needs to be upgraded. A water audit of the applicant's building should have been performed within the past three years. 7. Establish water-reduction targets in terms of gallons/person or gallons/SF. 8. Establish procedures to check for and fix leaks in the building’s plumbing system.

Waste Reduction & Recycling Recommendations: Smith achieved 68% for managing resources through waste reduction and site stewardship. 1. Consider doing a waste audit. Once a baseline is established, it is then possible to establish waste reduction targets. 2. Conduct regular monitoring of waste to determine the actual quantities of waste generated by the facility, and to evaluate whether the targets are being met. Monitoring can be done by recording the weight or volume of garbage that leaves the facility.

66 3. Implement programs that reduce the volumes of waste generated through reduced consumption of packaging and non-durable goods, as well as the reuse of materials and products. Recycling programs should strive to achieve high diversion rates of standard fibre and container streams, as well as target additional wastes such as toner cartridges, fluorescent lamps and electronic equipment. Establish waste-reduction targets. 4. The feasibility of recycling construction, renovation and demolition waste should be investigated whenever applicable. There should be a written policy that is intended to minimize the reduction of construction waste being sent to landfill.

Site Recommendations: Smith achieved 91% for measures to minimize the impact of the building on the site and/or to enhance the site. 1. Consider measures to enhance the site, for example by increasing the number of indigenous species, or creating a small natural "oasis" on the site.

Waste Water Effluents Recommendations: Smith achieved 33% based on best practices to manage liquid effluents. 1. Protect floor drains in areas where chemicals are stored. At a minimum, there should be containment of hazardous materials. This can consist of large secondary containers for storing the materials. 2. Consider implementation of measures to reduce the amount of water that flows off the property, such as installing porous paving, increasing vegetation, and installing

67 rain-water catchment systems. Diverting storm-water from impervious areas such as roofs and paths, and reusing it whenever possible, reduces urban runoff. Infiltration practices are encouraged as a best management practice to increase the infiltration of rainwater. The amount of water directed off a property can be reduced by: 

minimizing the area of impervious surfaces



installing porous paving



planting vegetation



eliminating curbs along driveways and streets to increase infiltration



installing gravel drains along the base of walls



directing rain gutters to landscaped areas, drywells and infiltration basins where water can seep into the ground



installing rooftop water catchment systems (cisterns) and use precipitation for irrigation



designing vegetated swales and shallow infiltration basins to carry stormwater, instead of pipes (these may be designed to dry out between rainfalls, or may be small permanent wetlands)



installing clarifiers or oil/water separators in all new and rebuilt parking areas.

Indoor Environment: Smith achieved a score of 62% for having a healthy indoor environment. 1. Consider relocation of the air intakes far from sources of pollution such as parking areas, bus stops or pools of water on the roof. 2. Building exhaust outlets should be positioned no closer than 10 m to fresh air inlets to avoid “re-entrainment” (short-circuiting) of exhaust air. Also consider the direction of prevailing winds relative to intakes and exhaust. 3. Ensure that grilles on fresh-air intakes are free of obstruction such as contamination

68 from leaves, snow, insects and pigeon droppings and that outdoor air dampers are drawing properly. 4. In the event that the ventilation system is retrofitted, investigate the feasibility of occupants having personal control over ventilation rates, either through a hybrid system (operable windows) or personalized HVAC controls. 5. Investigate and eliminate the cause of stained ceilings, damp or musty carpets or musty odors 6. Develop a checklist of items concerning IAQ issues that must be reviewed with architects, engineers, contractors, and other professionals prior to renovation and repairs. 7. Carry out an indoor air quality audit each year. The development of an IAQ profile of the building can help to identify problems. 8. Documented procedures for ensuring good IAQ should include: 

HVAC operations



housekeeping procedures



preventive maintenance



procedures for unscheduled maintenance



mold management

9. Consider assigning an IAQ Manager and provide training so that there is some inhouse expertise to be able to identify, prevent and solve common IAQ problems. There should also be a documented means for addressing tenant/occupant concerns regarding indoor air quality. 10. Provide continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity.

Lighting: Lighting factors that affect visual comfort of occupants include visibility, glare, contrast ratio and color rendition. Smith achieved a score of 53% for lighting. 1. Consider installing controllable internal blinds or external shading devices to prevent glare at visual display terminals (VDTs). 2. Suitable task lighting should be provided. This is lighting which shines directly from the luminaire to the task. For greatest comfort in task-oriented spaces such as offices, distribute daylight and most electric light indirectly - bounced from the ceiling and walls. Reflective surfaces should be light in color, preferably white. 3. If the floor plan does not allow for 80% of work areas to have access to daylighting, establish local lighting controls related to room occupancy. Each control should be for no more than 4 workstations.

Environmental Management System Recommendations: Smith achieved a score of 39% for its documentation, and its environmental purchasing practices as well as for its environmental emergency response plans and communications with tenants. Smith achieved 0% for documenting its environmental policy, goals, targets and action plans. Smith achieved 24% for its environmental purchasing plan. Smith achieved 85% for its emergency response program. Smith achieved 64% for tenant environmental awareness. 1. Consider writing an environmental management policy that articulates a common purpose and coordinates efforts in all departments/areas.

70 2. Action plans that include procedures, schedules, resources, responsibilities and training needs should be documented to address each of the environmental objectives. 3. Prepare an environmental purchasing plan that assigns responsibilities, ensures that those who do purchasing have adequate training, refers to products used by in-house staff, stipulates requirements for cleaning contractors, and provides education to tenants. 4. Provide staff with a list of feasible environmentally-friendly substitutes and their suppliers. 5. Include in the purchasing policy, a statement to reflect managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in purchasing energy saving equipment where applicable. 6. A site map showing the location of environmentally significant features and equipment can help to plan emergency response. This is helpful for emergency crews. 7. The building management must have in place a well-understood system for communicating with tenants/occupants on environmental issues specific to the building. Provide tenants with communications on ways they can contribute to energy conservation. 8. Complete a tenant satisfaction survey.

71 3.4.2

Storrs Building

Building Information Storrs is a 105,050 square foot building that was built in 1990 at a construction cost of $3.7 million. It is a two-story structural steel and concrete masonry unit envelope system that is home to the Architecture Department at UNC Charlotte. There are two computer labs that run about 120

Figure 22 University archives photo of Storrs building main entrance.

personal computers (PCs) out of the estimated total 200 PCs within the entire building. Operating hours on the main shift (a typical 40 hour work week) are 168 with 50 faculty and staff, and 400 students that occupy the Storrs building. The building shape consists of an irregular rectangular shape and oriented on a North â&#x20AC;&#x201C; South axis with a built-up flat roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 51-75% and the glazing is original single pane and not operable. There are also no protective shading devices or reflective film on the glazing. The program variants (Figure 23) primarily consist of classrooms, two lecture halls, studio spaces, offices, a wood shop lab, daylighting and energy performance lab, library, print shop, and 2 computer labs.

Figure 23 Interior Variant Typologies within Storrs building.

Energy Profile The HVAC heating equipment utilizes District Heat with a fuel type of Natural Gas (NG). The boilers are original to the building from date of construction, which is more than twenty years ago. Because of their age it is suspected the boilers do not have automatic vent dampers. Storrs does not have any sort of Building Automation System (BAS) or any high efficiency devices except for a brand new chiller. There has not been a comprehensive assessment of the current performance and condition of the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s envelope in terms of condensation, moist air transfer, airflow, or heat transfer. No energy-efficient windows or doors exist in the building where it is also very common for students to prop open doors to increase airflow, ventilation, or comfort levels. The doors will be replaced soon but as a security measure, not as an energy efficiency measure.

73 Most of the windows have interior blinds but the glazing does not have any protective shading or reflective film. There is no coordinated system of management to control the interior airflow. In regards to the new re-circulating chiller, an anonymous mechanic said, “we can replace all that and put in state of the art equipment but the systems within the building are so dated as to be almost unable to manage [effectively]”.19 The Green Globes Building Report conducted on Storrs shows the building achieved a score of 0% for its energy consumption, based on the entered individual building rating of 62 from the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Based on the reported energy consumption total of 8,119,751 kBtu/year (4,000 cu. ft. of gas and 2,378,531 kWh of electricity) for the period of twelve months ending June 2012, the current energy performance of Storrs for that period was 77.29 kBtu/Sq.Ft./yr. GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) were 1,784.76 tons/yr. Energy costs were $141,291, or $1.34/ft2/year. If all energy savings measures recommended by Green Globes were implemented, the annual saving potential could be in the order of $35,400, or total $1.01/ft2/year – and overall reduction would result in 25%. A 30% reduction target would be $0.94/ft2/year. Energy consumption data reveals the Storrs building is currently performing worse than its performance during the baseline year of 2002-03. Since the baseline year of 1,761,530 kBTU, electric energy consumption has more than tripled to 8,115,548 kBTU per year in 2011-12. Figure 24 is a graphic representation of the Storrs building energy consumption totals from 2002 to 2012. The Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

Interview with building liaison

Figure 24 Energy performance trends of the Storrs building. Electricity is colored blue, natural gas is green, and the magenta dotted line is a trend line throughout the years.

of Storrs has increased almost 80% since its baseline. This graph depicts a clear indication that using 2002-03 as a baseline year does not match with how the building is actually performing in energy consumption. The energy data analyzed reveals the building consumes 99% electricity and only 1% natural gas; a possible inconsistency in the data occurs here and it is likely the building consumes more NG from a portion of the “Auxiliary” typology that the campus provides for its district. Figure’s 25 & 26 chart the monthly consumption trends of electricity and natural gas during the fiscal year 2011-12.

Figure 25 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year – Storrs building

Figure 26 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Storrs building

The table below represents the data provided in the EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Energy Star Target Finder Tool, which reveals a climate region median, an as-designed building (Storrs), and a target performance standard for the building. ENERGY

Median

Design

Target

Energy Performance Rating (0-100)

Energy Reduction (%)

296

258

207

Site Energy Use (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu)

31,123,052

27,110,536

21,786,136

Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)

9,321,747

8,119,948

6,525,223

Total Annual Energy Cost ($)

$145,598

$126,827

$101,919

1,393

1,214

975

13%

30%

Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

POLLUTION EMISSIONS CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

Table B Energy Star's Target Finder Results for Storrs building

The hot water equipment is an inefficient central heater and the fuel source is Electricity. There are no low flow toilets, urinals or laminar faucets within the building or any other energy-efficient water saving devices. None of the labs use once-through water-cooled units like some other labs on campus that use a closed-loop system. There are no changing facilities or showers within in the building. Also, it is unknown if the drinking water has been tested safe recently.

Figure 27 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Fiscal Year for Storrs building

78 Â Occupants and Operations Fifty-three (53) total responses were received from the occupant satisfaction survey distributed to the Storrs building occupants. The majority of occupants have worked in the building for between 3 and 5 years. Two initial questions are asked in order to gauge how familiar the occupants are with the building â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it may not mean that they are experts in operation but more accustomed occupants would have a better sense of the buildings daily, weekly, and seasonal operational changes. The third question inquires about the space in which the

79 occupants work. An overwhelming 62% of the responses work within an open office with no partitions, just desks. This correlates to the 36 student responses versus the 16 faculty/staff responses. The graphic below represents a rating scale of various statements that inquire about the occupants satisfaction levels with storage, visual privacy, space, colors, textures, temperature, thermal comfort, etc.

80 Most are satisfied with the amount of space available for work and storage, the amount of visual privacy, and the ease of interaction with other people. These first three statements are likely to mean that the building “program” is working efficiently for the occupants within the School of Architecture, “Great studio spaces and computer lab arrangements”. Except for one neutral occupant, all respondents are not satisfied with the temperature in the building and strongly believe thermal comfort interferes with their work performance. Occupants are generally satisfied with the lighting and cleanliness.

It appears that most of the occupants believe their productivity levels are neither worse or better when considering lighting and cleanliness in the building; however, thermal conditions indeed have an impact on productivity for most occupants.

Therefore, if thermal comfort levels were stable for the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s occupants, it would most definitely increase their productivity at work. â&#x20AC;&#x153;It's so hot in the building in the winter that we sometimes have to dismiss class early. It's so cold in the Spring, Summer and Fall that we sometimes have to wear coats indoors. This HVAC problem has existed in this building ever since it came online.â&#x20AC;? More than half of the occupants responded to whether they have brought in a personal portable heater or fan to increase their comfort level. Most of the responders use a fan versus a portable heater suggesting that during the winter months people are trying to cool themselves because it is too hot in the building. This leads to the next set of three questions that examine warm/hot weather issues versus cool/cold. It is interesting to note that the following responses are virtually the opposite condition for the Smith building.

These responses indicate a strong likelihood that there are significant issues with the mechanical system and adjustments made to accommodate the varying seasons. Management adjusts the building before all major breaks but for example, during summer months Storrs is at virtually less than a Âź of its regular semester occupancy rate. More

83 than 400 students and faculty produce a tremendous amount of latent heat during the fall/winter/spring semesters, whereas those warm bodies are not present during the summer in order to balance the adjustment downward in temperature. The occupants were given a chance to answer why they thought their own discomforts were occurring â&#x20AC;&#x201C; most people agree that the thermostat is inaccessible or adjusted by others, or that the heating/cooling system does not respond efficiently. A surveyor stated, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the difference in the thermal qualities of the spaces throughout the building change daily and hourly. One space will be freezing and the next a furnaceâ&#x20AC;?.

Occupants were asked about the building’s cleanliness and maintenance – more than half of people responded. Upon visual observations, the floors were unclean especially on the stairs and the computer equipment in the labs was visibly around 50% clean. None of the hand sanitizer stations were full. Open comments in the “Other” field are listed below:  The cleaning ladies are great - its the clutter of the spaces that gets in the way of their job  Student trash and left over items in public spaces is terrible  HVAC system outputs crud  Messiness is mainly in students personal area  Vents are very dusty. Dust ends up on work surfaces.

85  Dust blown from supply ducts Two responses from the following sections comments said, “motion detected lights need to go, they are terrible and on most of the time” and “vapor lamp fixture ballasts buzz disturbingly”.

More than half of the surveyors responded to the building’s lighting features question.

86 The following are responses from in the comments section of the survey:  The temperatures are inconsistent, varying day to day and space to space; it may be freezing in my office and very hot in the classroom  Thermal comfort is a huge source of discomfort in Storrs. The temperature is never appropriate. It is always too hot or too cold. It’s never the same from one location in the building to another. Upstairs it will be extremely hot, while that very instant, downstairs it is extremely cold.  I joke that the building was designed to emulate the climate zones of the world and you can find a space that represents any given climate zone throughout the day. It is honestly the worst building I have ever experienced in terms of thermal comfort.  Restrooms are under ventilated. Salon is way under illuminated. Carpeted areas are gross. Rear work yard requires new surfacing and better drainage. Highly utilized rear entry needs separation from trash containers. Longstanding visible evidence of moisture penetration suggests building neglect.  Temperature and humidity are rampantly out of control and require more than a crisis management approach to correct.  Upstairs it is too uncomfortably hot to work and downstairs it is too uncomfortably cold to work. I can say without a doubt that I am significantly less productive because of this and that it also affects my ability to remain healthy adversely.  The computer labs are 50 degrees, while, 20ft down the hall, the studios are 85 degrees. My chocolate was melting, that's how hot it is.  The heating/cooling system is EXTREMELY off. We freeze all day and cannot get work done. We use blankets and space heaters year round.  computer lab 280 -- the one next to 290, is either so cold I must bring a blanket to class or so hot that I am sweating the entire time I am inside, 290 is also never comfortable for lectures you must always wear a winter jacket.  The student's studio spaces are frequently inconsistent in temperature, mostly too hot during all seasons. Doors are propped open to help alleviate the intense heat in the space, particularly upstairs. Heating/cooling system does not work effectively regardless of doors/windows being open or closed. Reminiscent of a Sauna in the

87 warmer months, and overly heated in the cool months.  The studios on the first floor are consistently cold. It would almost be better to leave the air conditioner off. I always keep a blanket in my desk and heat my hands with a desk lamp... its that cold.  Storrs has terrible control over the heat. Students bring a change of clothes during the winter time (Shorts and tanktops) because the heat is unbearable. Many students refuse to work in the building because of the heat. The HVAC systems release visual dust particles that gather on student desks.  The workspace rooms on the second floor are unbearable due to the overheating of the second floor. The second floor in general is FAR too hot. The building is far too hot on the West side of the building.  The thermal systems of the building provide an unbalanced distribution through the building. The system is overworked, but is not producing a generally comfortable condition.  Rooms on the southern end of the building are typically never comfortable thermally; they are either extremely hot or absolutely freezing. The uncomfortable temperatures make it very difficult to focus and many classes, computational and lecture based, are held on this end of the building.  The computer lab (I think its 280?) next to the lecture hall (290) is an ice box in the winter and a sauna in the fall and spring.  Upstairs is too hot, and downstairs is too cold. Large lecture hall is consistently cold. Computer labs are consistently cold.  I think there are ants in the Storrs building.  Someone is randomly setting the temperature from the other side of the world because they have no idea how the outdoors feel compared to Storrs. When its cool outside, its blazing in here. When its pleasant outside, its a hotbox or a freezer in here. FIX IT PLEASE  Studio spaces need some sort of sun shading other than blinds. The temperature fluctuates so drastically I usually keep additional clothes in case it's too cold or hot in studio. The Computer lab next to 290 is always freezing and typically I choose to do as little in the lab as is possible solely because of the temperature in the space.

88 Measurements: Data was collected during the period of March 16-28, 2013 and obtained using Onset HOBO Data Loggers to measure temperature and relative humidity – primary thermal comfort indicators. According to a report on Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) by the Environmental Education Outreach Program at Northern Arizona University (NAU), “relative humidity (RH) is a measure of the moisture in the air, compared to the potential saturation level” and “air temperature is a measure of the heat”. The following describes temperature, humidity, and thermal comfort in buildings. The temperature in a building is based on the outside temperature and sun loading plus whatever heating or cooling is added by the HVAC or other heating and cooling sources. Room occupants also add heat to the room since the normal body temperature is much higher than the room temperature. The relative humidity is based on the outside humidity plus whatever heating or cooling is added by the HVAC or other heating or cooling sources. Room occupants also add considerable moisture to the room through exhaled air which is at 100% relative humidity. At higher relative humidity (RH) levels (more than 60%) can encourage the growth of mold and mildew. Dust mites, bacteria, and fungi all thrive under moist, humid conditions. At lower relative humidity (RH) (less than 30%), occupants might experience eye irritation or a stuffy nose. For some individuals low relative humidity (RH) may aggravate allergies. Low relative humidity can also lead to increased survival of some viruses, thereby increasing the spread of viral infections. 20 The charts in this report depict temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit (*F) and relative humidity (RH) in a percentage (%). The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc (ASHRAE) provides guidelines that are intended to

http://www4.nau.edu/eeop/air_quality/docs/AkIAQ_ThermalComfort.pdf

89 satisfy the majority of building occupants wearing a normal amount of clothing while working at a desk. The ASHRAE guidelines recommend 68 F to 74 F in the winter and 72 F to 80 F in the summer and the guidelines recommend a relative humidity (RH) of 30 to 60 percent.21 Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 28 and 29 examine the temperature and relative humidity of five different variant typologies within the Storrs building at UNCC â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lecture Hall Room 290, Classroom Room 255, Computer Lab Room 285, a Masters Graduate Studio, a Corridor near the Salon or Atrium space, and an outdoor sensor was used as a control. The days are indicated when it was rainy outside and the outdoor sensor is the grey line.

Recommendations obtained in IAQ report from NAU. http://www4.nau.edu/eeop/air_quality/docs/AkIAQ_ThermalComfort.pdf

Figure 28 Temperature readings at Storrs for five different typologies.

Figure 29 Relative Humidity readings at Storrs for five different typologies.

92 The data reveals conclusions that are conducive to the comments of faculty and students from the occupant satisfaction survey. The second floor Graduate M1 Studio reads as the warmest space within all the typologies measured; temperature ranges from a minimum of 75 degrees to a maximum of 84 degrees. Alternatively, the coolest space is the Computer Lab Room 285 with temperature ranges from 62 degrees to 66 degrees. The classroom, lecture hall, and corridor/salon sensor seem to fluctuate in and out of the comfort zone, and the fluctuations also seem to correlate slightly with the differences in outdoor temperature. The results are quite different for the relative humidity readings in Figure 29 and opposite on the spectrum from the temperature readings. The data also fluctuates with the outdoor relative humidity readings and rainy days, more consistently in this case, which suggests a significant portion of the building is not completely air sealed. The Computer Lab that had the lowest temperature readings has the highest relative humidity readings ranging from 20% to 42%. Comparatively, the M1 Grad Studio has the lowest relative humidity readings ranging from 13% to 27%. Generally, all of the spaces measured do not relate within the comfort zone unless its raining outside; otherwise, like in the wood shop where materials are shrinking, it is â&#x20AC;&#x153;bone dryâ&#x20AC;? and likely viruses are spread easily. There are also clear indications of stained ceilings and damp or musty carpets from observations made; the carpet has not been replaced since it was installed at the time of original construction over 30 years ago.

Figure 30 Temperature readings for five studio bays second level Storrs

94 The second level is home to many upper-class undergraduates and all graduates enrolled in the architecture program. Many complaints from the survey highlight these studio areas as being too hot to get any work done and most students prop open the doors; a feature that will soon be eliminated by new secure doors which will sound an alarm if left open too long. There is over a ten-degree difference across spaces (Figure 30) and the relative humidity never reaches the recommended comfort zone between 30 and 60% (Figure 31). Additional graphs for Storrs measured data can be seen in Appendix B.

Figure 31 Relative humidity readings for five studio bays second level Storrs

96 Recommendations: The following are suggestions from the comments section of the survey:  Studios need more control on the heating/cooling. More thermostats needed everywhere!!  Storrs should be an example of thermal comfort and sustainable techniques. This includes more efficient heating and cooling. More passive methods of obtaining thermal comfort. Recycling and reducing waster should be addressed. Water bottle refill stations should be installed on the water fountains, as well as a better material recycling effort. The amount of waste that ends up in the trash cans is inexcusable. A better effort in the studio environment to reduce, reuse, and recycle, should be part of our studio culture.  sunshades on the studio windows, solar panels on the roofs above the second floor studios.

The Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment produced the following report on Storrs. The report is divided into six (6) modules and the scores for each is listed below:

Figure 32 Percentage of points achieved by Storrs for each module.

97 Storrs achieved an overall rating of 49% considering all modules. For â&#x20AC;&#x153;ENERGYâ&#x20AC;? out of a possible applicable score of 349, Storrs achieved 101 points earning a rating of 29% based on the assessment of best-case practices for energy efficiency in office buildings.

Lighting Recommendations: 1. Consider a lighting retrofit. Re-lamping with energy efficient lighting is one of the most common building retrofits because it can produce significant savings. 2. Install daylight sensors, or occupancy sensors in areas such as stairwells and storage rooms.

Boilers: 1. Consider installing high-efficiency boilers 2. Consider installing automatic vent dampers

Controls: 1. Consider implementing temperature setback - i.e. adjusting the building temperature when it is unoccupied to minimize heating or cooling requirements. 2. Storrs may benefit from installing a full or partial building automation system (BAS) that would automatically manage its heating/cooling, ventilation, air quality, lighting and security systems.

Hot Water Recommendations: 1. As the building undergoes future retrofits, consider either condensing water heaters

98 for storage of large quantities of water or tankless (instantaneous) hot water heaters for where the demand for hot water is occasional rather than continuous, and the volume required is relatively low. Solar water heating can also be effective where there is good solar access. 2. Consider installing low-flow faucet aerators and electronic infra-red sensors or selfclosing, metered faucets. 3. Maintain hot water between 105째 and 120째 F for clinical areas, 120째 F for dietary, and 160째 F for laundry.

99 2. As the building undergoes future retrofits, consider replacing existing doors and windows with high-efficiency ones. Double glazed, low-E, gas-filled windows have window frame spacers with high thermal integrity to reduce heating and cooling costs by up to 20%. Alternatively, install window film. High performance weather stripping on doors and windows also increases their thermal performance. 3. Consider installing appropriate shading. Exterior shading by deciduous trees, awnings, solar blinds or low-e film over large glass areas can reduce solar heat gain by 55%. Overheating can be also reduced by green roofs and high-albedo (reflective) roof coatings. 4. Conduct air-sealing of the top part of the building (i.e. the upper one third of the building and the mechanical penthouse). Conduct air-sealing of the bottom part of the building (i.e. the lower one third of the building, the parking area and entrance doors). Conduct air-sealing of the vertical shafts and elevators.

Energy Management: A comprehensive energy management program can contribute significant savings to the bottom line. Storrs achieved a score of 11% for energy management. 1. Storrs might benefit from having an energy policy. This is a declaration of principles that guides planning operations with respect to energy management. The policy should be signed by senior management. 2. An energy audit for Storrs would help to specify cost-effective measures to conserve energy, by pointing out areas that unnecessarily consume too much. The energy audit should have been performed within the past three years.

100 3. Prepare an energy management (reduction) plan to address energy issues raised in the energy audit. 4. Setting realistic goals and targets can serve as a basis for establishing benchmarks and comparing the energy performance over time. 5. As there does not appear to be movement towards energy targets, review progress so far and re-evaluate the potential for building upgrade. 6. Monitor monthly usage and peak demand in 15 or 30 minute increments, and hourly energy demand for a typical weekday and weekend day for each of the four seasons. Investigate measures to flatten the load profile, thereby rendering the facility more attractive to power vendors. 7. Develop an ongoing training plan for each building staff member with updates for key procedures that affect energy usage such as the efficient operation of the HVAC system. Ensure that new staff receive necessary training early. All training and updates should be documented. 8. Ensure that funds for improvements are available, either by having an energyefficiency improvement budget or participating in an energy-efficiency financing program. 9. Provide energy sub-metering for each major tenant. 10. The building should have sub-meters for monitoring major energy uses to establish building load profile and demand structure.

Transportation Recommendations: 1. Consider installing shelter devices over bike racks.

101 2. Consider providing changing facilities for staff including showers and facilities for hanging and drying clothes.

Water Recommendations: Storrs achieved 38% for installing water-conserving features and implementing watermanagement best practices. The water consumption of Storrs is less than 1.0 m3/m2/year. 1. As water fixtures need replacing, or even earlier, consider installing: 2. Low flow toilets that use less than 1.6 GPF 3. Low flush urinals that use less than 1.0 GPF 4. Automatic valve controls and/or proximity detectors 5. Low flow or laminar flow faucets 2.2 GPM (7.5 liters/min.) 6. Other water-saving devices such as low flow showerheads 2.5 GPM (9.0 liters/min.), waterless urinals, greywater systems, etc. 7. Incorporate indigenous species to landscape the property. Consider the following water-conservation measures: a. Using automatic timed irrigation systems b. Setting irrigation times early in the morning or late in the afternoon to reduce high evaporation and the development of moss c. Watering less frequently (twice weekly instead of daily) d. Maintaining a higher grass level to maximize water retention (two inches high). 8. Consider using collected rainwater for irrigation. 9. Consider the feasibility of using â&#x20AC;&#x153;grey waterâ&#x20AC;? for irrigation in the event of a major

102 retrofit. 10. Establish a written water conservation policy that is intended to minimize water use and encourage water conservation. 11. Consider doing a water audit. It should provide recommendations including maintenance procedures that may need to be revised, and should identify equipment that needs to be upgraded. A water audit of the applicant's building should have been performed within the past three years. 12. Establish water-reduction targets in terms of gallons/person or gallons/SF. 13. Establish procedures to check for and fix leaks in the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plumbing system.

Waste Reduction & Recycling Recommendations: Storrs achieved 68% for managing resources through waste reduction and site stewardship. 1. Consider doing a waste audit. Once a baseline is established, it is then possible to establish waste reduction targets. 2. Conduct regular monitoring of waste to determine the actual quantities of waste generated by the facility, and to evaluate whether the targets are being met. Monitoring can be done by recording the weight or volume of garbage that leaves the facility. 3. Implement programs that reduce the volumes of waste generated through reduced consumption of packaging and non-durable goods, as well as the reuse of materials and products. Recycling programs should strive to achieve high diversion rates of standard fibre and container streams, as well as target additional

103 wastes such as toner cartridges, fluorescent lamps and electronic equipment. Establish waste-reduction targets. 4. The feasibility of recycling construction, renovation and demolition waste should be investigated whenever applicable. There should be a written policy that is intended to minimize the reduction of construction waste being sent to landfill.

Site Recommendations: Storrs achieved 91% for measures to minimize the impact of the building on the site and/or to enhance the site. 1. Consider measures to enhance the site, for example by increasing the number of indigenous species, or creating a small natural "oasis" on the site.

Waste Water Effluents Recommendations: 2. Storrs achieved 33% based on best practices to manage liquid effluents. 3. Protect floor drains in areas where chemicals are stored. At a minimum, there should be containment of hazardous materials. This can consist of large secondary containers for storing the materials. 4. Consider implementation of measures to reduce the amount of water that flows off the property, such as installing porous paving, increasing vegetation, and installing rain-water catchment systems. Diverting storm-water from impervious areas such as roofs and paths, and reusing it whenever possible, reduces urban runoff. Infiltration practices are encouraged as a best management practice to increase the infiltration of rainwater. The amount of water directed off a property

104 can be reduced by: 

minimizing the area of impervious surfaces



installing porous paving



planting vegetation



eliminating curbs along driveways and streets to increase infiltration



installing gravel drains along the base of walls



directing rain gutters to landscaped areas, drywells and infiltration basins where water can seep into the ground



installing rooftop water catchment systems (cisterns) and use precipitation for irrigation



designing vegetated swales and shallow infiltration basins to carry stormwater, instead of pipes (these may be designed to dry out between rainfalls, or may be small permanent wetlands)



installing clarifiers or oil/water separators in all new and rebuilt parking areas.

Indoor Environment: Storrs achieved a score of 52% for having a healthy indoor environment. 1.

Consider relocation of the air intakes far from sources of pollution such as

parking areas, bus stops or pools of water on the roof. 2.

Building exhaust outlets should be positioned no closer than 10 m to fresh air

inlets to avoid “re-entrainment” (short-circuiting) of exhaust air. Also consider the direction of prevailing winds relative to intakes and exhaust. 3.

Ensure that the measured CO2 levels in the workspace are less than 850 ppm.

Consider permanent carbon dioxide monitoring to maintain pre-set levels of

carbon dioxide. 5.

In the event that the ventilation system is retrofitted, investigate the feasibility of

105 occupants having personal control over ventilation rates, either through a hybrid system (operable windows) or personalized HVAC controls. 6.

Ensure that manometers are in good working condition to indicate when filters

should be changed. 7.

Install drift eliminators on cooling towers. This will save water and reduce the

risk of down draft of a spray that could contain Legionella. 8.

Investigate and eliminate the cause of stained ceilings, damp or musty carpets or

musty odors 9.

Provide special-use areas such as cafeterias or large printing stations with

additional local exhaust to prevent air pollutants from accumulating in or spreading beyond a local area. Fans should operate continuously when the source is present, not only when the room is occupied. Test their effectiveness periodically. 10.

Provide documented measures to minimize pollutants-at-source in special areas

such as washrooms, storage rooms, chemical storage and kitchens. 11.

Develop a checklist of items concerning IAQ issues that must be reviewed with

architects, engineers, contractors, and other professionals prior to renovation and repairs. 12.

Carry out an indoor air quality audit each year. The development of an IAQ

profile of the building can help to identify problems. 13.

Documented procedures for ensuring good IAQ should include: a. HVAC operations b. housekeeping procedures c. preventive maintenance d. procedures for unscheduled maintenance

106 e. mold management 14.

Consider assigning an IAQ Manager and provide training so that there is some in-

house expertise to be able to identify, prevent and solve common IAQ problems. There should also be a documented means for addressing tenant/occupant concerns regarding indoor air quality. 15.

Provide continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity.

Lighting: Lighting factors that affect visual comfort of occupants include visibility, glare, contrast ratio and color rendition. Storrs achieved a score of 69% for lighting. 1. Ensure that lighting levels meet ISNEA guidelines 2. Suitable task lighting should be provided. This is lighting which shines directly from the luminaire to the task. For greatest comfort in task-oriented spaces such as offices, distribute daylight and most electric light indirectly - bounced from the ceiling and walls. Reflective surfaces should be light in color, preferably white. 3. If the floor plan does not allow for 80% of work areas to have access to daylighting, establish local lighting controls related to room occupancy. Each control should be for no more than 4 workstations.

Environmental Management System Recommendations: Storrs achieved a score of 42% for its documentation, and its environmental purchasing practices as well as for its environmental emergency response plans and communications with tenants. Storrs achieved 33% for documenting its environmental policy, goals,

107 targets and action plans. Storrs achieved 24% for its environmental purchasing plan. Storrs achieved 100% for its emergency response program. Storrs achieved 24% for tenant environmental awareness. 1. Consider writing an environmental management policy that articulates a common purpose and coordinates efforts in all departments/areas. 2. Action plans that include procedures, schedules, resources, responsibilities and training needs should be documented to address each of the environmental objectives. 3. Prepare an environmental purchasing plan that assigns responsibilities, ensures that those who do purchasing have adequate training, refers to products used by in-house staff, stipulates requirements for cleaning contractors, and provides education to tenants. 4. Provide staff with a list of feasible environmentally-friendly substitutes and their suppliers. 5. Include in the purchasing policy, a statement to reflect managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in purchasing energy saving equipment where applicable. 6. Tenants should be provided with information, and should have a forum or hotline to discuss the environmental concerns and to coordinate their activities. 7. The building management must have in place a well-understood system for communicating with tenants/occupants on environmental issues specific to the building. Provide tenants with communications on ways they can contribute to energy conservation. 8. Complete a tenant satisfaction survey

108 3.4.3

Bioinformatics Building

Building Information Bioinformatics is a 97,758 square foot 4story building that was built in 2009 at a construction cost of $35 million. It is a threestory structural steel and precast concrete envelope system that is home to the Bioinformatics and Genomics Departments at UNC Charlotte. It was

Figure 33 University archives photo of Bioinformatics building after finished construction.

designed by LS3P Associates LTD and the lead architect was Scott Baker. There is an estimated total 275 PCs within the entire building. Operating hours on the main shift are a typical 40-45 hour workweek, with 10-15 faculty, 5-10 staff, and 50 students that occupy the Smith building. The building shape consists of a rectangular or square shape and oriented on a South West – North East axis with a built-up flat roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 26-50% and the glazing is energy efficient. There are also no protective exterior shading devices or reflective film on the glazing. It is a structural steel frame building clad in University standard brick. The roof is partially hipped asphalt. The program variants (Figure 34) primarily consist of unfinished space and building service. Offices, Lobby space, Dry and Wet Laboratories, and Corridors or Circulation space make up most of the other spaces. The largest portion depicts “unfinished” space, which is the entire upper floor that will contribute to more energy demands in the future. Classrooms, Conference Rooms, Storage, and Restrooms make up

109 the least portion of spaces within Bioinformatics. Also, â&#x20AC;&#x153;LS3P Associates, LTD was assisted by HERA, Inc., laboratory design specialists, who programmed the center to accommodate three functional groups including computational chemistry, statistical genetics, and systems biologyâ&#x20AC;?. 22

Figure 34 Interior Variant Typologies within the Bioinformatics building.

LS3P website

110 Energy Profile The HVAC heating equipment utilizes District Heat with a fuel type of Natural Gas (NG). A chiller and cooling tower runs the cooling equipment. The boilers are high efficiency with automatic vent dampers and external air combustion within an isolated room. Temperature setback and weather compensation are implemented and the HVAC has an automated system.

111 Energy consumption data reveals the Bioinformatics building is currently performing sixty percent worse than its initial year after construction. The current EUI of 40 kBtu/sq.ft./year is still well below CBECs Climate Region 4 Median of 77.77 kBtu/sq.ft./year. Figure 35 is a graphic representation of Bioinformatics energy consumption totals from 2009 to 2012.

Figure 35 Energy performance trends of the Bioinformatics building. Electricity is colored blue, natural gas is green, and the magenta dotted line is a trend line throughout the years.

The Green Globes Building Report conducted on Bioinformatics shows the building achieved a score of 100% for its energy consumption, based on the entered individual building rating of 94 from the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Based on the reported energy consumption total of 3,951,486 kBtu/year (1,117,033 cu. ft. of gas

112 and 814,068 kWh of electricity) for the period of twelve months ending June 2012, the current energy performance of Bioinformatics for that period was 40.42 kBtu/Sq.Ft./yr. GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) were 851.38 tons/yr. Energy costs were $47,314, or $0.48/ft2/year. If all energy savings measures recommended by Green Globes were implemented, the annual saving potential could be in the order of $3,600, or total $0.45/ft2/year â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and overall reduction would result in 20%. A 30% reduction target would be $0.34/ft2/year. The energy data analyzed reveals the building consuming 17% electricity and only 29% natural gas. Figure 36 and 37 chart the monthly consumption trends of electricity and natural gas during the fiscal year 2011-12. Out of the three buildings examined in closer detail, it seems Bioinformatics has the most accurate representation of monthly electricity and natural gas usage. During the cooler winter months there is a spike in natural gas consumption, and steady electricity consumption â&#x20AC;&#x201C; most likely because the major electricity consumer is lighting, whereas heating and cooling consume natural gas; probably a desired result of LEED Silver certification.

Figure 36 Monthly Electric Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year - Bioinformatics

113

Figure 37 Monthly Natural Gas Consumption Trends during 2011-12 Fiscal Year - Bioinformatics

The table below represents the data provided in the EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Energy Star Target Finder Tool, which reveals a climate region median, an as-designed building (Bioinformatics), and a target performance standard for the building. ENERGY

Median

Design

Target

Energy Performance Rating (0-100)

100

Energy Reduction (%)

223

108

Site Energy Use (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu)

21,668,493

10,446,997

6,455,381

Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)

8,078,552

3,894,900

2,406,726

Total Annual Energy Cost ($)

$156,289

$75,351

$46,561

CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year)

985

475

293

CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

52%

70%

Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year)

POLLUTION EMISSIONS

Table C Energy Star's Target Finder Results for Bioinformatics building

114 The hot water equipment is an efficient central heater and the fuel source is District Hot Water. There are changing facilities and showers within in the building.

Figure 38 Monthly water consumption trends for 2011-12 Fiscal Year â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bioinformatics

Â Occupants and Operations There were only two responses from the faculty and staff at Bioinformatics for the occupant satisfaction survey distributed. The discrepancy in the data for this building leads one to think that the occupants are generally satisfied overall with their relatively new LEED Silver building. Therefore, graphs and charts are not depicted in this portion of the report for Bioinformatics because the collected data range is not large enough. A short narrative however, discusses the responses received from the two surveys completed below. Both occupants have worked in Bioinformatics for 1-2 years but it seems one person puts in a full-time workweek of 40 hours and the other is part-time at 10 hours or less. They both work within an enclosed office that is private. The full-time occupant

115 who feels well informed about the building’s features, agrees or strongly agrees with the amount of space available for work and storage, visual privacy, ease of interaction with other people, the colors and textures of the building, the temperature within the building, and believes the building is performing efficiently considering energy usage; alternatively, the part-time occupant who does not feel well informed about the building features, is mostly neutral or disagrees. The part-time occupant strongly agrees with the amount of visual privacy but is not overall satisfied with the temperature in the building and his/her thermal comfort interferes with work performance. The full-time occupant who says, “I stay comfortable,” utilizes a portable heater and, “if there are issues, we contact maintenance who immediately handle any issues”. The part-time occupant states there are drafts from windows and he/she is often cold in cool/cold weather, but did not answer the warm/hot weather question. In regards to the building’s lighting features, the full-time occupant states that his/her “space is perfect”; however, the part-time occupant says it is too bright, “the overhead light turns on if anyone moves. I can’t figure out how to configure it so that it stays off”. This statement could mean that there may be adequate ‘daylight’ entering the part-time occupants office and he/she does not need the occupancy sensor in that particular space. The full-time occupant stated that there were no problems with the building’s cleanliness and maintenance most of the time, except that he/she “just don’t like taking out my own garbage!” and the part-time occupant failed to answer. The full-time occupant states that productivity is better or much better by thermal, lighting, and cleanliness conditions of the building and overall satisfied, whereas the part-time occupant states productivity is worse or the same and generally unsatisfied. Similarly, the

116 full-time occupant states that he/she is satisfied with comfort levels at work but the part-time occupant thinks their productivity would increase if provided stable comfort levels. Within the additional comments section of the survey, the part-time occupant states that “the break rooms/kitchens are nice” but the “women’s restrooms need tampon/napkin dispensers”.

117 Recommendations The Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment produced the following report on Bioinformatics. The report is divided into six (6) modules and Bioinformatic’s scores for each is listed below:

Figure 39 Percentage of points achieved by Bioinformatics for each module.

Bioinformatics achieved an overall rating of 76% considering all modules. For “ENERGY” out of a possible applicable score of 350, Smith achieved 267 points earning a rating of 76% based on the assessment of best-case practices for energy efficiency in office buildings. This rating is possibly higher given the many unknowns from the building liaison interview.

Hot Water Recommendations: 1. Maintain hot water between 105° and 120° F for clinical areas, 120° F for dietary, and 160° F for laundry.

118 Other Energy Efficiency Features: 1. Consider installing cogeneration, which captures and recycles rejected heat that would otherwise escape from existing electricity generation in the building. 2. Consider installing an energy recovery ventilation system which reclaims waste energy from exhaust air and uses that heat to condition the incoming fresh air. 3. Investigate the possibility of purchasing â&#x20AC;&#x153;green energyâ&#x20AC;? 4. Evaluate the potential of harnessing a renewable energy source on site.

Envelope Recommendations: 1. Consider doing a performance and condition assessment of the building envelope in terms of water infiltration condensation, moist air transfer, air flow and heat transfer. Evaluate the maintenance and life cycle cost of all building and roof materials. Thermal imaging equipment may be used to complete the assessment. 2. Consider installing appropriate shading. Exterior shading by deciduous trees, awnings, solar blinds or low-e film over large glass areas can reduce solar heat gain by 55%. Overheating can be also reduced by green roofs and high-albedo (reflective) roof coatings.

Energy Management: A comprehensive energy management program can contribute significant savings to the bottom line. Bioinformatics achieved a score of 39% for energy management. 1. Bioinformatics might benefit from having an energy policy. This is a declaration of principles that guides planning operations with respect to energy management. The

119 policy should be signed by senior management. 2. An energy audit for Bioinformatics would help to specify cost-effective measures to conserve energy, by pointing out areas that unnecessarily consume too much. The energy audit should have been performed within the past three years. 3. Prepare an energy management (reduction) plan to address energy issues raised in the energy audit. 4. Setting realistic goals and targets can serve as a basis for establishing benchmarks and comparing the energy performance over time. 5. As there does not appear to be movement towards energy targets, review progress so far and re-evaluate the potential for building upgrade. 6. Monitor monthly usage and peak demand in 15 or 30 minute increments, and hourly energy demand for a typical weekday and weekend day for each of the four seasons. Investigate measures to flatten the load profile, thereby rendering the facility more attractive to power vendors. 7. Develop an ongoing training plan for each building staff member with updates for key procedures that affect energy usage such as the efficient operation of the HVAC system. Ensure that new staff receive necessary training early. All training and updates should be documented. 8. Ensure that funds for improvements are available, either by having an energyefficiency improvement budget or participating in an energy-efficiency financing program. 9. Provide energy sub-metering for each major tenant. 10. The building should have sub-meters for monitoring major energy uses to establish

120 building load profile and demand structure.

Transportation Recommendations: 1. Consider installing shelter devices over bike racks.

Water Recommendations: Bioinformatics achieved 66% for installing water-conserving features and implementing water-management best practices. The water consumption of Bioinformatics is less than 0.5 m3/m2/year. 1. As water fixtures need replacing, or even earlier, consider installing: 2. Other water-saving devices such as low flow showerheads 2.5 GPM (9.0 liters/min.), waterless urinals, greywater systems, etc. 3. Incorporate indigenous species to landscape the property. Consider the following water-conservation measures: a. Using automatic timed irrigation systems b. Setting irrigation times early in the morning or late in the afternoon to reduce high evaporation and the development of moss c. Watering less frequently (twice weekly instead of daily) d. Maintaining a higher grass level to maximize water retention (two inches high). 4. Consider using collected rainwater for irrigation. 5. Consider the feasibility of using â&#x20AC;&#x153;grey waterâ&#x20AC;? for irrigation in the event of a major retrofit.

121 6. Establish a written water conservation policy that is intended to minimize water use and encourage water conservation. 7. Consider doing a water audit. It should provide recommendations including maintenance procedures that may need to be revised, and should identify equipment that needs to be upgraded. A water audit of the applicant's building should have been performed within the past three years. 8. Establish water-reduction targets in terms of gallons/person or gallons/SF. 9. Establish procedures to check for and fix leaks in the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plumbing system.

Waste Reduction & Recycling Recommendations: Bioinformatics achieved 68% for managing resources through waste reduction and site stewardship. 1. Consider doing a waste audit. Once a baseline is established, it is then possible to establish waste reduction targets. 2. Conduct regular monitoring of waste to determine the actual quantities of waste generated by the facility, and to evaluate whether the targets are being met. Monitoring can be done by recording the weight or volume of garbage that leaves the facility. 3. Implement programs that reduce the volumes of waste generated through reduced consumption of packaging and non-durable goods, as well as the reuse of materials and products. Recycling programs should strive to achieve high diversion rates of standard fibre and container streams, as well as target additional wastes such as toner cartridges, fluorescent lamps and electronic equipment. Establish waste-reduction

122 targets. 4. The feasibility of recycling construction, renovation and demolition waste should be investigated whenever applicable. There should be a written policy that is intended to minimize the reduction of construction waste being sent to landfill.

Site Recommendations: Bioinformatics achieved 91% for measures to minimize the impact of the building on the site and/or to enhance the site. 1. Consider measures to enhance the site, for example by increasing the number of indigenous species, or creating a small natural "oasis" on the site.

Waste Water Effluents Recommendations: Bioinformatics achieved 33% based on best practices to manage liquid effluents. 1. Disconnect roof drains from sanitary or combined sewers to avoid unnecessarily loading of the community waste-water treatment facilities. 2. Consider implementation of measures to reduce the amount of water that flows off the property, such as installing porous paving, increasing vegetation, and installing rain-water catchment systems. Diverting storm-water from impervious areas such as roofs and paths, and reusing it whenever possible, reduces urban runoff. Infiltration practices are encouraged as a best management practice to increase the infiltration of rainwater. The amount of water directed off a property can be reduced by: ď&#x201A;§

minimizing the area of impervious surfaces

ď&#x201A;§

installing porous paving

ď&#x201A;§

planting vegetation

123 

eliminating curbs along driveways and streets to increase infiltration



installing gravel drains along the base of walls



directing rain gutters to landscaped areas, drywells and infiltration basins where water can seep into the ground



installing rooftop water catchment systems (cisterns) and use precipitation for irrigation



designing vegetated swales and shallow infiltration basins to carry stormwater, instead of pipes (these may be designed to dry out between rainfalls, or may be small permanent wetlands)



installing clarifiers or oil/water separators in all new and rebuilt parking areas.

Hazardous Products, HCS, Health & Safety: Bioinformatics achieved a score of 82% for applying best practices relating to the storage, usage and disposal of hazardous products by building maintenance staff and contractors, for implementing the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) Program and health & safety measures. 1. Keep Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) current 2. Establish a Health & Safety Committee to meet regularly and carry out regular inspections of the property.

Indoor Environment: Bioinformatics achieved a score of 83% for having a healthy indoor environment. 1. Ensure that grilles on fresh-air intakes are free of obstruction such as contamination from leaves, snow, insects and pigeon droppings and that outdoor air dampers are drawing properly. 2. Develop a checklist of items concerning IAQ issues that must be reviewed with

124 architects, engineers, contractors, and other professionals prior to renovation and repairs. 3. Carry out an indoor air quality audit each year. The development of an IAQ profile of the building can help to identify problems. 4. Documented procedures for ensuring good IAQ should include: a. HVAC operations b. housekeeping procedures c. preventive maintenance d. procedures for unscheduled maintenance e. mold management 5. Provide continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity.

Environmental Management System Recommendations: Bioinformatics achieved a score of 56% for its documentation, and its environmental purchasing practices as well as for its environmental emergency response plans and communications with tenants. Bioinformatics achieved 33% for documenting its environmental policy, goals, targets and action plans. Bioinformatics achieved 52% for its environmental purchasing plan. Bioinformatics achieved 85% for its emergency response program. Bioinformatics achieved 64% for tenant environmental awareness. 1. Consider writing an environmental management policy that articulates a common purpose and coordinates efforts in all departments/areas. 2. Prepare an environmental purchasing plan that assigns responsibilities, ensures that those who do purchasing have adequate training, refers to products used by in-house

125 staff, stipulates requirements for cleaning contractors, and provides education to tenants. 3. Include in the purchasing policy, a statement to reflect managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in purchasing energy saving equipment where applicable. 4. Provide staff with a list of feasible environmentally-friendly substitutes and their suppliers. 5. Include in the purchasing policy, a statement to reflect managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in purchasing energy saving equipment where applicable. 6. A site map showing the location of environmentally significant features and equipment can help to plan emergency response. This is helpful for emergency crews. 7. The building management must have in place a well-understood system for communicating with tenants/occupants on environmental issues specific to the building. Provide tenants with communications on ways they can contribute to energy conservation. 8. Complete a tenant satisfaction survey

126 3.5

Dormitory

John Storch is the Associate Director for Operations of the Department of Housing and Residence Life and states, “currently we have 5,089 students living on campus this year” and “that number will fluctuate considerably as we move further into our master plan, by 2018, we should house over 6,600 students”. Dormitory buildings at UNC Charlotte consume 9% of the total energy on campus and comprise 16% of the total GSF. Each building is shown in Figure 40 with its 2002-03 Baseline and 2011-12 Comparison Year for energy consumption in metered electricity and natural gas. “Black” and “red” dashed lines depict the ten-year change period “average”, whereas the “orange” dashed line shows the “median” on campus. A “grey” dashed line depicts CBEC’s Climate Region 4 “median” EUI for Dormitory buildings in higher education.

127

Figure 40 Energy Consumption by Dormitory typology

128

Figure 41 illustrates the three different generations of dormitories on campus and their respective energy consumption in electricity and natural gas for the fiscal year 2011-12. Similar to the academic building typology, electricity consumption is lower in the newly constructed buildings and natural gas consumption is slightly higher. The total combined Energy Use Intensity is also lower in the new buildings. There were no dormitory-type buildings built during the years of 1996-2004 and consequently, there was not enough data to support an analysis for the second generation of buildings.

Figure 41 Dormitory energy consumption by vintage

129 Occupants and Operations Twenty (20) total responses were received from the occupant satisfaction survey distributed to the Resident Advisors (RAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s). The majority of occupants have worked in their building for either less than 1 year or 1-2 years. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Resident Advisors (RAs) live in the highrises, suite areas, and in the Village apartments. These student staff members provide assistance, information, and support to residential students. RAs are selected for their leadership potential, interpersonal abilities, positive, caring attitudes, and sense of commitment. RAs are your primary resource for campus information and assistance.â&#x20AC;? 23 The graph to the right illustrates the number of responses from each dormitory building. Note: some buildings are not listed.

Figure 42 Dormitory responses from housing satisfaction survey

http://housing.uncc.edu/employment/residence-life-staff

130 The graphic below represents a rating scale of various statements that inquire about the occupants satisfaction levels with storage, visual privacy, space, colors, textures, temperature, thermal comfort, etc. Most of the Resident Advisors are generally satisfied

with all of the statements listed above. Most occupants agree that they are well informed about the features discussed in these statements.

131

It appears that most of the occupants believe their productivity levels are neither worse or better when considering thermal comfort, lighting, and cleanliness in the building.

However, if thermal comfort levels were stable for the building’s occupants, it would more than likely increase their productivity – especially since most of the RA’s prefer to study within their dorm. The five responses listed in the ‘Other’ category for where the

132 students prefer to study are: 

Residence Hall



My friends apartment off campus



Student Center



Storrs Library

Almost half of the RA’s responded to whether they have brought in a personal portable heater or fan to increase their comfort level. Most of the responders use a portable heater versus a fan suggesting that during the winter months, thermal comfort is more of an issue than spring or summer months. This leads to the next set of questions that examine warm/hot weather issues versus cool/cold. During warmer months, the dormitories appear to be too cold, too hot, or

133 neither, which suggests that some buildings are performing at varying levels. During cooler months, the dormitory buildings are often too cold.

These responses indicate the likelihood that there is a significant amount of thermal bridging or air transfer from exterior to interior because the building is not sealed properly. The occupants were given a chance to answer why they thought their own discomforts were occurring – most people agree that the thermostat is inaccessible or adjusted by others, or that the heating/cooling system does not respond efficiently. A responder in Sycamore Hall suggested that, “the lounges need better control or accessible controls to the thermostat so the rooms can be adjusted, the windows need to be sealed better”. Another RA said, “I would like access to our thermostat in the living room” for a building in the Greek Village.

134

135

Occupants were asked about the building’s cleanliness and maintenance – more than half of people responded which leads one to think the other respondents might believe the buildings are sufficiently cleaned. For this question, open comments left in the “Other” field are listed below:  Ovens do not work efficiently  Clean  Bathroom mold  THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY THERE IS NO SOAP IN ANY OF THE BATHROOMS IN THE HIGHRISE  As far as everything else besides the water and heat the building is fine. Maybe some real soap!

136 Another response in the general comments said, “the bathrooms really need to be updated. They are in poor condition and no amount of cleaning will make them better”.

Almost all of the surveyors responded to the building’s lighting features question. Thirtythree percent of the people who did respond think it is too bright in their building, even though ninety percent of students have control over window blinds or shades.

137 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Like I stated before, the lights in the common rooms will not turn off when residents want to watch movies in the larger rooms in the building.â&#x20AC;?

138 The additional survey comments or recommendations are listed below: 

lounges being too cold to use, can’t site in them for too long [Sycamore]

 The upper floors have really hot rooms, or just cold water. [Moore Hall]  Leaks and drafts in stairwell [Pine Hall]  bugs [Lynch]  Holshouser is too hot

Figure 43 Energy consumption EUI for Sanford, Poplar, and Miltimore

Within the next section, dormitory buildings Sanford, Poplar/Witherspoon, and Miltimore Halls are described – similar to the academic describes of three structures built in different generations; however, detail is not extensive because the performance of dormitory buildings on campus are better than their baseline year and the occupant satisfaction survey produced uneven results. The provided data for this building typology is also scattered and inconsistent.

139 Sanford Hall Built in 1969 at a construction cost of 1.7 million, Sanford Hall is a 12-story cast-in-place dormitory building with a capacity of 500 students. The building is square-shaped with a built-up flat roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 51-75%. It’s a “typical dorm of the 70s” and composed of double bed rooms with 12-14 students that share a common bathroom at each corridor. There are also circulation, mechanical, central laundry and kitchen in the basement, and floor lounge spaces. The HVAC heating equipment utilizes a boiler with a fuel type of Natural Gas (NG); the cooling equipment is a chiller and cooling tower with ducted air to the registers. The DHW Equipment is a central heater with a fuel source of natural gas.

Figure 44 Sanford energy consumption over time (kBtu)

140 Poplar / Witherspoon Hall Built in 1990 at a construction cost of 8.45 million and designed by architect Little & Associates, Poplar/Witherspoon Hall is a 3-story brick clad structural steel dormitory building with a capacity of 420 students. The building is Y-shaped with an asphalt gable roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 26-50%. It’s composed of 2-bedroom suites including a bathroom, living room, kitchen, and balcony. Apartments are composed of 4 bedrooms with 2 bathrooms, living, kitchen, balcony. There are also circulation, mechanical, and shared laundry facilities. The HVAC heating & cooling equipment utilizes a furnace with a fuel type of electricity; the terminal is by PTACs. The DHW Equipment is a central heater with a fuel source of natural gas.

Figure 45 Poplar energy consumption over time (kBtu)

141 Miltimore Built in 2011 at an original cost of $39 million, Miltimore Hall is a 6-story brick clad steel-frame structure dormitory building with a capacity of 431 students. The architect was Clark Nexsen. The building is C-shaped and oriented on an EW to NS axis with a built-up flat roof. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 51-75% with a built-up flat roof. Within the certified LEED Silver building, a combination of individually controlled suites and apartments exist and the one to four bedrooms each compose most of the 185,544 gross square footage; four-bedroom apartments have kitchens. There are also circulation, mechanical, and study room spaces. Storch states that Miltimore is the last building on campus built to pure State Construction Office (SCO) project standards. The HVAC heating equipment utilizes a boiler with a fuel type of Natural Gas (NG); the cooling equipment is a chiller and cooling tower. The DHW Equipment is a central heater with a fuel source of natural gas.

Figure 46 Miltimore energy consumption 2011-12

142

CHAPTER 4:

4.1

CONCLUSIONS

Policy/initiative analysis UNC Charlotte previously adopted a commitment for all new capital construction

or renovations over $500,000 will be built to LEED standards or higher; however, the high costs to certify any newly constructed building has recently prevented the University from verifying these measures. Therefore, the USGBCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Globes standard has been proposed as the new method for any new capital projects on campus, while the existing buildings on campus do not receive nearly the same treatment. Any evaluations on the built environment have come upon an as-needed basis or as appropriated by the Master Plan. The current methods on campus involve surveying each building with a certain set of parameters that gives decision-makers much needed data in cost estimation for the University; however, this discourse claims the data is not comprehensive and does not take into account the factors that have previously remained unaddressed, such as a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy performance metrics. Within this Business-As-Usual (BAU) methodology for retrofitting, data retrieved in this fashion is limited and minimally researched within this topic. The sustainability-related policies on campus vary from transportation causes and shuttle networks, to bike programs and tree planting initiatives, but for the most part omit the existing built environment. Other UNC System institutions have these policies and regularly update them. For example, â&#x20AC;&#x153;In harmony with our commitment to minimize our

143 impact on the environment, in alignment with the standards of good stewardship of our natural resources; and in accordance with North Carolina state law, Appalachian State University is dedicated to reducing our overall energy consumption a minimum of 30% by the end of fiscal year 2014-2015” 24.

Within the Clemson University example, “Sustainable Building Policy” Policy #9 from University Facilities effective in 2005 and approved by their administrative council, the policy outlines its purpose, organizations affected, procedures and responsibilities, budgeting and financing, education, exemptions, a requirements table, cost, and expiration. The abstract reads: The responsible use of all forms of energy and the good health of the community are high priorities of Clemson University. This policy makes a clear statement that the University embraces these priorities and will invest in them through every major building project. Contained in the policy are procedures, responsibilities, exemptions and requirements that will render the policy useful. This document identifies those projects that will be LEED certified, and those that will adhere to sustainable building practices. 25 Clemson’s goal is to achieve carbon neutrality status by the 2030 Challenge standards. The above are just two examples of how aggressive other institutions are visualizing sustainability policies by recognizing the built environment as a significant resource in energy consumption on campus. Clemson and Appalachian are examples of universities that are ‘culture-oriented’, whereas UNCC is viewed by many as ‘process-

24 25

ASU Strategic Energy Plan 2011 Clemson Sustainable Building Policy #9

144 oriented’. Existing structures need to be evaluated and this requirement should be established upon writing a policy for UNC Charlotte. This thesis has provided the groundwork research and preliminary building energy consumption analysis at a campus district level, individual and typological levels, as well as generation-based.

4.2

Barriers & Resolutions

Objective Measured Data:  The results of Storrs are alarming in the sense that the building is overall unhealthy and could be contributing to occupant illness and/or the spread of viruses. A barrier to the measured data is that it was not comprehensive enough because the time period needs to be expanded to multiple times per year, or the building needs to be monitored continuously in temperature and relative humidity. Funding should be appropriated to technical equipment for continuous measurement as a method for maintaining good indoor air quality.

Occupant Satisfaction Survey:  Most of the conclusions made from the occupant satisfaction survey are deemed appropriate given the observed building conditions and supported measured data records. A more detailed study should be performed for housing satisfaction – not just including the Resident Advisors but for the entire population of each building. With more feedback, the more comprehensive the analysis will be.

145 Historical Recorded Data:  A benchmarking or energy analysis team will need to develop as a group of graduate students or employees dedicated to data analysis for UNC Charlotte’s Facilities Management. It is clear that data inconsistencies will result in skewed results for building performance, and consequently what gets reported to the State Energy Office. A strategic analysis of energy projections based on established data, could be used like this document as a basis for an informed debate.

4.3

Recommendations It has been suggested that by limiting enrollment growth to a steady pace more

conducive to what facilities can accommodate, will also benefit the university’s competitiveness and steer it away from remaining a ‘fall back’ or safety school for some students. Instilling a competitive edge for the students will give them the drive and ambition to perform better, and ultimately desire to live within a better environment. Universities like Warren Wilson College have sustainable dormitories where the students take part in the maintenance and operation of the buildings efficiency components, and “those people are willing to assume the responsibility if they’re given the place” 26. This is one creative way to solving campus needs to learn, educate, and re-educate the students, faculty, and staff about sustainable practices. Some conversations within this thesis research have led to conclusions that most people do not realize the full potential of sustainability and how it is integrated into everything. A popular public definition of

See Appendix C-2: Storrs Building Interview

146 sustainability is parallel to the term recycling. Some students do not discuss sustainability at all, so we must ask ourselves why? If the University is truly trying to achieve sustainable practices upon something so vast and complex, support will be needed across all voices – starting from the top with the Chancellor down to students. Awareness is key to solving some of these issues and the transparency of campus information will allow people to relate to their own behavior. Achieving sustainable goals does not have to be solely a financial responsibility or the sole responsibility of the University itself. Perhaps one way could be to involve students and faculty in campus challenges to reduce consumption. Or even providing opportunities within the larger community. The following are suggested steps for organizing a sustainability policy or initiative:  Formulate a President’s Commission on Sustainability (PCS) – a team of facilitators, including the University Sustainability Officer. This group of leaders have specific expertise in sustainability-related professions, who in turn must be given proper authority to implement the following Action Plans. These professions must also work together in achieving the University’s common goals – there seems to be disconnecting ideals on some issues, which is likely the result of unclear goals.

 Develop specific Action Plans and corresponding teams for the following areas: 

Building Energy Efficiency – New and Existing Capital Projects



Carbon-free Energy Sources and Offsets



Resource Management and Waste Elimination



Transportation Energy Efficiency

147 

Culture and Leadership – Outreach



Education and Research – Communications

Each Action Plan should define its goals and layout strategies for achievement, which would have an effective date and expiration dates for short and long-term policy development. Instill continuing education in all areas for all members involved. Ideally, policies will evolve along with technology and the planning processes for all operating divisions of the University. Staffing these teams will require additional funding but as this thesis has argued, data processing is going to be key in moving forward with accurate representations of the University. Therefore, it is recommended that a team develop for energy monitoring and data analytics on campus.

 Move toward an “outcome-based” mentality for the built environment on campus, in order to “be seen both as a model and as a resource to assist the community” in addressing sustainability issues.27 During the next revision of the University’s building and design guidelines, an outcome-based approach should be evaluated as a primary means to address sustainability-related built environment issues; especially considering sustainability is not mentioned at all as any of the “Guiding Principles” within the Campus Master Plan. Outcome-based codes are regulatory tools that base compliance on actual performance rather than prescriptive strategies and modeled performance. Advocates for outcome-based codes believe that prescriptive and modeledperformance codes are inadequate tools to achieve net-zero energy, in that they

UNC Charlotte Institutional Plan, 8.

148 measure building performance in relation to existing standards or comparable building types. They are particularly poorly suited for existing and historic buildings because they do not account for unique building conditions or site contexts. Additionally, prescriptive and modeled-performance codes are subject to regular update cycles that increase in complexity as performance requirements are made more stringent. Outcome-based codes are significant departures from current code compliance paths in that they focus on post-occupancy performance – that is, performance of completed buildings, as opposed to buildings constructed according to minimum component values or modeled (predicted) performance. Outcome based codes are predicated on design flexibility and ongoing measurement, verification, and tenant behavior. 28

 A “real-time” energy management or “dashboard” system should be implemented for each building on campus – web-based monitoring would be the least expensive. This would communicate energy performance to tenants, as well as become an information highway in time. Communication between management and tenants is the key to a successful program. The key aspects of effective communication techniques are frequency, accuracy, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. To ensure building occupants work together with building owners to achieve environmental goals, there must be frequent communication. The more comprehensive the information provided, and

Energy Codes 101, 24

149 the broader the audience included, the better the chance that change will occur. A monthly newsletter is an excellent opportunity to establish this communication link. The newsletter could include information on building events, new policies, reminders, source reduction and recycling updates, and a materials exchange classified section. A suggestion box could provide opinions and suggestions from tenants for improving the current recycling program in the building.29 It is recommended the University implement use similar technology or facilitate energy monitoring services such as Pulse Energy, which continuously updates energy consumption to a public website.

ď&#x192;&#x2DC; Examine the possible implementation of commonly used technologies used in existing Net Zero buildings across the nation where more than 85% incorporate daylighting.30 Further investigate the following and run analyses for all buildings on campus: 1. Heat gain and heat loss through walls, roof/ceilings, doors, floors, windows, and skylights. 2. Solar gain from windows, skylights, and opaque surfaces. 3. Heat storage effects of different types of thermal mass 4. Building operating schedules for people, lighting, equipment and ventilation. 5. Space conditioning system operation including equipment part load performance.

Green Globes â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Supplementary Informationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; within Environmental Awareness under the Environmental Management System Module. 30 Net Zero by 2030, 6.

150

4.4

Additional Research While this research has provided critical information with regards to developing

policies or initiatives that support much-needed funding to further research our existing campus, the problems need to be determined before any resulting policy can be utilized effectively. Energy performance of campus buildings will need further investigation because “many design and engineering professionals believe that codes will ultimately move away from ‘percent better than baseline’ and toward ‘percent away from zeroenergy’, following a building-industry trend of innovation and systems-level design focused on energy efficiency”. The benchmarking methods used in this report examined performance data in terms of ‘energy use intensity’ (EUI) of building typologies and it is currently the most common “practice of expressing performance against other buildings of the same type”. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s report on energy codes, the Zero Energy Performance Index (zEPI) “is based on net-zero as a performance benchmark, as opposed to the percent-better-than-code baselines (ASHRAE 90.1 and others) which are continuously shifting as more stringent codes are developed and adopted”. The following describes the new rating system model. The zEPI scale establishes zero-net-energy as the absolute goal, making any baseline obsolete; the only measurement would be percent deviation from zero net-energy, a constant target that would allow for innovation as it happens. The scale would go from zero to 100, with 100 representing the average energy consumption

based

2003

CBECS

(Commercial

Buildings

Energy

Consumption Survey) data. The absolute nature of the zEPI scale has made it

151 easily applicable to code language, and it is currently written in draft form into the ICCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new Green Code (IgCC) as zEPI. It may benefit the University to begin this approach by performing a similar analysis to this report, utilizing the zEPI scale if the eventual goal is truly net-zero by 2050. 31 The ultimate hope for this document is to provide the groundwork in preparing a plan for more rigorous research. Data and analytics have shown circumstances that may have gone overlooked where a change in assumption needs to occur.

Energy Codes 101, 24-25.

152 REFERENCES Cochrane, Ric, and Liz Dunn. “Energy Codes 101: A Primer for Sustainability Policy Makers,” Working Paper 2010-11-1. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Driedger, Michael. “A Study of Occupant Engagement: Energy Reduction Using an Online Competition Dashboard” Perkins+Will Research Journal (Vol. 03.01): 7-20. Energy Star. “Target Finder,” the Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.bus_target_finder [accessed February 2, 2013]. Green Globes ‘Supplementary Information’ within Environmental Awareness under the Environmental Management System Module. Green Lab Survey. “Getting to 50,” the National Trust for Historic Preservation, http://www.greenlabsurvey.org/Getting_to_50_Building_Field_Verification/Introduction. html [accessed March 28, 2012]. Hewitt, Dave, and Stacey Hobart. “Net Zero by 2030: Where do we stand with the policies, programs, and projects necessary to achieve this goal?” New Buildings Institute, 2012. Imrie, Rob and Emma Street. “Regulating Design: The Practices of Architecture, Governance, and Control”. Urban Studies, 2009. (46: 2507). Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey. Center for the Built Environment, University of California Berkeley, http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm [accessed February 1, 2013] Stoeckle, Adam, Joel Loveland, and Rob Pena. Plug Loads and People: Observations and Analysis from the Field. University of Washington, 2012. U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “Building Energy Codes Program for North Carolina” http://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/northcarolina [accessed March 28, 2013]. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Publications: UNC Charlotte Strategic Energy Plan, 2012 UNC Charlotte Campus Master Plan, 2011 UNC Charlotte Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report UNC Charlotte Institutional Plan 2011-16

153 UNC Charlotte Climate Action Plan Title of QEP: Sustainability Curriculum University of North Carolina Charlotte

ASU Strategic Energy Plan 2011 http://sustain.appstate.edu/initiatives/reports Clemson Sustainable Building Policy #9 http://www.thegbi.org/green-globes/energy-performance.shtml â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Supplementary Informationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; provided from Green Building Initiative: Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) Environmental Assessment Report

154 APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Lighting Recommendations 1. Electricity consumption for lighting is typically 30% of total electricity consumption. Lighting also affects occupant comfort and productivity. 2. Appropriate automated lighting controls reduce energy costs because occupants in commercial buildings only rarely dim or turn off lights manually. Lighting management software, occupancy controls, daylight sensors and automatic dimmers reduce the need for unnecessary lighting. 3. Building automation systems can reduce operating costs by automatically controlling the heating/cooling, ventilation, air quality, lighting and security systems. Systems vary - some are designed to respond to tenant requests for afterhours control of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), and lighting for specific building areas. Others consist of distributed controllers, transducers and sensors, combined in one local network which is managed from one computer centre so that it is possible to monitor, adjust equipment and control energy used just about anywhere in a building. The cost of computerized controls has dropped significantly. However, the quantity and complexity of sub-systems must be great enough to warrant the cost. BAS can also be combined with the installation of electric demand controls on large electrical loads to prevent their operation during periods of high electrical demand Snow and ice-sensing controls installed on garage ramps operate ramp heaters only when they are required.

155

Hot Water Recommendations 1. Water heating accounts for about 20% of residential energy use and 7 to 9% of commercial energy use. The choice of water heating depends on demand patterns. Condensing water heaters such as the Polaris or Voyager, are suitable for storage of large quantities of water. Tankless (instantaneous) hot water heaters, which can achieve thermal efficiencies of up to 94 percent, are suitable where the demand for hot water is occasional rather than continuous and the volume required is relatively low. 2. Temperatures of water-heating systems may be set unnecessarily high. Most jurisdictions allow water-heating systems to have their temperatures set at 122-131ยบF, which is hot enough for personal use, and to prevent legionella growth. Legionella bacteria grow well in water that is 77-113ยบF and which has nutrients. The bacteria show very little activity above 131ยบF. Therefore the system should be sterilized at regular intervals by increasing the storage tank temperature to approximately 167ยบF. This can be done during periods of low use or occupancy. Occupants must be warned. If in doubt, consult your local medical health officer, plumbing inspection authority or supplier of equipment such as water heaters.

Other Energy Efficiency Features 1. Variable speed drives control motor speed by varying the frequency of the electrical supply This reduces energy consumption, eliminates the need for a separate motor starter, improves fan or pump control and extends equipment life. Variable speed

156 drives on fans and pumps, can result in an energy reductions from to 31 kWh/m²/yr (3.1 kWh/ft²/yr) to 51 kWh/m²/yr (5.1 kWh/ft²/yr). A high efficiency motor may cost more, but electricity savings can quickly make up for it. 2. A cogeneration system makes it possible to harness the heat generated during the production of electricity and use it for space heating in buildings. Cogeneration can increase fossil fuel efficiency from an average of 40% to over 80%. This increase in efficiency can translate into lower costs and fewer pollutant emissions than the conventional alternative of generating electricity and heat separately. Cogeneration also offers a large amount of flexibility as cogeneration equipment can be fired by fuels other than natural gas. There are installations in operation that use wood, agricultural waste, peat moss, and a wide variety of other fuels. 3. By reclaiming waste energy from the exhaust air stream, energy recovery ventilation systems can reduce the energy required to condition ventilation air by 60 to 80%. There are numerous advanced building technologies and practices that can improve the energy and resource efficiency of commercial and multi-unit residential buildings. There is a need to allow for flexibility to take advantage of emerging technologies, e.g. fuel cells. 4. Active solar heating systems do not replace conventional heating systems but can reduce the quantity of fuel used. In a typical water heating system, water is circulated through roof mounted solar collectors. In an air system, fans draw air through southfacing solar collectors. These are generally mounted on a building wall, where the air is pre-heated before being introduced into the building. Photovoltaic’s (PV) are most appropriate for energy loads required during the day

157 because the energy is generated when it is most needed. PV panels are typically placed on roofs although there are projects that experiment with entire PV faรงades, including transparent PV units incorporated into the glazing. PV is most effective if it is combined with other measures to minimize electrical loads in the building. This avoids the need for battery or other storage systems. Wind turbines are generally used in stand-alone or wind farm applications to generate electricity. Direct current (DC) windplants are used to charge batteries or produce heat/electricity without storage. Alternating current (AC) windplants are used to produce electricity for direct use or to supply energy to a utility grid. Wind power can also be an interesting investment opportunity, providing a company with both monetary and environmental leadership benefits. Ground-source heat pumps replace the need for a boiler in winter by utilizing heat stored in the ground; this heat is upgraded by a vapor compressor refrigeration cycle. In summer, heat from a building is rejected to the ground. Ground-source heat pumps (GSHP) can reduce the energy required for space heating, cooling and service water heating in commercial/institutional buildings by as much as 50%. Biomass fuels can be derived from wood, agricultural crops and other organic residues.

Envelope Recommendations 1. Heat, air and moisture transport across a building envelope are inseparable phenomena. Each influences the others and is influenced by all the materials contained within the building envelope. Thus the process of environmental control

158 depends on strong interactions between heat, air and moisture transport. Heat, air and moisture movement across the building envelope and roof system are inevitable. Consider these principles when selecting repair materials. Rain screens and vapor barriers can eliminate the intrusion of moisture into the building. Thermal insulation can prevent heat loss and air leakage. These systems can be integrated to increase efficiency, reduce costs due to redundancy and improve overall performance. The maintenance and life cycles of the building and roof materials should be considered, to evaluate overall integrated performance expectations. This will ensure overall envelope performance by knowing the details of the various components so that a regular inspection and repair schedule can be developed. 2. The thermal performance of windows in terms of transmittance depends on the window orientation, the number of glazing panes, type of fill and the quality of the window pane spacer. Levels of overall thermal transmittance of fenestration should be guided by ASHRAE 90.1. 3. Tests carried out on high-rise buildings have shown that 30 - 50% of heat loss could be attributed to air leakage. Proper air-sealing can save 15% in energy costs with an average payback of 5 years. Air-leakage affects thermal comfort, causes imbalance of mechanical systems and affects the building envelope through moisture migration. Many buildings can greatly reduce their air leakage by sealing following areas: At the top of the building, isolate and compartmentalize mechanical rooms, weather-strip doors and fire-stop penetrations through rated walls, and reduce the size of cable holes in the elevator shafts and other electrical penetrations through the floor of the elevator rooms. At the bottom of the building, parking, receiving dock and garbage

159 compaction areas should be isolated. Penetrations into the underground parking areas such as unsealed cable conduit ducts, pipe penetrations and gaps between block infill and slabs should be sealed. Doors should be weather-stripped. Other areas needing attention include fire cabinets, garbage disposal rooms, electrical rooms and other vertical service shafts. Along with preventing air leakage, the building envelope should be properly sealed to prevent water intrusion. Sealing of vertical shafts decouples floor to floor and reduces stack pressures.

Energy Management 1. An energy policy articulates a common purpose to all staff thereby helping to focus and coordinate efforts. It should express a commitment to establish targets, define responsibilities, monitor performance, conduct an annual review and report. 2. A detailed energy audit should include the following information: Owner/manager information; Executive Summary with costs, savings and payback period; building description; energy supply & historical use; description of building systems; recommended measures and project definition. The audit can be done for the entire building or for specific systems. An individual systems audit is best suited for instances where funding is limited, where energy savings are needed quickly or where management are aware of energy and performance problems with respect to a major energy-using system. A full building audit is recommended if a building is complex or is older and is scheduled for major renovation. It will make it possible to determine the combination of measures that provides the greatest return on investment. By accurately predicting the impact of measures, including their interaction with other

160 building systems, this indicates what systems are in need of upgrading and what those upgrades should be. 3. The energy management plan should document implementation of energy conservation strategies. It should include a description of the proposed energy conservation measures, costs and timeline for implementation. 4. Most facilities today can reduce energy use by 25-50%. The targets can be set in small increments over time. Even a simple energy management system with targets and monitoring can lead to overall utility bill savings of 2-5%. Because of the changes in the cost of fuel, targets should be set in terms of energy usage rather than cost. The monitored data should be analyzed in graphic format to provide an indication of the annual energy trend of the building and thus enable management to set realistic targets. In some cases, major reductions in energy use can be achieved by making changes in the way the facility is being used. In other cases, reductions can be achieved by making the existing systems operate more efficiently. 5. With energy deregulation, load profiling will be important. This requires knowing the total energy consumed by the facility during a given month, including monthly usage and peak demand in 15- or 30-minute increments, and hourly energy demand for a typical weekday and weekend day for each of the four seasons. The flatter the load profile, the more attractive will the facility be to power vendors. 6. Key procedures that affect energy such as the efficient operation of the HVAC system should be routinely reviewed with appropriate enhancements. These regular energymanagement training sessions can be a catalyst for boosting morale and facilitating an ethic of continuous improvement.

161 7. A suitable budget is needed for energy improvements to be implemented. Governments and utilities have a number of programs to encourage optimal use of energy and water resources. Most are of an information transfer/technical support nature but some also offer financial assistance and incentives. 8. Sub-meters help to monitor energy demand and use and provide a basis for motivating energy efficiency. Provide energy metering for each major tenant. Tenants have varying energy profiles, depending on the nature of the work, and the hours (e.g. shift work). Whether or not they are charged separately, knowing how much they consume can encourage them to conserve energy. It also enables management to factor in energy charges in a fair manner. 9. To perform load profiling, specific measurements must be obtained within the facility to pinpoint the particular areas that are causing the peak loads. 10. Preventive maintenance differs from regular maintenance in that it takes into account that certain systems' components require overhauling or replacement after a certain age or at certain intervals or due to certain specific causes. For example, water accumulation on the roof will reduce its durability. Timely preventive maintenance helps to retain a building's value and utility, ensures compliance with legal requirements, such as health and safety regulations, and provides direction regarding procedures that affect energy and water conservation and IAQ, resulting in more costefficient operation of the building. The program should include a description of equipment history, the maintenance schedule, on-going work, costs of maintenance and performance-tracking. Examples of preventive maintenance include thorough checking and replacement of components in air handling units, cooling towers,

162 boilers and elevators, as well as roof and cladding repairs and caulking and weather stripping of windows. The program should document equipment history, the maintenance schedule, on-going work, costs of maintenance and performance tracking.

Transportation Recommendations 1. Health and environment amenities attract and retain qualified staff and employees - a market plus for buildings.

Water Recommendations 1. Low flush (less than 1.6 GPF) toilets as per the EPACT of 1992 can reduce consumption by as much as $75 USD/ toilet/yr. At an estimated replacement cost of less than $180/ toilet, the simple payback is less than 3 years. Be careful when selecting low flush toilets to ensure proper performance. Low flush toilets should contain the CSA International or Warnock Hersey label. Check references provided by the supplier where the same models have been used. This ensures that the toilet has passed primary performance and maintenance tests. Many devices exist for minimizing the amount of water consumed by urinals including low flush or waterless urinals. Waterless, odor-free urinals use a small quantity of "blue seal" liquid to isolate urine from room atmosphere. The liquid is recharged after every 1500 uses. Verify compliance with local codes. Energy Policy Act 1992 and federal guidelines mandate that all lavatory and kitchen faucets and aerators manufactured after January 1, 1994, must use no more than 2.2

163 GPM, showerheads must use no more than 2.5 GPM. Many low-flow faucets now flow at a rate of 1.6 GPM. These faucets are typically aeration or laminar flow. Another device widely used in public facilities is an electronic infrared-sensor lavatory faucet, which is not only a water-saving feature, but also allows hands-free operation. Another simple and effective device widely adopted by US Government buildings is the "in-faucet" push-rod valve. Self-closing, metering faucets are also available. They can be adjusted to shut off between 5 and 15 seconds after the handle is depressed. For showers, water saving showerheads can have flow rates from 1.5 GPM (6 liters/min.) to 3.5 GPM (13 liters/min.). Another option is the use of restrictors or flow regulators that can be inserted behind an existing showerhead. 2. There are significant opportunities for water conservation in grounds maintenance. Appropriate irrigation systems can reduce irrigation water use by 50%. Water use and the resultant costs can be substantially reduced through modifying the landscape design to include local plant species and measures such as landscaping with minimal planting, using plants that require little water, and irrigating when evaporation is slowest, generally early in the morning. 3. Collected rainwater can be used for irrigation. Rainwater can be collected with a cistern or in rain barrels at each rainwater leader or downspout. Manufactured rain barrels should incorporate a "roof washer" or a "first flush" device, to avoid contamination by bird droppings and dust, an inlet screen and an overflow outlet. Most roofing materials are suitable for rainwater collection, except for redwood, cedar or treated wood shingles and shakes and asphalt shingles, which leach toxic

164 materials when wet. Food-producing gardens should not be watered with rainwater from roofs covered with these materials. 4. A building may use 'grey water' for irrigation only when its plumbing has been built to allow this use. During a major retrofit, the plumbing system could be modified to permit the use of grey water, but such modifications are not likely to be as feasible as an independent project. 5. A sample water conservation policy is illustrated below: The xxx organization is committed to reducing the demand for water in its facilities to help conserve natural resources. To that end, our organization shall establish goals to help reduce water consumption. The building manager shall establish a water efficiency program which shall include specific strategies designed to help both owner and tenants use water more efficiently. The building manager or designee shall regularly inspect the facility and operations and make recommendations for maintenance and capital expenditures which may help the organization reach its water conservation goals. 6. A detailed water audit should include Owner/manager information, Executive Summary with costs, savings and payback period, a description of the building, water supply & historical use, a description of the water systems, recommended measures and project definition. Any schedule of replacement should be based on current water use, occupant needs, as well as life-cycle cost analysis, and financing options. Financial considerations should include not only the cost of water, but also the costs for pumping, pre-treating, water heating and cooling, chemical treatments (such as in cooling towers), and sewer costs. 7. Periodic checks for leaks can be done by recording the water-meter reading before

165 and after any long period when there is no water use, for example late at night and again early in the morning. Compare the readings to determine whether there has been any water leakage over that period. If the meter indicates water-usage during the night, track down the source and have it repaired. To test for toilet leaks, put food coloring in the holding tank and wait 15-30 minutes. If, without flushing, the color shows up in the bowl, there is a leak.

Waste Reduction & Recycling Recommendations 1. A waste audit can be conducted in-house, or using a waste-management firm. It should identify the types and quantities of waste generated in the building and assess which waste materials are produced in sufficient quantities to warrant recycling. A solid waste audit should be performed to effectively manage a facility's solid waste stream. If there are tenants in the facility, seek their co-operation to produce the most effective results and increase efficiency. The audit will determine the kinds of solid waste that are being generated at the facility, and should indicate opportunities for reduction. 2. Many commercial contractors report the waste reduction in terms of diversion rate. The diversion rate in many offices, depending on the waste composition, averages 55% with the best performers achieving 80% diversion. Diversion Rate Calculation: The diversion rate equals the rate at which non-hazardous solid waste is diverted from entering a disposal facility. Disposal facilities include landfills (both solid waste and inert) and incinerators. Composting, mulching, recycling, reuse, and donation are

166 generally accepted waste diversion methods. The diversion rate equals: (R/(R+L))*100 = diversion rate (per cent) R = amount (in tons) of non-hazardous solid waste (including construction and demolition debris) that is composted, mulched, recycled, reused, donated, or otherwise diverted from a disposal facility. L = amount (in tons) of solid waste (including construction and demolition debris) transferred to a disposal facility. For example, if an installation composts 750 tons, recycles 1,500 tons, landfills 3,750 tons, and incinerates 1,000 tons in a waste-to-energy program from its total of 7,000 tons of solid waste generated, it would report as follows: R = 750 tons + 1,500 tons = 2,250 tons L = 3,750 tons + 1,000 tons = 4,750 tons (R/(R+L))*100 = (2250/2250+4750)*100 = 32.1% = diversion rate (higher is better)

3. Waste measurements should be expressed both in absolute terms (i.e. the total amounts of garbage and recycling) as well as per capita amounts (i.e. the amounts of garbage and recycling per occupant). The per capita figures are the most meaningful indicator of environmental performance. A facility can measure its progress in meeting its and recycling goals by comparing the annual findings to per-capita targets. It should be able to provide its waste reduction plan and disposal/recycling rates, including a list of materials collected for reuse or recycling and contacts for associated contractors and organization. 4. Construction and demolition waste can be reduced by extending the life-cycle of

167 building products. Interior materials and components such as partitions and fixed furnishings are the most frequently changed elements. Although their re-use may be limited by unavoidable damage during disassembly, they can constitute a valuable supply of materials for recycling. Some jurisdictions have legislation regarding C&D waste management that require construction and demolition projects greater than a certain size to conduct a waste audit, prepare a waste reduction workplan, and implement a source separation recycling program on-site. A sample construction waste management plan is illustrated below: The xxx organization is committed to reducing waste from construction activities in its facilities to help conserve natural resources and reduce landfill loading. To that end, our organization shall establish goals to help reduce building industry waste. The building manager shall develop sample waste management specifications for construction and demolition contracts, covering planning, recycling, reuse, and reduction activities.

Site Enhancements Recommendations 1. Increasing the number of indigenous species can provide an attractive buffer area and reduce the costs of ground maintenance. Where applicable, a reconnection of vegetation corridors is important for maintenance of biodiversity. The protection of slopes from erosion is imperative for protection of land and property assets, and in many cases can be achieved by "naturalization" of the area. Several municipalities provide naturalization information in their "green plans".

168

Emissions, Effluents and Pollution Control Recommendations 1. Many chemicals used in buildings such as oils, biocides, solvents, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides are classified as hazardous materials. Monitor the type of sewage discharges and develop staff awareness of the potential for leaks and spills of harmful effluents into the environment. In particular, staff should be familiar with the processes that tenants use that could result in harmful leaks through ignorance or neglect. Floor drains must be protected. 2. Diverting storm-water from impervious areas such as roofs and paths, and reusing it whenever possible, reduces urban runoff. Infiltration practices are encouraged as a best management practice to increase the infiltration of rainwater. The amount of water directed off a property can be reduced by: 

minimizing the area of impervious surfaces



installing porous paving



planting vegetation



eliminating curbs along driveways and streets to increase infiltration



installing gravel drains along the base of walls



directing rain gutters to landscaped areas, drywells and infiltration



basins where water can seep into the ground



installing rooftop water catchment systems (cisterns) and use precipitation for irrigation



designing vegetated swales and shallow infiltration basins to carry stormwater, instead of pipes (these may be designed to dry out between

169 rainfalls, or may be small permanent wetlands) ď&#x201A;§

installing clarifiers or oil/water separators in all new and rebuilt parking areas.

3. Outdoor air supply inlets should be located away from sources of external pollution to avoid pollutants in the air supply. Intakes located at higher elevations may be exposed to less pollution than at ground level, although care must be taken to prevent contamination by pools of water on the roof, insects and pigeon droppings. If air supply inlets are at ground level, check for sources of vehicle emissions (parking and idling), industrial or commercial pollution. 4. The outdoor air damper should close and open with little or no delay when the air handler is turned off and on. Do a visual check. Check that the damper moves to its design set positions at temperatures that are at least 41ÂşF above and below normal room temperature. Verify that the damper actuator is linked to the damper shaft and that any linkage set screws or bolts are tight. Check that electrical wires or pneumatic tubing is connected to the damper actuator. Check that rust is not preventing free movement. This should be done for each ventilation unit. 5. Giving occupants in a given area covering 4-6 workstations control over the temperature and airflow helps increase worker satisfaction and productivity. 6. Moisture results from leaks or condensation. Condensation occurs when warm, moist air comes in contact with a cold surface. Therefore, to reduce the potential for condensation on cold surfaces, add insulation to piping, exterior walls, roof or floor. If possible, cool the temperature of the air, improve air circulation and decrease the

170 amount of water vapor in the air around the problem area. In dry climates or winter, supply more outdoor ventilation air. In humid climates or during humid times of the year, use a dehumidifier or desiccants to dry the air. Alternatively, increase the capacity of exhaust fans or add a local exhaust fan near the source of water vapor. 7. Organizations can protect and maintain air quality by carefully managing retrofit procedures and by selecting building materials, office furnishings and pieces of equipment that promote a 'green office environment. Issues that need to be discussed with the architects and engineers concern design features that could potentially interfere with ventilation or thermal conditions (for example by adding partitions) or create areas for concealed condensation (for example, by adding carpet to a poorly insulated floor), ensuring that the new design will allow access for inspection and maintenance, and ensuring that the selected materials and systems are appropriate in terms of off-gassing and long term maintenance. Some of the potential causes of indoor air problems during renovation and repairs that need to be discussed include the possibility of disturbing and releasing toxic materials such as asbestos or lead in old paint dust, creating construction dust and fumes, using off-gassing materials and products. The following guidelines should be adhered to during renovation work: 

Do not disturb asbestos during demolition. Consult an asbestos professional.



Use trained staff and observe precautions when removing old paint.



Test for lead-based paint before removing or sanding old paint.



Avoid exposure to fungi and bacteria. If renovation is likely to expose large areas of microbial growth such as mold and mildew, consult a

171 professional about adequate measures to protect workers and occupants. 

Isolate occupants from dust or fumes using plastic sheeting, portable fans and mechanical ventilation if necessary, to prevent dust and fumes from entering occupied areas through lobbies, doors, windows and the ventilation system.



Beware of cutting off a room from its supply of outdoor air, or erecting barriers that prevent adequate movement of air throughout the occupied areas.



Consider conducting repairs and renovations during low-occupancy hours.

8. To have a proactive and effective indoor air quality program, the facility manager and the building operator should do an indoor air quality audit each year. They should also forward a copy of the audit to the building's Health and Safety Committee. The indoor air quality audit should include an IAQ profile, and a description of the features of the building's structure, function and occupancy that impact indoor air quality. This can help building management to identify potential problem areas and prioritize budgets for maintenance and future modifications. It provides a basis to understand the current status of air quality in the building and baseline information on the factors that could cause problems in the future. It should be an organized body of records that can be referred to in planning for renovations, negotiating leases and contracts, or responding to future complaints. The process of gathering information for the IAQ profile can be divided into three major stages:

172 ď&#x201A;§

Collect and review existing records.

ď&#x201A;§

Conduct a walk-through inspection of the building.

ď&#x201A;§

Collect detailed information on the HVAC system, pollutant pathways, pollutant sources and building occupancy.

9. Provide written instructions for the operation, inspection, testing, cleaning and maintenance of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. HVAC Operations should include daily/weekly/monthly schedules for each individual HVAC component compiled together. Housekeeping procedures should ensure adequate cleaning and appropriate use of equipment and products. Preventive Maintenance should include monitoring, cleaning and replacing HVAC components such as outside air intakes, outside air dampers, air filters, drain pans, heating and cooling coils, the interior of air handling units, fan motors and belts, air humidification, controls and cooling towers. The preventative maintenance program should also include both review and corrective actions, particularly those relating to indoor air quality. Procedures for unscheduled maintenance should be documented in the event of equipment failures - which may require the prolonged deactivation or modification of the building's HVAC equipment. A mold management plan should be developed, including procedures to deal with water leakages and an assessment for past leaks and water damage. Emphasis should be placed on preventing contamination through proper building and HVAC system

173 maintenance and prompt repair of water damage. The underlying cause of water accumulation must be rectified or fungal growth will recur. Any initial water infiltration should be stopped and cleaned immediately. An immediate response (within 24 to 48 hours) and thorough clean up, drying, and/or removal of water damaged materials will prevent or limit mold growth. If the source of water is elevated humidity, relative humidity should be maintained at levels below 60% to inhibit mold growth. Emphasis should be on ensuring proper repairs of the building infrastructure, so that water damage and moisture buildup does not recur. 10. As per ASHRAE standard 55-1992, office temperatures should range from 21-23ยบ C (70-73ยบ F). In the cooling season, temperatures should be maintained at 23-26ยบ C (7379ยบ F). The recommended range for relative humidity is 40-60%. Humidity outside this range is easily tolerated, but people feel dryness in the eyes, nose and throat when the level falls below 35%. When humidity is below 40%, static electricity becomes a problem for sensitive electronic equipment. At levels above 70%, condensation accumulates on cool surfaces, creating a moist environment conducive to the growth of molds and bacteria that may cause allergic reaction or disease.

Lighting Recommendations 1. Glare and reflections are distracting, even when they do not mask the work, and the added stress they cause often results in the need for longer rest pauses. Guidance can be obtained from the IES-VDT Lighting Standards to Avoid Glare for Visual Display Terminals. Blinds continue to be a first line of defense against glare. Solar control blinds should be on all windows orientated more southerly than NE or NW.

174 Internal shading devices limit the glare resulting from solar radiation. They should be adjustable to allow occupants to regulate the amount of direct light entering their space. 2. For greatest comfort in task-oriented spaces such as offices, distribute daylight and most electric light indirectly - bounced from the ceiling and walls. Reflective surfaces should be light in color, preferably white. Indirect luminaires are available with wall or ceiling mounts. Choose fixtures for high efficiency and wide light distribution to minimize the number needed. T5 or T8 lamps with electronic ballasts are good options. Efficient lighting power densities typically range from 0.6 to 1.2 W/sq.ft. The indirect lighting needs to be supplemented with task lighting. This is lighting which shines directly from the luminaire to the task. It includes desk and table lights. 3. Lay out lighting control zones to supplement daylight variation throughout the day; and coordinate them with HVAC zones and controls for greatest economy. Typically, the maximum width of window daylit zones is 2.5 times the window height. Toplit daylit zones are seldom wider than 1.5 times the floor-to-ceiling height (depending on skylight and well dimensions). An effective control electric lighting and daylighting system is essential for occupant satisfaction and energy savings. For workspaces, continuous dimming is the least obtrusive. This allows changes to the electric lighting output to be unnoticeable to occupants. On/off or multi-step strategies can be distracting and may result in occupant complaints or tampering with the sensors; these are best suited for storage areas or other intermittently occupied areas. Building automation systems are

175 increasingly used to control lighting. Benefits of using building automation systems to control lighting include the ability to track occupancy and energy use, the ability to monitor and control lighting throughout a large facility, and the ability to minimize peak demand. Each control should be for no more than 4 workstations. A daylighting controls need photosensor assigned to each lighting zone. There are two main types of daylight controls, "closed loop" and "open loop". In a closed-loop system the sensor is located in the controlled space. This type of system is best for classrooms, open offices, concourses, lobbies, malls, factories and other large open areas. In an open loop system the photosensor is located outside the space(s) it controls, and is not affected by the electric light contribution. This type of system is appropriate for a series of small offices or rooms all with the same sky exposure, outdoor lighting, atria, and other daylighting features.

Environmental Management System (EMS) Recommendations 1. A formal policy can also serve to present commitments to tenants, potential clients, suppliers, senior corporate officials, potential lenders, regulators, and the general public. 2. Action plans should be used in conjunction with stated objectives and targets to provide an effective, overall EMS. 3. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Ecopurchasingâ&#x20AC;? is a procurement strategy that reduces the volume and toxicity of wastes, reduces material costs, and supports recycling. While management cannot be accountable for the environmental practices of the tenants, it is possible to provide education by posting or distributing an information sheet on environmentally friendly

176 cleaning substitutes.

4. Sample Building Materials Policy: Management and tenants recognize the importance of ensuring that environmental principles are a key consideration in all procurement decisions, and wish to promote the purchase of products and services, which represent less impact on the environment. Employees and contactors will seek out and give priority to suppliers of products and services that meet the following criteria: 

achieve a reduction in the amount of material or product consumed (e.g. paperless communications, elimination of packaging)



generate less waste e.g. concentrates, bulk products



incorporate re-use of original product or material e.g. returnable pallets, recycled toner cartridges



contain post-consumer recycled materials (highest content possible) (e.g. carpet, paper products)



contain non-toxic substances e.g. paint, cleaners



deliver savings in water or energy consumption e.g. flow-control taps, energy-efficient appliances



utilize renewable energy sources e.g. solar-powered items



contain non-aerosol alternatives e.g. manual pump sprays



contain products that emit low levels of VOCs (off-gassing) e.g. carpet, furnishings

177 5. Consider the following when listing environmentally preferable products for your facility: 

Reduce waste volume (e.g. purchase in bulk or concentrate).



Reduce toxicity (e.g. purchase products with less hazardous ingredients); Consider not only the toxicity of a product but also the concentration that is needed for it to be effective.



Use dispensers to avoid having to purchase products in single-use containers.



Increase durability (e.g. purchase repairable furniture, maintain heavy duty equipment).



Purchase energy efficient products and equipment.

Because products are frequently discontinued and new products introduced to the market, the list of products should be regularly reviewed and updated. In order to implement a facility-wide eco-purchasing strategy, there should be a purchasing coordinator whose job is to identify and purchase preferred products and ensure that contracts with cleaning and maintenance service companies refer to environmental purchasing practices. 6. Purchasing choices can have a major impact on the facility’s operating expenses, especially with regard to energy intensive equipment. The Energy Star rating and information program promotes the production and purchase of energy-efficient electrical household appliances, and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. 7. Communication between management and tenants is the key to a successful program.

178 The key aspects of effective communication techniques are frequency, accuracy, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. To ensure building occupants work together with building owners to achieve environmental goals, there must be frequent communication. The more comprehensive the information provided, and the broader the audience included, the better the chance that change will occur. A monthly newsletter is an excellent opportunity to establish this communication link. The newsletter could include information on building events, new policies, reminders, source reduction and recycling updates, and a materials exchange classified section. A suggestion box could provide opinions and suggestions from tenants for improving the current recycling program in the building. 8. In most industries customer satisfaction is fostered as the main driver of profitable growth. Tenant Satisfaction represents the voice of the tenant and promotes transparency and market efficiency by tracking over time tenant satisfaction and its drivers.

179 APPENDIX B: STORRS SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURED DATA

Figure 47 Storrs RH 2nd Floor Lobby

Figure 48 Storrs RH 3rd Year Desk A

180

Figure 49 Storrs RH 3rd Year Desk B

Figure 50 Storrs RH 5th Year Desk

181

Figure 51 Storrs RH Room 255

Figure 52 Storrs RH Room 268

182

Figure 53 Storrs RH Room 274

Figure 54 Storrs RH Room 285

183

Figure 55 Storrs RH Room 290

Figure 56 Storrs RH Grad M1

184

Figure 57 Storrs RH Grad Studio

Figure 58 Storrs RH Salon from window in room 268

185

Figure 59 Storrs Second Floor Lobby Temperature

Figure 60 Storrs 3rd Year Studio Desk A Temperature

186

Figure 61 Storrs 3rd Year Studio Desk B Temperature

Figure 62 Storrs 5th Year Studio Temperature

187

Figure 63 Storrs Room 255 Temperature

Figure 64 Storrs Room 268 Temperature

188

Figure 65 Storrs Room 274 Temperature

Figure 66 Storrs Room 285 Temperature

189

Figure 67 Storrs Room 290 Temperature

Figure 68 Storrs M1 Grad Studio Temperature

190

Figure 69 Storrs Grad Studio Temperature

Figure 70 Storrs 2nd Floor Salon from Room 268 Temperature

191 APPENDIX C-1: SMITH BUILDING INTERVIEW How many people work in this facility during normal operating hours? Varies but during the normal school year, fall and spring would be 125 faculty 50 staff and 500 students.

How many hours per week are you guys open? Do you have night hours? We do. All the computing labs are 24 hours, 7 days a week. And that probably comprises somewhere around 200 computers. And then 40 hour a week for other admin offices and what not.

How many PCs? 3 computing labs that are fairly dense for PCs, on the first floor we’re probably talking 40; on the second there’s going to be … about 371 or so PCs in a building that e built to have IBM elect typewriters in. That’s actually one of the things we’re interested in looking at in older buildings, the usage of heavy energy consuming equipment. Well it used to be a lot worse with all the VDUs when all the monitors were tube based. With the LCDs now they’re down to a third of that. We actually measured one PC which was moderate middle of the road in performance, with a 24” monitor, so it ran the CPU at 98% load and it was 350 Watts. But its very very very in often that your PC runs that hard, normally its running about normal everyday stuff about 50 Watts.

192 And are you guys 100% heated and air conditioned? Yes. Some people are 105% air conditioned

Does the building incorporate any of the following high-efficiency lighting features, compact fluorescents? We have gone to the more efficient T5 bulbs, replaced the T8s

Are the exit signs LEDs Yes

Use of high intensity fluorescent fixtures? A few of the labs have been converted to the high intensity fluorescent fixtures, theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re lay in and direct reflecting.

Any task lighting? Ya a few people

Installation of automated lighting controls yet? No in fact EPIC may well be the last building we do that. The upfront costs on high tech controls is horrendous. And we are finding that people donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take the time to learn how to use it. First of all my facilities management folk have to go in there and program stuff, different scenes and what not, I mean the electrical eengineers and architects love that sort of stuff because you can set scenes for different times of day but you need a lighting

193 engineer for your building.

Are you aware of the performance contract that’s being developed here? Yes. My point is like in this room over here, instead of having a light switch where all the lights come on and off, we have three. So we can turn half the lights on in the main room itself, and we have a separate switch for the lights near the whiteboard in the front of the room, so we can turn half a bank or both banks or all three for 100%. So for instance during projection, we just turn on a single bank like two bulbs in each fixture or one bulb in each fixture, which dims the room and then turn of the bank in front of the whiteboard for projection, or the screen rather. Easy breezy. Switching for that costs about a hundred bucks installed. Same type of patterning upfront costs in a computerized system, probably ten times that much at least, if not a hundred times that much. Reflect back to EPIC, I’m fairly well-versed in all the new technologies, if you see a light switch on the wall, I have to program it to act like a light switch rather than a dimmer. I mean that’s how far we went with it. So you were involved in EPIC? Yes 100%

So what percentage of all the lighting in the building would you say is high efficient? Maybe 20%

Are boilers 20 years old or more? Oh no they’re new with the HVAC system upgrade, in fact they’re the first ones we’ve

194 ever had in the building. So how old would you say? Well it depends, we use two. During normal heating season weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re on plant steam. But thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s being phased out. It is. When we replaced the air handlers, we put in two new boilers in house. Do you know what year that was? It was 2007

So you would say they are high efficiency? Yes they are

Do the boilers have automatic vent dampers? Yes, external air combustion, yadda yadda yadda. and their in an isolated room so

Is temp setback and weather compensation implemented? Yes

Does the building have BAS? It does. Lighting automation no, building HVAC automation yes

Does the building have high efficiency water heating equip? No.

195 Are there any hot water saving devices? They put the low flow restrictors in them and students figured out if poke a screw driver up there you can actually get your hands wet. That’s the problem with some of those efficiency things, it can take forever to try and get the soap off your hands. Yes they did put the flow restrictors in there. Now what we did was go back when they broke those couple of faucets and we just turned the hot water back at the wall faucet and took the handle off. Reduce the flow some we didn’t let it run full blast.

Are the hot water temperatures maintained between 120 and 130 degrees? Yes I think they are.

Are there any other energy efficiency measures in place? Like the chillers. I’m not sure about the chillers, we get our chilled water from the McEniry RUP. And I don’t think they’ve been replaced lately but I don’t know for sure. But we are on a regional utility plant setup, so we’re able to stage up and stage down. McEniry has its own chiller, Burson gangs up with two chillers in Cameron. We don’t really have a regional utility plant so to say, we have little regional nodes for a few buildings. Now Woodward, all the new buildings, SAC and all that, they do slave off of RUP1 , RUP2 out on the CRI campus, and they’re actually planning to put in a RUP in place of the boiler room out here on the old physical plant.

With variable speed drives? I think they do but I can’t swear to that, you can touch base with Joel Lowder and he

196 would be able to tell you that right off the top of his head.

Combined heat and power plants? Cogeneration? No

Energy recovery ventilation system? No

Any displacement ventilation, under floor air distribution, dehumidification methods? Other than natural condensation on the chillers, chilled water coils, that’s all. in the winter time none.

Has the current performance and condition of the building envelope been assessed in terms of condensation? I don’t think so

Moist air transfer? No but probably does a lot, that’s a guess…I mean its CMU and brick built in 1965. They didn’t worry about that back then.

Airflow or heat transfer? No. I know its bad, it hasn’t been evaluated per say. We have single pane glass, all the gaskets are shot. Most of the window putty believe or not, if you even know what that

197 is…

Are there energy-efficient windows and doors? No. Well the glass doors now, we recently replaced the storefront and they put dual panes in there. So wherever and whenever we can afford it we do it, we haven’t replaced all the windows in the building….and they are operable by the way. That’s good. It is and it isn’t.

Protective shading or reflective film? No

Has the envelope been air sealed in the following areas? The top part of the building? Roof yes Bottom part? No. Roof is a membrane. Vertical shafts and elevators? Probably not.

Does the insulation of the walls comply with the recommendation of the building condition report? Basically code. 1966 code yeah probably

198

Has the building had an energy audit within the past three years? I don’t know if one has ever been done. I don’t know of one going to be done.

Do you know of any energy management or reduction plan? I don’t know what exactly the plan for Smith building. I think we got it to a stasis now, we got problems in other buildings that we’re addressing now with higher priority like Burson. It’s a real nightmare over there. I don’t know if you’ve been in that building.

Does the building staff, including new employees, sufficiently trained to design and implement an energy efficiency improvement program? No.

Are there financial resources to improve the energy efficiency of the building? Not that I know of

Does the building have tenant sub-metering? No

Is there a readily available operating manual covering standard control settings and operating instructions for all services equipment that may affect the energy consumption? Yes

199 Talking about maintenance schedules for the mechanical systems…does it measure boiler efficiency? Those questions I’m not sure, you’d have to ask Joel Lowder that. Joel is the zone supervisor of zone 6. and they do a full route of Pm visits and as far as efficiency audits I don’t know.

Are there bike racks? Yes Are they sheltered? No

Are there changing facilities or showers? No

Are there low flow toilets? No Ultra low flush urinals? No Automatic valve controls? Yes in some Low flow or laminar faucets? No

200 Any rainwater or graywater systems? No except for the leaking classrooms

Does the building use once-through water-cooled units? No we don’t have anything that’s water cooled. None of the labs here use any equipment that’s water cooled. We have some water cooled equipment in ‘other’ labs but most of those use a closed loop system.

Do you know of water audit being done within the last three years? I do not, Tom Sparks would know.

Are there regular procedures for checking and fixing leaks? We get lots of practice, no we don’t leak that badly. regular procedure is which type of leak are you talking about? Standard thing is if you got a leaky faucet put in a work request.

Are there separate storage/handling facilities for used paper products, glass, metal and plastic? Yes

Are there collection points for sorting paper, glass, metal and plastic near the areas where waste is generated? Yes

201

Is there a composting program in place? Not in this building

Has a waste audit been done? I don’t know you’d have to check with recycling, I think they may have – now whether they can break this building out I don’t know.

Is the building site free of contamination? Describe contamination. We do have asbestos in the building.

Are there any above ground or underground storage tanks for fuel Not that I know of No

Do you know what type of refrigerant is used for most of the cooling in the building chiller system? No

Are there halon fireprotection systems in the building? We had a halon fire protection in our one server room but we replaced that with a product called Saphire.

Any chemicals in the building?

202 Yes

Are floor drains protected in areas where chemicals are stored? Probably not.

Are roof drains connected to sanitary or combined sewers? Not that I know of

Are storm management measures implemented to reduce water run-off from roofs and hard surfaces, such as parking areas? I don’t know that

Are there procedures in place to ensure that glycol discharges from the flushing of cooling coils are minimized or eliminated? Joel Lowder

is there an up-to-date inventory based on an asbestos survey, that includes records of locations and the condition of all asbestos? I don’t know if its recorded as to where everything is. We just know that if you find 9” floor tiles, the mastic is probably hot. If you find older insulation on pipes, its probably hot. If it’s an old door, or old fire door, its probably hot.

Is there any friable asbestos in the building that has not been encapsulated (i.e. Is there

203 any possibility that asbestos fibers could become air-borne)? Not that I know of.

Is there a documented asbestos management plan that includes precautions to be taken during repairs and renovations? Yes, talk to Bubba Brown (Robert Brown) he manages that system all across campus, he can tell you everything about asbestos, probably more than you wanted to now.

Is the building located outside a high risk area or has a radon survey been done which indicates levels below 4 pCi/L? I don’t think a radon survey has been done that I know of.

Are there any PCBs present in the building? Could be, I don’t know that for sure.

Are there any above ground or underground storage tanks for fuel Not that I know of No

Is the drinking water safe? I don’t know

Are MSDSs, spill clean-up kits, and safety equipment such as eye-wash stations located in an accessible place near the chemical storage areas?

204 Yes Are they less than 3 years old? I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know Are HCS labels present on regulated products?

Are chemicals and hazardous materials stored under appropriate conditions in secure locations? Should be yes

Is education and training provided for the person responsible for the management of chemicals and for staff who may be required to work with them? Yes

Is there a designated person responsible for managing hazardous materials? Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in each lab as its found.

Are there inventory and records of the hazardous materials/waste, including their removal and disposal? Yes on MSDS online here in the EHS office

Is there a Heath and Safety Committee that meets regularly and carries out regular inspections of the property? I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think so. Now the fire marshal and the EHS employee go around and do a fire

205 safety inspection.

Are air intakes located far from sources of pollution such as parking areas, bus stops, cooling towers or stagnant water? No. One intake is over here by the generator and one intake is over there in the delivery area to Prospector and the mail room.

Are air intakes located at least 30 ft. away from building exhaust outlets? No

Are outdoor air intakes checked regularly to ensure that the openings are protected and free from obstruction? I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

Is there free-standing water which cannot drain away in the condensate drip trays? I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think so no

Are there signs of corrosion, loose material (such as damaged filter bags) or sound attenuation material in the air-handling unit (AHU)? No

Are measured CO2 levels less than 850 ppm (assuming outdoor levels 400 ppm)? They should be or we would get an alarm

206

Is there permanent carbon dioxide monitoring or are there sensors to maintain pre-set levels Yes

Do the occupants have personal control over the ventilation rates in the area in which they work, either through hybrid system (operable windows) or personalized HVAC controls? Thermostat in every room plus or minus 2 degrees, and most of the rooms windows are only operable with an allen wrench…so most of the rooms are not open.

Are filters able to remove particles from incoming air? Yes Are manometers fitted to indicate when filters should be changed? Yes

Is there easy access for cleaning and inspecting filters? Yes

Do they fit snugly within the filter supports? Yes

What type of humidification system?

207 None

Are the cooling towers located away from fresh air intakes and flue outlets? I think so but ask Joe Lowder for sure

Are there drift eliminators? Don’t know

Are there measures to prevent intake of exhaust fumes from the loading dock and parking areas? No, other than please turn off your engine.

Is there carbon monoxide monitoring in garages and near boilers? I think so yes – near the boilers there is we don’t have a garage.

Have there been observations or complaints of stained ceilings or walls? Stained ceilings yes Musty odors? No Damp or musty carpets? Occasionally but we got that fixed now

Do large printing rooms, cafeteria, kitchens, chemical storage and washrooms have

208 effective local exhaust? Yes

Does the contract with the cleaning contractors specifically state that they are to use environmentally preferable cleaning materials? I would assume so but Brian Gunns is the director of building environmental services and he can give you chapter and verse on what they use.

Indoor air quality management protocol such as complaint form and incident log? Yes work order requests

An IAQ audit in the past year? Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think so but Tom Sparks would know that for sure.

Is temperature and humidity monitored? Yes

Are high frequency ballasts fitted to luminaires? Yes the T5s

Are there controllable internal or external blinds and do light fixtures prevent glare at Visual Display Terminals?

209 Not necessarily

Do lighting levels meet IES guidelines of 50-75 footcandles (500-800 lux) for office space? in places yes Offices? I would assume so

Is individually controlled task lighting provided? Yes sometimes

Are there good lighting controls (One control for no more than 4 workstations)? In an office yes, in classrooms and computer labs no

Is there a planned schedule of cleaning light fixtures? Yes

Is there a group re-lamping program?

210 Yes

Is it easy, in open office areas, to engage in a conversation using a normal voice, understand a phone conversation, and have a private conversation using lowered voices? Yes

Is there sufficient acoustic privacy? Yes

Are procedures documented and staff trained to deal with and obtain prompt assistance for emergencies such as fire, spills, power failures and illness? Yes

Do you have emergency generators? Yes

Do the emergency plans refer to all applicable legislation regarding emergency procedures, reporting and recordkeeping? Yes

Is there equipment onsite to deal with environmental emergencies? Yes

211 Are there contingency plans for both short-term and long-term power failures? Yes we went through all that in emergency response

Is there a site map showing the location of environmentally significant features? No

Is there a communications strategy with tenants regarding environmental initiatives and practices in their building and to respond to tenant concerns? Yes

Are there communications to tenants on the environmental measures that they can implement in the buildingâ&#x20AC;Ś Yes

Has a tenant satisfaction survey been completed in the last 3 years? We wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t dare

212 APPENDIX C-2: STORRS BUILDING INTERVIEW How many people work: appx 400 students (45-50 faculty/staff) PCs: every faculty office, min. 50; classrooms/labs 70 (120 operation stations) 150 random

168 hours operating hours 100% heated and ac

T8 and T11 yes compact fluorescents and LEDs and vapor lamps Exit signs are LEDs and ceiling lighting downstairs

Task lighting fluorescent majority incandescent No automated lighting 25% high efficiency lighting

Are boilers 20 years old or more? Yes they were installed in 1989, 99 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; yes they are.

So they are not high efficiency? I doubt it â&#x20AC;&#x201C; now they just replaced the chillers to a new high efficiency chiller.

Do the boilers have automatic vent dampers?

213 I would suspect not based on their age.

Is temp setback and weather compensation implemented? Attempted. University does come through and adjust thermostats twice annually at least.

Does the building have BAS? No it does not.

Does the building have high efficiency water heating equip? No. Your not going to believe me when I tell you this. There’s only one hot water heater, actually there’s three but there’s only one that services lavatory and office use, and there’s two small ones that service the housekeeping.

There not tankless? No not yet.

Are there any hot water saving devices? No not that I know of.

Are the hot water temperatures maintained between 120 and 130 degrees? No they keep them down.

Are there any other energy efficiency measures in place? Percentage of chillers in the

214 facility that are high-efficiency? They just replaced the chiller and it’s a beautiful high efficiency chiller.

With variable speed drives? I bet yes, which I assume are variable pump rates but its not my area of expertise.

Combined heat and power plants? Cogeneration? No we do not have cogeneration on campus.

Energy recovery ventilation system? Not that I know of – not in our building heck no.

Any displacement ventilation, under floor air distribution, dehumidification methods? No not that I know of. And there’s definitely no under floor or thru floor systems.

Has the current performance and condition of the building envelope been assessed in terms of condensation? No

Moist air transfer? No

Airflow?

215 Not comprehensively.

What about heat transfer? Don’t know.

Are there energy-efficient windows and doors? That’s a loaded question, they are double glazed yes but to call those energy efficient at best in the modern world at a minimum, that’s exactly us – at minimum.

Protective shading or reflective film? No

Has the envelope been air sealed in the following areas? The top part of the building? Air sealed….I don’t know. I cannot believe that any of the envelope….when they say air sealed I don’t know what they are…. It says stack effect and air leakage through the building envelope can cause significant heat loss and deterioration of the building envelope. Okay nothing has been evaluated on that, there is no thermal imaging or thermal graphing gone on to examine heat loss or gain based on the seasons, that I know of. It would be great, just to go above each building in a helicopter and hover and take a thermal scan. But you could do an elevation too right? I guess you could but you wouldn’t get a comprehensive, because heats gonna rise…

216 Because it says the top part of building, bottom… As far as I know there’s been no thermal scanning of our building, which is the only way that I know of to evaluate that.

Does the insulation of the walls comply with the recommendation of the building condition report? Basically code. I’m sure it does, it would have complied with code in 1989. And that was before 90.1 was implemented on campus right? That’s right.

Has the building had an energy audit within the past three years? The nearest thing that we have done to an energy audit, is the work that the daylighting folks, that Dale did one of the 3 or 4 buildings on campus that was in the initial energy evaluation as a test building. So Dale would know the extent of that analysis.

And I know it’s under performance contract right now. Tell me what that means. I was told by FM that Storrs is one of 6 buildings that are under performance contract for lighting upgrades, HVAC upgrades… Ok as far as I know that’s true, I don’t know what the program is nor how comprehensive or the timeline, but I do know that I have talked with different people about that, particularly electric people and the people that put in the chiller. And I know that the doors will be replaced soon, but they will be energy better but that’s not an after thought

217 – its really being addressed as a security issue, not as an energy issue.

Do you know of any energy management or reduction plan? No. Doesn’t mean there’s not one, I just don’t know of one.

Does the building staff, including new employees, sufficiently trained to design and implement an energy efficiency improvement program? No.

Are there financial resources to improve the energy efficiency of the building? Unknown. Which means there may or may not be but Dr. Rajah hasn’t come to us and said here’s $500,000 go make your building energy efficient. No idea.

I don’t assume that the building has sub-metering? Not internally, whether the gas or energy consumption is solely on a Storrs basis, probably not electrically, it’s possible on the gas side. Yeah I have data for the entire campus building by building. I bet you we consume well more energy than we’re supposed to. Yeah but we’re not the highest on campus. Whose the highest? Kennedy stands the highest right now. That’s because its probably the least ready As far as academic

218 That’s interesting, they’re just not a very ready building. How about Fretwell, where’s it fall? Fretwell is higher than us. Interesting. They have a lot more, huge in and outflow of students and a 3rd and 4th floor. But that building was not built, that was the first real great loss of opportunity, it was constructed at a time when they could have been better energy wise but they chose not to save money, ha ha ha save money.

Is there a readily available operating manual covering standard control settings and operating instructions for all services equipment that may affect the energy consumption? Not that I know of, no. It has never been brought forward to us.

Talking about maintenance schedules for the mechanical systems…does it measure boiler efficiency? I don’t know. Checks on the correct operation of ventilation and cooling controls? Ya I’m sure it does Checking on the temperature, humidity and fresh air controls to ensure they are set correctly and responding as intended? You know, my perception is that the building maintenance schedule is on a crisis management basis. I have no sense whatsoever that the building is routinely monitored for energy or health and well-being. People raise the issues to you?

219 Yes and the couple times of year they turn the chillers up and down. Do you know exactly when they do that? Its so difficult to know because you come in here during the summer time and its freezing, and yet they tell you that the building has been adjusted. and in the middle of winter you come in here and its so incredibly hot, and yet its supposed to have been adjusted. They do adjust them, we receive notices that they adjust them before all major breaks, they turn down the building temperature over lengthy school breaks. And you’d think they’d turn it up during the summer time, but practically speaking that’s never the case. It’s always freezing in here during the summer. and I know how this happens, it happens because it would be adjusted as if it was normally occupied. And 300+ occupants produce a tremendous amount of heat, well during the summer time its almost dead in this building, as such where as maybe it may be adjusted assuming accurate numbers, those warm bodies are not in place. You’d think that its thermostatically adjusted, then it would be self-correcting…that’s what thermostats are supposed to do…. basically they could say we’re only going to supply x amount of temperature per day at a max or minimum, and the thermostats would handle that capacity or ranges…but or systems are not good enough to manage that. More than you wanted to know right?

No every time I turn around this thing gets bigger and bigger… So this is not a sore thumb.

Back to maintenance schedules? Checks for refrigerant leaks? I don’t think we have refrigerant, I think its all cooling water system.

220 Checks on air-handling units, cooling towers, and boilers? Yeah they do that every year. Replacement of filters? I don’t know what cycle we’re on, but about three years ago we demanded the entire system to be cleaned and replaced. Whether we have had a comprehensive filter replacement schedule in place I don’t know. I do know they are checked every year. Cleaning and sterilizing of wet regions in the air conditioning system and checking for accumulation of dirt? I don’t know the degree to which, was the word comprehensive in there? No just says mechanical maintenance schedule. Are you notified every time there’s a…? No, and not only that but I would be really surprised if it was performed routinely. Now the filter changes, I think the University shifted over and went on contract doing filter changes. When the University was smaller, every building was assigned person for electrical, and HVAC and they knew the building. Now that we’ve gotten so big, and they’ve gone to this zone management system, the zone management system, to me and my perception of it is that it’s a fire system….its based on dramatic need. If I call in about the air and, say we complained about the air enough and I take samples and get the health and safety people in here, to look at that, and it was then and only then that we were funded to replace the filters in here. so I really see, I’m not here to say they don’t have these regimines in place, because so much goes on in the physical operation side, that nobody here would know about – the only people that would know about these things is anybody who is willing to pay attention, because its not brought to our attention.

221 So then, a preventative maintenance program for building systems, which takes into account their lifecycle? I would say other than light bulbs….look they check our generator, we’re on a generator check schedule. They check our HVAC, that’s on a check schedule. But as the people who put in the new chiller told me, ‘we can replace all that and put in state of the art equipment but the systems within the building are so dated as to be almost unable to manage’, there’s no centralized management of damper systems within the building. There are adjustable dampers with the system, but as far as I know there’s no coordinated system of management to control the interior air flow. I think it was basically set at one point, more or less. My take is they set it when they set up the building, and somebody’s come around and checked it and 60% of them have been tweaked or moved or something. But if you talk about any sort of comprehensive energy management, I can’t imagine it goes on based on my observations. And you guys would know too, you guys consume this building and you know its uncomfortable. I can tell you the relative humidity is totally unhealthy. Right now its 38% in here. Oh you have a monitor? Yeah and that’s high. And that’s just in your office? Yes just in my office, if it pours rain and its wet now…. There’s an immediate jump. Is that because of the building materials the building was constructed with? No I just think its mechanical, there’s no management of. …and I don’t mean a ‘person’, the system doesn’t manage quality of our environment. It provides for flow, but it doesn’t evaluate or interpret the conditions to make any sort of healthy change. We’re at 38%

222 relative and like I said that’s pretty high, usually its low 30s…and if you go into the wood shop right now we’re suffering because its so bone dry and hot in there that all our materials are shrinking. We’re the canary, that room over there is an environmental canary.

Are those the only bike racks out front there, switching gears a bit? Yeah there’s one out backside of 185, so yeah there’s a bike rack on either end of the pit. And neither of them are sheltered? That’s correct. Is there a suggestion that people will ride their bike if their out of the weather? Yeah that’s what the Green Globes people are saying.

There are no changing facilities or showers right? No, we pleaded for it in the building program when we programmed this building in 1978, no it took two years, 1986-88. And you were apart of that? Yes. Who else was apart of that? Nobody whose here anymore. Chris Morgan was the gentlemen’s name who was the faculty, he was really a good architect and dept chair and he was the one who edited the building program.

You said there’s no low flow toilets?

223 No Ultra low flush? No Automatic valve controls? I’m wondering if the new toilets they put in, the best I can tell its not a low-flow. It doesn’t…I’m used to hearing low-flow toilets having completely different sounds than your standard.

Does the landscaping minimize the need for irrigation? No

We don’t have any rainwater or graywater? Collection or distribution that’s correct.

Does the building use once-through water-cooled units? Good question, I don’t know the answer to that. Once-through water, I bet not, because the chiller is a re-circulating chiller.

Do you know of a water conservation policy? No I do not

Do you know of water audit being done within the last three years? I do not

224

Are there regular procedures for checking and fixing leaks? Regular procedures, if a leak is discovered we call physical plant and they send someone over

Are there separate storage/handling facilities for used paper products, glass, metal and plastic? Yes

Are there collection points for sorting paper, glass, metal and plastic near the areas where waste is generated? Yes

Is there a composting program in place? Good question, there’s a group in grounds, they grow a large number from seed of the decorative plantings all over campus. the recycling folks they come over and empty what we collect, it goes into the composting the organic composting and that dirt gets redistributed throughout campus. So ya there is which is really cool. I knew there was one for one of the dining facilities. Yeah I’m not sure today how centralized or large the compo activity is but it does go on and we contributed and the wood shop contributes to it for sure. So you don’t know the waste numbers, they’re not published somewhere? Once a year the recycling people publish the total amount

225

So you don’t know current diversion rates? I do not

Is the building site free of contamination? I’ll stick my neck out and say yes to the best of my knowledge. We’re not built on any grey or brown fields.

Are there indications that the site has been enhanced, such as an increase of indigenous species, the re-establishment of vegetation corridors or the implementation of erosioncontrol measures? No, minimal erosion control measures, absolutely minimal that’s why it always floods in the back here and ponds up back over here when it really rains and why it damns up under the walkway over there. So there were these gestures they made that as you know is only as good as the ongoing management.

What percentages of the boilers have low NOx emission rates? I have no idea None or 25 or 50 I have no idea

Are records kept of cleaning burners monitoring of controls I have no idea

226

We said earlier no refrigerants That I know of yeah, we don’t its all a centralized water chilled system

Are there halon fire protection systems in the building? Not any longer, we used to keep…. fire protection systems, no. We used to keep halon extinguishers in the laser labs. But there’s no centralized fire protection system, I’m not sure if they’ve even kept up with it but that’s not my responsibility. I used to keep halon extinguishers in there from a fire safety perspective when that was my responsibility but not anymore. If you use a dry fire extinguisher, it will spread an electrical fire…and with halon it will put out an electrical fire. But I think it’s environmentally not good.

Are floor drains protected in areas where chemicals are stored? We don’t have chemicals. And I’m assuming we’re not including simple building cleanings supplies.

Are roof drains connected to sanitary or combined sewers? No they’re storm water runoff

Are storm management measures implemented to reduce water run-off from roofs and hard surfaces, such as parking areas? No

227 Are there procedures in place to ensure that glycol discharges from the flushing of cooling coils are minimized or eliminated? Don’t know the answer to that

Any asbestos? No

Is the building located outside a high-risk area or has a radon survey been done which indicates levels below 4 pCi/L? As far as I know we’ve never been tested, but you know we’re in a high radon area – we are in a known radon-emitting region.

Any PCBs present in the building? I’m gonna say no

Are there any above ground or underground storage tanks for fuel no fuel, we have no fuel tanks either above or below

Do we have storage tanks for anything else? No

Is the drinking water safe? We’ll say yes but unproven. There’s nobody been in here to run any potable water tests

228 that I know of. We have the in the wall water chillers. And I haven’t seen any one keel over, best empirical data there is

Are MSDSs, spill clean-up kits, and safety equipment such as eye-wash stations located in an accessible place near the chemical storage areas? there are no chemical spill abatement resources in the building, but then again there are no chemicals of any substantive level

There’s only a few more pages This is a very sort of provocative conversation

Are air intakes located far from sources of pollution such as parking areas, bus stops, cooling towers or stagnant water? What is far? Says if inlets are on the roof… The inlets are on the vertical surface of the NE walls, and they are 200 yards from a parking deck, now I’m gonna tell you something. They are probably too close to the exhaust from the lasers. That’s then asterisk question. 30 feet? Yes they are What about the prevailing wind? What’s the question? Separating air intakes from exhaust avoids “re-entrainment” (short-circuiting) of exhaust

229 air. Also consider the prevailing direction of the wind relative to the intakes and exhaust. Yes the prevailing wind is SW to NE more or less, WSW to ENE is the prevailing wind condition here. The air intakes are in fact located on the NE, so if the buildings here. The prevailing winds, if we were giving off bad stuff, the intakes do lie in the path of the exhaust but ‘prevailing’ is the key there. But you could go outside this building and smell when acrylic is being cut in the laser lab. It has a lot to do with the stagnating conditions, if there’s air movement, its much healthier Isn’t there separate exhaust for the labs? There is but it exhausts into free air on the roof of the building, we’re going to say that’s no a problem.

Are outdoor air intakes checked regularly to ensure that the openings are protected and free from obstruction? Yeah the leaves there’s no leaves, they’re open louvered, I’d say they’re in pretty good shape. Is there free-standing water which cannot drain away in the condensate drip trays? No

Are there signs of corrosion, loose material (such as damaged filter bags) or sound attenuation material in the air-handlingunit (AHU)? No

230 Are measured CO2 levels less than 850 ppm (assuming outdoor levels 400 ppm)? Don’t know

Is there permanent carbon dioxide monitoring or are Carbon D, not Carbon Monoxide…as far as I know there is no carbon dioxide monitoring in this building, I don’t even know if there’s carbon monoxide monitors in this building. The smoke detection system is a vapor…that’d be a good thing to know, does the building vapor detection, what you and I would call smoke detection it think it does monitor vapor. The smoke detection system in the salon is in fact a particulate detection system. If a fog cloud somehow blow into the salon, that might set off the detection system and there are no sprinklers, but there’s a giant exhaust system, that’s what those huge circular things are on either side of the salon. But that’s a good question.

Do the occupants have personal control over the ventilation rates in the area in which they work, either through hybrid system (operable windows) or personalized HVAC controls? Yeah they do but its against University policy, they can prop the doors open but they’re getting ready to override that ability. The new doors that they’re putting in this building are going to be very obnoxious sound alarm. So would it be beneficial to replace the doors and windows, making the windows operable? I’m not a licensed architect, I would tell you from a humane viewpoint, absolutely but… That would prevent them from propping doors open?

231 Yes but institutions cannot monitor their buildings if they occupants are free to…and that was the big argument with Fretwell, it has no operable openings. And people who run buildings, if they run them well, don’t want occupants messing with…you can’t manage a system if someone can room by room change the system, or change the baselines for your system. So that’s the conflict. Personally I would love to see operable conditions all along there, but it will never happen. Even if the building managers have control over those operable openings? Yeah you could have a screen, then a prison right by definition.

Are filters able to remove particles from incoming air? Yes An efficiency grade between 60% and 85%? Yes Are manometers fitted to indicate when filters should be changed? What we have is we have Magnohelix that measure the amount of electricity, basically it measure the airflow. If the filters are clean then you get the airflow, if their dirty then airflow is slow

Is there easy access for cleaning and inspecting filters? Mostly, I wouldn’t call it easy, but the physical plant people they get up there. And it goes back to the filter sub-contract….I don’t know.

Do they fit snugly within the filter supports?

232 I would say they do, they seem to fit pretty snuggly

What type of humidification system? I don’t think we have a humidification system, and if we do… Steam or spray? I have no idea, its so dry in the building its hard to imagine a humidification system. I don’t believe we do, unless they would tell you that in the case of a normal HVAC system having a humidification within that.

Are the cooling towers located away from fresh air intakes and flue outlets? Yes

Are there drift eliminators? Don’t know They remove water droplets generated by the cooling tower. This saves water and reduces the risk of downdraft of a spray that could contain Legionella. I don’t know, probably not.

Have there been observations or complaints of stained ceilings or walls? Yes, want to see it – look right there. Musty odors? Not musty Damp or musty carpets?

233 Yes we got that, yes definitely, in 110 specifically – we’ve had moisture penetration and damp carpet in there and it’s the same carpet that’s been here since day one. And its been architecture people in here for so long and now that its been used by others, I wouldn’t go in that room without Purell.

Do large printing rooms, cafeteria, kitchens, chemical storage and washrooms have effective local exhaust? Effective, no. The restrooms are way under-rated.

Are there documented measures to control pollutants at source in areas such as washrooms, kitchens, printing areas, chemical storage and general storage areas? Not that I know of no.

Does the contract with the cleaning contractors specifically state that they are to use environmentally preferable cleaning materials? There’s not a separate contract or service, that would be campus housekeeping.

Indoor air quality management protocol such as complaint form and incident log? No

An IAQ audit in the past year? Not in last year? When was the last one?

234 There has not been a comprehensive indoor air quality audit done ever, we specific call to evaluate emissions for m the air handling system, and its been 5 years ago. Ultimately that led to the cleaning of the system and replacement of entire filter bank, and that was about 4 years ago. that was before Chris Jarret got here, and heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in his 5th year. So yes 5-6 years ago. That was, Ken pushed that through.

Is temperature and humidity monitored? No Except in your officeâ&#x20AC;Ś Yes and Dales lab, and people who have an interest in that

Are high frequency ballasts fitted to luminaires? Partial

Are there controllable internal or external blinds and do light fixtures prevent glare at Visual Display Terminals? The answer to the second part is partial and the answer to the first part is partial, yea we do have blinds everywhere.

Do lighting levels meet IES guidelines of 50-75 footcandles (500-800 lux) for office space? No, I mean when was the last time you were in the salon after dark?

235 Is individually controlled task lighting provided? Not provided, the controlled task lighting…it is not provided. You provide it at your workstation. If you go into the shops and see any task lighting its because I’ve put it there cause I can’t see.

Does the floor plan of the building potentially allow for 80% of a typical working area to have access to day-lighting or are approximately 40% of workstations within 22 ft. from the windows? I think the answer to that is yes. Because it specifically speaks to the desks and workstation and even the salon has the moon roof overhead

Are there good lighting controls (One control for no more than 4 workstations)? That’s an asterisk question again, in the locations where there is really poor lighting, aka the salon, the controls are as bad as the light itself. So it definitely varies.

Is there a planned schedule of cleaning light fixtures? There looked at and if its deemed…I think there is

Is there a group re-lamping program? We’ve really worked at that one. I’ve worked with the electrical people to get them to go to the LED and mini fluorescent to save energy and give us better lighting in the public spaces, but we motivate that. And thank goodness. Once we changed over, they will maintain it as it is, so lets say ya. They haven’t even completed the changeover to high

236 efficiency fluorescents; it was basically a test side.

Is it easy, in open office areas, to engage in a conversation using a normal voice, understand a phone conversation, and have a private conversation using lowered voices? Yes

Is there sufficient acoustic privacy? Yes

Does building management have a written environmental policy? No, are we talking facilities as building manage.? Because we do not have a building manager in this building.

Are procedures documented and staff trained to deal with and obtain prompt assistance for emergencies such as fire, spills, power failures and illness? Yes

Do the emergency plans refer to all applicable legislation regarding emergency procedures, reporting and recordkeeping? Yes Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sure they do

Are there contingency plans for both short-term and long-term power failures? I suspect there are, Lee Gray would know and is responsible for that kind of stuff

237

Is there a site map showing the location of environmentally significant features? What are environmentally sig, like exit doors? Our site maps for the building are basically evacuation maps. Yes those are around the building

Has a tenant satisfaction survey been completed in the last 3 years? Not that I know of, I get contacted once or twice a year to fill out my perception of the performance of the building for facilities people and their services, but that’s not an occupant study survey, so I bet you the answer is no and they wouldn’t want to know the answers to those.

What would you say is the generally-held public [CAMPUS] definition of sustainability? I think generally held is probably not to bad but probably focuses on recycling and generally held its not a comprehensive understanding and of what it takes for a building to be sustainable.

What do you think UNCC’s role is in leading the region’s sustainability efforts? I think they should have a profound leadership o=role, in my opinion. if we don’t do it, look, we’ve built a lot of buildings, we’re getting ready to refurbish the high rises dormitories, I think there’s no question if it doesn’t happen on college campuses, how are you going to direct the culture? I went to Warren Wilson College this summer and they have green dorms that people kill to get in, yet despite the fact of getting accepted, it comes with the responsibility, and those people are willing to assume the responsible if

238 they’re given the place. And I think that’s how you change the paradigm, you offer and show people what the possibilities are and engage them to make it happen. And around here, the M.O. is so old world, there are housekeepers that clean up after the little people that who aren’t given the responsibility or take the responsibility. And as good as we are we don’t do very well. So I do think the university should have a groundbreaking leadership role for these kinds of things.

Is policy influenced by student body demands? They should. When Fretwell was built and the business school was built, we had some students here that were completely rebuffed by the administration, and even the brand new student union building, which was built with your money, the students were told to go away. And these are people who are now head of the green building council, these people weren’t just trying to be a fly in the ointment for the administrative people, they were committed and interested that they were not engaged.

Some people have suggested that it may be an age issue for senior management. That the elders are not as concerned as they need to be and the younger folks. I can’t speak to the, you know some of the most active environmental leaders are of my generation, it is a ground earth moving phenomena and it takes everybody. I don’t think its an age thing. It may be endemic to the facilities people here but I can’t speak to that because I don’t sit in on their meetings. I think it’s a money thing and it has to come from the top down, the chancellor has to say, the state has to say that this is a priority for all the buildings we are responsible for. If we don’t lead the way, how do we expect citizens to

239 show interest? But then again I’d b accused of being a democrat you know. Everybody’s got to put a position on this stuff and I’d say that state funds should be spent to make buildings energy efficient and that should be demanded and we don’t spend money on food taxes for football teams. But that’s just me.

Do you know of the master plan or climate action plan? I don’t know of it but that doesn’t mean its not there. I know good people have been thinking about it for a long time.

What are the current policy issues at UNCC surrounding sustainable development and/or infrastructure? I don’t’ know of the specifics. Of the problems, well sure… we want to reduce consumption and make buildings that do that.

What would you want to see in a new high-performance policy initiative? I would want to see every building be monitored until the systems within them are shown to be functioning at their highest level. That acknowledges that not all buildings can to be perfect but that each building can be brought to its highest and best condition. That’s saying you deal with the hand you got, you have some great buildings and you have some bad buildings, but you do the best with every one of them. And you put operable windows on buildings.

How far do you think UNCC has come in reaching a sustainable culture?

240 We’ve come an incredible way; it is such a huge responsibility. I look at the people who work recycling, these people they work for nothing and their doing the work that we’re sitting here acknowledging that is so important for the future. How far have we come? I’d say we’re better than 20% but no better than 50%. That would be my perspective.

Do you think there are any staffing issues or problems in addressing sustainability and high performance buildings at UNCC. I do yes. Particularly on mechanical systems. In order to make this building reach my proposed level of its highest and best capability someone needs to come to this building and camp here, figuratively, throughout a heating cooling cycle, for days at a time. Come to work each day, come to this building, study the rooms, study the systems, tweak the systems. As opposed to just come in adjust one damper when the digital arts lab that has way too many computers in there, is cooking itself. There need to be people who are dedicated to that on campus, who do nothing but address what we’re talking about.

Can you think of any funding opportunities or resources opportunities to solve some of the issues, like performance contracting? Contracts where we are rewarded by making the buildings better? Or that comes down to the architect, the willingness to engage in the process that emphasizes. Its not about money – it could be about money. If it were in fact identified to the point where you said well you want to get overall 18 sere equivalency throughout the University, maybe that’s a money issue…but until someone says our goal is to get to 18 sere energy equivalency in

241 our air conditioning system, then its not about the money. Its about the will. You’re just talking to one person. That’s my take. And once people begin to realize that that’s an initiative, then hopefully they’ll become engaged. But they have to take ownership; we all have to take ownership. And I don’t care if its sweeping up your studio space, or helping the student center become more energy efficient, or closing doors. Our own people we’re locked in such a loop here, the studios are so uncomfortable that the doors get propped. We cant get out of these loops because our building is not monitored enough to manage an environment that we feel good about.

It’s amazing that we get any work done in here. Sometimes it is I know, its dedication that gets it done.

Do you think the lighting upgrades and HVAC upgrades will be enough? It will be a huge chunk of the problem. The other chunk is the thermal scanning and the understanding of where…just basic energy sealing. The buildings old. The building is hard-used. And its 24 years old. And it was built just prior to profound changes in awareness about energy efficiency and so forth, and so I would call this an old building. Or a less than modern building if you will. I don’t think we’re unique. But there’s everything from leaky, visible evidence of problems. It’s bad enough when there are problems and there’s no visible evidence, that’s a bad situation. When there’ visible evidence, its being handed to us. Do something about it. And its dealt with on a piecemeal basis, so the key is comprehensive evaluation and ultimately this building is ready for a renovation. They may say ya well the average state building goes through 50

242 years before a renovation, but that may be true if the building has bones…this building has no bones. You know that expression? There’s no real solidity in this building, there’s cracks in this building, huge crevices and cracks in the walls and visible signs of water penetration and visible evidence of bad air handling and thermal evidence of uncontrolled airflow. These things after awhile you start to get to a critical massing deficiency and that’s why I say that we’re ready for a renovation, not for any one reason. I’m a critic of our building at this point, and I love our building don’t get me wrong. I been here since day one and its facilitated the growth of the architecture program, its like an airport. You grow your airport you grow your community. Well we got this building and we grew with it and its been incredible. A lot of folks here don’t realize how we have prospered. When we hired Gwathmey the guy was a total formalist. We knew that. It’s the same thing that gives us the identity that also hinders us; the spaces are not flexible in any way, the crit rooms; laboratories don’t open and close to each other or the great outdoors. And to the degree that if I were designing a new school of architecture it would just be a giant warehouse. And it would have lots of partitions and visible interaction. They used to say that was a welcomed great challenge for an architect, to design a school of architecture. And we got a pretty good hybrid to a design statement. It’s a recognizable building that’s really cool. And it’s only the second one of its kind on campus. The first of its kind was Rowe Arts because it was an art building, I don’t know how the chancellor at the time ever let it get through, but it got through. And this one came along. And then after this one, that’s when they cracked down and said everything’s going to look like brick and they put fake columns and the entry to the business school.

243 APPENDIX C-3: BIOINFORMATICS BUILDING INTERVIEW If you could just talk about your role in the planning process for this building? Well, we got 35 million dollars from Senator Black years ago when we decided what we really needed and what we really wanted. What we did was tour other bioinformatics facilities – we had gone to Chapel Hill, Duke, and we went to Virginia Tech to see what we wanted, what we liked about them, what problems they encountered. And from that what we decided to do was plan it right the first time, because change orders delay. Dr Mayes said no change orders. So when we started to plan, we said we would like lab meeting space, we needed classroom space, at the time we were planning our faculty….because at the time it was just Dr Mayes and myself…we were planning having faculty in the department we needed a conference, not a conference, a stadium style seating room for one, faculty to give a presentation when we were going to hire them, and two, have seminars in that room every week. Its also a classroom. And that’s our stadium-style seating room and I think it holds 96. So it’s a big room and its used a lot. And we have conference rooms in the building. So we kind of took our time and really figured out what we needed from touring the other buildings. We have labs on the back, the labs are all identical, there’s 12 labs. There’s 6 on each floor. Dr Mays was the one who planned the labs out and we had a consultant come in to help us with the planning of the labs. I didn’t know much about the labs, other than what they did in there – but as far as what materials and things of that nature I don’t know. I didn’t know what they wanted so I was on the other side of that and he was the labs in planning that out.

244 Do you know what type of equipment is in the labs? We have some centrifuges, we do have a BSL3 lab…which only certain people are allowed into that lab, and right now its not operational because we have to get it inspected. And there’s faculty here that would really like to get in there to work on infectious bacteria and stuff like that of that nature would be in the BSL3. There’s protocol and I’m not even allowed in there, I mean I can go in there now because there’s nothing in there but once its operational, there’s only going to be 2 maybe 3 people allowed in that lab. I’m in architecture so I don’t know much about the informatics. They will work on like Anthrax, highly infectious disease type things, that’s what they’ll do in there. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie Outbreak, kinda like that, but that was a BSL4 or 5 lab…this is a little bit less. So do you think when that particular lab is functioning, will it consume more energy like electricity? I don’t’ think so. No more than any of the regular labs.

How many people work in this facility during normal operating hours? Are you talking just faculty? If you could say how many faculty and how many students. Let me think. There are 9 faculty that work here everyday, we have 3 additional faculty who work in Kannapolis and also here, but there time here is limited. There primary offices are up there but they do come here for faculty conferences. We have Debbie and I are staff, Elise is our graduate coordinator so that’s 3 staff. We also have in this building

245 2 physics professors because we have equipment that the physics department does not have, so they use ours and their offices are here. We have IT some IT people, 5 of them. We also rent space through CRI the Charlotte Research Institute, downstairs there’s 6 offices down there. And then we have Candie which is a company that uses lab space, so there’s a lot of people in here. So would you say like 30 or … Easy, plus students and you know what I’ve lost count. It got to the point where there’s so many; off the top of my head I would say there was at least 50, and that could be plus minus. But there’s a lot, I mean I used to know everybody, I used to know all their names. The program is just exploded, and its like I don’t know who you are I’m sorry I don’t. I mean I recognize their face but you know I don’t know their names.

How many hours per week are you guys open? I’m here at 7 usually, 7 to 4 because I have class at night. Most of the time its 8 to 5. I’m really the only one who comes in that early, occasionally some of the other faculty is here but most of the operation is 8 to 5.

You have two PCs here in your office? Its one PC and two screens Is that typical for every office in here? No. But does every office have at least one? Oh yes, has one computer and one screen. The reason I have two, is when I reconcile my

246 accounts, the funds that we have, there’s management on one screen and Banner on another screen. Its easier that way, ideally I would love to have a third one, but I don’t think that’s in the budget. So are there computers in the labs too? Yes we have computers in the labs, in the offices are PSM which is professional science masters students, they all have computers, and our PhDs most of them have computers. So if you had to guess how many computers in the whole building, like 100? Maybe more than that because we have a computer lab downstairs. I’d say maybe 250300 maybe give or take 25 or so. But I mean every office has one and then with the students, and every lab has them. We have our computer classroom, then in 105 we have laptops set up so there’s a lot. There’s a lot of computers.

Do you know if the whole building is heated? Yes Air conditioned? Yes

Does the building incorporate any of the following high-efficiency lighting features, compact fluorescents? I honestly don’t know, I know its a LEED certified building. As a matter of fact we have an award given to us, I think we’re Silver or something. The lights are automatically on – off. Ok so there’s an automation system.

247 Right. Its energy efficient, we tried to make it as energy efficient as we possibly could. And LS3P did this building right? Correct. Do you have a contact for that architect? Scott Baker was the lead architect. I don’t know if I have his number.

Are there any boilers here do you know? There could be, I’m not 100% sure.

Does the building have high efficiency water heating equip? I know we have a pure water system. But I don’t know that much about it. I can give you the name of somebody, Tim Hamp if you want to contact him. He knows a lot about the labs and what’s back in there. More so than I do. He’s not facilities, he’s a research tech works with Anthony Goder in his lab. He’s actually in the global email. Its thamp@uncc.edu and his phone 782-75 is his extension.

Do you know of an energy recovery ventilation system? I think there is one but that would be a Tim question.

But no solar panels or…? No

248 Has the current performance and condition of the building envelope been assessed in terms of condensation, moist air transfer, airflow, heat transfer? I want to say yes but that also might be a Tim question.

Are there energy-efficient windows and doors? There supposed to be yes. Now whether or not they actually are or not I don’t know but they’re supposed to be yes.

Protective shading or reflective film? No

Do you know if there’s an energy policy endorsed by senior management? What do you mean by policy? It’s like a public document that expresses commitments to establish energy targets, assign responsibilities, monitor performance, and undertake an annual review and report. I don’t know of any, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So sometimes Dr Mayes deals directly with Tim on certain issues because he knows more so than I do. I can’t help you there I’m sorry.

Do you know if the energy use is being monitored? I’m sure facilities does, I think they turn the heat down during the nighttime because when I come in its freezing…its very cold. Do you have a space heater?

249 Yes – I need it its freezing in here. So you don’t have your own thermostat. I can’t use it, its right there. I think it’s a placebo. I think actually Dr Mayes has the thermostat.

Does the building have access to public transport within 0.3 miles? Actually the buses stop outside right there at the first floor. Is there service at least every 15 minutes? The bus service? I don’t use the bus, I walk. The only time I use the bus if its pouring rain or snowing or something. But 9 times out of 10 I walk. I walk everywhere.

Are there bike racks sheltered from the rain? Yes but I don’t know how sheltered they are but there are bike racks.

Do you know if the building is sub-metered? What does that mean? Its like you would have your own way of monitoring this specific office. I don’t know probably not.

Are there changing facilities and showers for staff? Yes we have showers downstairs on the first floor.

Do you know if the toilets are low flow toilets?

250 I don’t know – they could be. Do you know of any other water-saving features? Honestly I don’t know I’m sorry.

Do you know anything about the landscaping? Other than facilities came in and did it. You don’t know of any special irrigation? No. I know we do have a sprinkler system in there, because I see it when I come in in the mornings, sometimes its on when the weather gets warmer.

Do you know if rainwater is collected? Don’t know.

Are there separate storage/handling facilities for used paper products, glass, metal and plastic? Yes – we had them custom built, I’ll show you where they are. We have bottles, and cans, and thing like that yeah.

Are there collection points for sorting paper, glass, metal and plastic near the areas where waste is generated? Yes

Is there a composting program in place?

251 I don’t think so no.

Has a waste audit been done in the last three years? Don’t think so.

Do you know of a diversion rate? No.

Is the building site free of contamination? I hope so.

Are there any refrigerants used? Like refrigerators and freezers, yes. We have two freezer rooms. Most of the labs have a freezer or refrigerator in their lab plus we have additional freezer rooms, which hold freezers and refrigerators. Do you know what type of refrigerant is used? No. That might be a Tim question.

Are there halon fire protection systems in the building? There are fire protection sprinklers.

Are floor drains protected in areas where chemicals are stored? I know there’s floor drains. Downstairs first floor, that might be a Tim question as well. I

252 know they went back and forth on that so many times on floor drains. I think they’re on the first floor.

Are there any above ground or underground storage tanks for fuel Gas fuel? Or electric generator, no. We do have emergency power throughout the building because if the freezers go down, there’s some of the DNA and stuff that they store in the freezers are quite expensive. And if our power goes out then they lose that…they need back, so all the freezers are on emergency power.

Are MSDSs, spill clean-up kits, and safety equipment such as eye-wash stations located in an accessible place near the chemical storage areas? Yes we have them. Are they less than 3 years old? Yes because I think the building will be three years old this year.

Are chemicals and hazardous materials stored under appropriate conditions in secure locations? Yes. Is education and training provided for the person responsible for the management of chemicals and for staff who may be required to work with them? Yes

Is there a designated person responsible for managing hazardous materials?

253 Usually Tim is our go-to person.

Are there inventory and records of the hazardous materials/waste, including their removal and disposal? I don’t know if Tim keeps track of that or not, but I do know that there is a couple of techs that work in different labs I don’t know if they keep track of it or not.

Is there a Heath and Safety Committee that meets regularly and carries out regular inspections of the property? I’m not sure I don’t know, here again if there is one….if I’m not included in it I don’t know.

Do you know anything about the ventilation system? Sorry.

Filtration system? Tim question.

Humidification? Tim question.

Is there a parking lot nearby? Yes. CRI-3

254

Have there been observations or complaints of stained ceilings or walls? Musty odors? Damp or musty carpets? We have had a couple of complaints. Our ice machine broke in the lab and it butts up against one of the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office sin the backâ&#x20AC;Śand there was quite a bit of water, we got it up though. and we had facilities come in to clean it several times to prevent mold from growing and things like that. As far as having a report of someone telling me that, no. Nothing on the ceilings though? We did have a couple leaks in the ceiling but I believe they have been fixed.

Do large printing rooms, cafeteria, kitchens, chemical storage and washrooms have effective local exhaust? Yes

Do you know anything about the cleaning products? Do they use environmentally preferable cleaning materials? I assume they use what is standard.

Do you know if the building has had an IAQ audit? You know I hear them talking about it so I want to say yes but that a Tim question. And whose talking about it? Usually Tim. Sometimes heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll tell me stuff but its above me.

255

Are there controllable internal or external blinds and do light fixtures prevent glare at Visual Display Terminals? Yes But no lightshelves? An interior shelf that would reflect daylight – like EPIC has No we don’t have those.

Is individually controlled task lighting provided? I don’t know maybe 1 or 2 faculty

Are there good lighting controls (One control for no more than 4 workstations)? I think so

Is it easy, in open office areas, to engage in a conversation using a normal voice, understand a phone conversation, and have a private conversation using lowered voices? Yes

Is there sufficient acoustic privacy? Yes

Is there equipment on-site to deal with environmental emergencies? Yes I believe so but you might want to ask Tim to verify.

256 Is there a site map showing the location of environmentally significant features? I think so but here again ask Tim to verify.

Are there communications to tenants on the environmental measures that they can implement in the building to contribute to energy conservation, waste reduction and recycling, proper handling, storage and disposal of toxic products? Not that I’m aware of no

Has a tenant satisfaction survey been completed in the last 3 years? I believe no.

What would you say is the generally-held public campus definition of sustainability? I don’t know – I know we do a lot of recycling in here. Honestly I don’t know. I’ll say recycling.

What do you think UNCC’s role is in leading the region’s sustainability efforts? I think they try and they do try to get people to recycle. I guess they’re doing ok. They do have those smart podiums are made out of recycled materials…at least they’re putting it to good use. So yeah I think they’re doing ok.

Could you describe your daily job duties and responsibilities? I essentially am here take care of the chair, I budget all the state funds. Any emergencies that happen to come up I take care of it. That’s pretty much it – I’m on call for anything.

257

What are the current policy issues at UNCC surrounding sustainable development and/or infrastructure? I think that at UNCCâ&#x20AC;Śthey have to have at least 70 meetings about something instead of just making a decision and moving on it. Make a decision; make a policy, just do it. They tend to drag things through the mud

Do you think there are any staffing issues or problems in addressing sustainability and high performance buildings at UNCC? Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sure in every place thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s funding and staffing issues. But in meetings they just rehash the same old thing, it gets boring and nothing gets accomplished.

Do you hear your students talk about sustainability at all? No

258 APPENDIX D: OCCUPANT SATISFACTION SURVEY QUESTIONS (survey questions influence http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm) The following 17 questions were provided for occupants to answer: 1. Which building are you located in? 2. How many years have you worked in this building? 

Less than 1 Year



1-2 Years



3-5 Years



More than 5 Years

3. In a typical week, how many hours do you spend in the building? 

10 or less



11 – 20



21 – 30



31 – 40



More than 40

4. On which floor is your office or workspace located? 5. Which of the following best describes your personal workspace? o Enclosed office, private o Enclosed office, shared with other people o Cubicles with high partitions (5+ feet) o Cubicles with low partitions (< 5 feet) o Workspace in open office with no partitions (just desks)

259

6. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements:

260 7 . Which of the following do you personally adjust or control (check all that apply): o Window blinds or shades o Operable exterior window o Opearable interior window o Thermostat o Portable Heater o Portable Fan o Ceiling Fan o Adjustable floor vent (diffuser) o Door to interior space o Door to exterior space o None of the above 8 . Have you used any of the following in order to increase your comfort levels? o Portable Heater o Portable Fan 9 . In warm/hot weatherâ&#x20AC;Ś(check all that apply) o In the building, it is often too hot o In the building, it is often too cold o My hands are too cold o My feet are too cold o None of the above o Other:

261 10.

In cool/cold weatherâ&#x20AC;Ś(check all that apply)

o In the building, it is often too hot o In the building, it is often too cold o My hands are too cold o My feet are too cold o None of the above o Other: 11.

How would you best describe the source of this discomfort? (check all that

apply) o Humidity too high (damp) o Humidity too low (dry) o Air movement too high o Air movement too low o Incoming sunlight o Hot/cold floor surfaces o Hot/cold ceiling surfaces o Hot/cold wall surfaces o Hot/cold window surfaces o Heat from office equipment o Drafts from windows o Drafts from vents o Drafts falling from the ceiling o Thermostat is inaccessible or adjusted by others

262 o Heating/cooling system does not respond efficiently o Other: 12.

Which of the following controls do you have over the lighting in your

workspace (check all that apply) o Light switch o Light dimmer o Window blinds or shades o Desk (task) light o None of the above o Other 13.

Which of the following applies to this buildings lighting features? (check

all that apply) o Too dark o Too bright o Not enough daylight o Too much daylight o Not enough electric lighting o Too much electric lighting o Electric lighting flickers o Electric lighting is undesirable color o No task lighting o Reflections in the computer screen o Shadows on the workspace

263 o Other: 14.

Which of the following applies to this buildings cleanliness and

maintenance most of the time? (check all that apply) o Surface dust on work surfaces o Surface dust on surfaces difficult to reach o Dirty floors – not enough sweeping or mopping o Trash cans not emptied enough o Trash cans are a significant source of odor o Computers and equipment are not sufficiently cleaned o Windows are not sufficiently cleaned o Other: 15.

Please estimate how your productivity is worse or better by the

environmental conditions in this building.

16.

How satisfied are you with the building’s …

264

17.

Do you think your productivity would increase if provided stable comfort

levels? o Yes o No o N/A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; I am satisfied with my comfort levels at work.

265 APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION MATERIALS

To tal C a m p u s C onsumpti o n

High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: a Methodology for Assessing Repurpose-Ability at UNC Charlotte

e s a e r c In

re as e

Total Campus Campus Typologies Academic Dormitory Conclusions

Academic Comparison

High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: a Methodology for Assessing Repurpose-Ability at UNC Charlotte

1990

1966

2009

SMITH BUILDING GREEN GLOBES BUILDING REPORT

STORRS BUILDING GREEN GLOBES BUILDING REPORT

BIOINFORMATICS BUILDING GREEN GLOBES BUILDING REPORT

Energy 61% Water 51%

Energy 29%

Energy 76%

Water 38%

Water 66%

Resources 68%

Emissions 85%

Emissions 89%

Emissions 88%

Indoor Environment 62%

Indoor Environment 52%

Indoor Environment 83%

EMS Documentation 39%

EMS Documentation 42%

EMS Documentation 56%

Overall Rating 62%

Overall Rating 49%

Overall Rating 76%

ENERGY

Median

Median Design ENERGYDesign Target ENERGY Target

Median

Median Design ENERGYDesign Target ENERGY

Target

Median

Median Design

Des T

Energy Performance Rating (0-100) Performance Rating (0-100)

5090Energy Performance 90 100 Energy Performance 100(0-100) Rating (0-100) Rating

5062 62 Energy 78 Performance 78(0-100) Rating (0-100) Energy Performance Rating

5094

Energy Reduction (%) Reduction (%)

0 45Energy Reduction 45 Energy 70 (%) Reduction 70 (%)

0 13 13 Energy 30 (%) Reduction 30 (%) Energy Reduction

0 52

223 108

8340

Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) 333

333 184 184 Source 99Use Intensity Energy 99Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Source Energy (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) 296

Site (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Energy Use (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) ergy Use

10256Site Energy56 Site 30 (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Energy Use 30 (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Use

102

296 258 258 Source 207 Energy 207 Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) 223 8977 Site 62 (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Energy Use 62 (kBtu/Sq.Ft./Year) Site Energy77 Use

Annual Source Energy (kBtu) nnual Total Source Energy (kBtu)

16,798,112 16,798,112 9,069,320 Total Annual 9,069,320 Source Energy (kBtu) 30,442,585 30,442,585 Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu)

Annual (kBtu) Site Energy (kBtu) nnual Total Site Energy

9,361,887

9,361,887 5,165,857 5,165,857 2,789,052 Total Annual 2,789,052 Site Energy (kBtu) Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)

9,321,747

9,321,747 8,119,948 8,119,948 6,525,223 Total Annual 6,525,223 Site Energy (kBtu) Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)

8,078,552

8,078,552 3,894,900

Annual Cost ($) nnual Total Energy Cost Energy ($)

$206,276

$206,276 $84,563 $84,563 $61,453 Total Annual $61,453 Energy Cost ($) Total Annual Energy Cost ($)

$145,598

$145,598 $126,827 $126,827 $101,919 Total Annual $101,919 Energy Cost ($) Total Annual Energy Cost ($)

$156,289

$156,289 $75,351

985

985 475

0% 52%

TIONPOLLUTION EMISSIONSEMISSIONS CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) Emissions (metric tons/year) Emissions Reduction (%) CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

27,110,536 27,110,536 21,786,136 Total Annual 21,786,136 Source Energy (kBtu) 31,123,052 31,123,052 Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu)

POLLUTIONPOLLUTION EMISSIONSEMISSIONS 1,365 0%

1,365 753 753 407 407 CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) 0% 45% 45% 70% 70% (%) CO2-eq Emissions Reduction CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

10,446,997 10,44 6,4 21,668,493 21,668,493

3,894 2,4

$75 $4

POLLUTIONPOLLUTION EMISSIONSEMISSIONS 1,393 0%

1,393 1,214 1,214 975 (metric 975 CO2-eq Emissions (metric tons/year) CO2-eq Emissions tons/year) 0% 13% 13% 30% 30%(%) CO2-eq Emissions Reduction CO2-eq Emissions Reduction (%)

Total Campus Campus Typologies Academic Dormitory Conclusions

Conclusions on Energy & Sustainability Mentionables

High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: a Methodology for Assessing Repurpose-Ability at UNC Charlotte

“explore”

“strive” “should”

...add “surrounding community”

“goal” needs to change to “POLICY” for LEED standards

4 Sustainable Categories: 1. Ecology & Hydrology 2. Energy 3. Built Environments 4. Public Education (needs further explanation within an acutal POLICY or INITIATIVE)

“ ...pursue gbc certification on a project-by-project basis ”

Total Campus Campus Typologies Academic Dormitory Conclusions

Economy

7 Existing Conditions:

Autonomy

(SS) (WE) (EA) (MR) (IEQ) (IO) (RP)

RepurposeAbility

Site Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Innovation in Operations Regional Priority

Retrofit / Renovate

theoretical Pierre Bourdieu habitus :Describes the relationship between individual agents and the contextual environment

DOE

large building stock portfolio

Energy Performance

Creativity Influx Euclidean

Geometry

Claude Perrault

Leon Battista Alberti (1404-72) Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) Michelangelo (1475-1564)

: Functional and Structural efficiencies

I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y

BUILDING CODES HISTORY

R E S E A R C H i s t h e o b j e c t i v e e c o n o m i c , p o l i t i c a l , a n d

Renaissance

Enlightenment

p r o c e s s o f u r b a n l i f e

1670

1703

1737

Repairs & Improvements

1820

1848

1866

1879 1888 1890 1910 1914-18

economical

Evidence Based

2000

RESEARCH 2012

S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

climax of liberalism

egalitarianism

ing Incr eas

‘modern orientation to risk’ resultant from growth of state & government

Eco-capitalism or Natural Capitalism:

the view that capital exists in nature as “natural capital” on which all wealth depends

W E

GREEN Politics Ecology Conservation Environmentalism Feminism Peace Movements Civil Liberties Solcial Injustice Nonviolence Social Progressivism

“ecological political philosophy”

Policy Making

Retrofit / Renovate

ACUPCC

House/ Senate Bill 668: 30% better code

er ti

s ov

ard

stan d

lati

in r egu

Dependent upon history and human memory

I E

C I L O

1973

UNCC

21st century

Assessment

1939-45 1955-75

Electricity

ENERGY

Capitalism emerges

Calculative Society

Marcus Agrippa

shift away from feudalism

1803

Federal Union established

Regulation

1770

WW I

1650 1655

Insurance Companies

1631-35

s o c i o Information Age

Decision Base

1591

American Revolution

1585

i n

Industrialization

14th century

1485

c h a n g e

develop POLICIES that connect: Population Growth Over Consumption Environmental Degradation Biological Limits Sustainable Development Energy Efficiency Intelligent Criticism Environment Health

“Nixon Shock” removal of Gold Standard

Apollo 17 - 1968

Vietnam War

Local Community 1998

WW II Cold War

Civil War

Efficient

nabis - fauvism - die brucke - de bleur rider - neoimpressioncubism

impressionism - symbolism - expressionist -

dev elo pP he RIN a in lthfu CIPL d cor ue p lness ES t sit rect ropo of t hat c i h r con ng & prop tion e fu onne o tur ct: cli struc loca rtion ec m ity com atic tion tion s of s ym rel mon cond safet me igi y i try ou law tion fact sr s o o rs ule f th ec s ult ure

settlement of Americas

S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

1946

orphism - supremetism - constructivism - de stijl

Institution

Examining Performance-based Codes for UNC Charlotte existing building stock Policies: evidence-based design standards for energy-saving retrofit policies J. Sochacki-Caldwell October 3, 2012

GOVERNMENT

POLICY

P R I VAT E

CODE

High-Performance Policies in Large Building Stock Portfolios: a Methodology for Assessing Repurpose-Ability at UNC Charlotte R E G U L AT I O N

[

Inception - First 20 Years

PRE 90.1

]

New Millenium

Second 20 Years

• Bookstore, & ADD 1& 2 (Prospector) • Phase • Physical • Cameron 3 Dorm Sciences Hall Applied • Barnard (Martin (Burson) Research • McEniry • Moore Hall • Phase 5 Dorm Village) Center • Sanford Hall (Elm,Maple,Pine) • Physical Plant Bldg • Phase 4 • Oak Hall • Dorm Cafeteria (RDH) • Athletic Dorm (Ce• Auxilary Services Storage • Belk Gymnasium dar, Hickory, Building Sycamore) • Storrs • Phase • Brocker Health Center • Friday • Phase 6 Dorm I - Dorm • Rowe • Reese Common Area (Hunt • Scott Hall • Cafeteria • Phase 6 Dorm Village) • Holshouser Activities (Popular, • Colvard Hall (CAB) Witherspoon) • Phase • Hawthorn • Bissell House 2 Dorm Hall (Ph 4B) (Martin • McMillian Village) Greenhouse

• Alumni House

7,570 Students

POST 90.1

• Wachovia Athletic Field House • Irwin Belk Track Complex • Fretwell

• Barnhardt Student Activity Center • Automotive Garage

• Phase 7 Dorm (Squires) • SAC Addn

Phase 8 Dorm Cypress Hall Robinson Hall (Humanities Academic)

• Cato Hall (Humanities Office/Admissions)

• College • College of of Health Education & Human • Science and Services Technology • Student Bldg. Health • COB (Eng. Center Research) • Facilities and • Greek Village (14 Bldgs.) Public Safety • Applied Optics Building • Harris Alumni Center

LEED • Student Union • Bioinformatics Building • Phase IX Residence Hall

4 million sq. ft.

UNCC ‘s Chancellor Philip Dubois, PhD signed the ACUPCC is “a high-visibility effort to address global warming by garnering institutional commitments to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the research and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the Earth’s climate.”

20,772 Students

3 million sq. ft.

3,085 Students

In June 1991 an ad hoc energy committee was appointed by the Building Code Council to study and update the energy requirements in the state building code. This committee began studying the state’s current code as well as the 1989 MEC.

On June 11, 1996, the Building Code Council adopted the 1995 CABO One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code with North Carolina amendments effective July 1, 1997. Chapter 39 contains a simplified prescriptive requirements for meeting the 1995 MEC based on REScheck.

On March 11, 2008, the 2009 North Carolina Energy Conservation Code was adopted. Based on the 2006 IECC (and referencing ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for commercial buildings), the code includes strengthening amendments to the base code, requiring fenestration U-factor and SHGC values of 0.40 across the state. Builders are allowed to use the previous code until June 30, 2009.

Effective July 1, 2006, the base document for the 2006 North Carolina Energy Conservation Code is the 2003 IECC. The 2006 NC Amendments are replacements to the Sections printed in the base document. The 2004 Supplement to the ICodes is referenced in various Sections of the 2006 NC Amendments.

Standard 90.1-2007

First Standard 90.1

The previous state code was based on the 2000 IECC, and was effective December 31, 2001.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 shifted and refocused the committee’s study efforts. The committee completed its review of the 1992 MEC and the Building Code Council adopted the proposed new standards for one- and two-family dwellings, which became effective on April 15, 1993. In March 1995 the Building Code Council adopted Volume X (Energy) as the new energy code for North Carolina. These new energy requirements became effective July 1, 1996 and is known as the 1996 North Carolina Edition of the North Carolina State Building Code. Volume X is a reprint of ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 (codified version) with North Carolina amendments. The code applies to commercial buildings, including those used for assembly, business, education, and storage, as well as institutions and merchants. High-rise and multi-family residential buildings are also covered under Volume X.

Portal SV Dining Hall

25,063 Students

10,069 Students

In December 1973 the North Carolina State Building Code Council adopted the Southern Building Code Congress (SBCC) Standard Building Code insulating standards as statewide requirements. These standards were found to be too “prescriptive” and did not meet the particular requirements of North Carolina; therefore, an energy subcommittee was appointed to investigate energy conservation and study the ASHRAE standards that were being developed. The committee recommended new energy requirements in March 1977, and the Building Code Council adopted these standards, which went into effect on January 1, 1978.

• EPIC

5 million sq. ft.

15,795 Students

2 million sq. ft.

1 million sq. ft. 1, 512 Students

Senate Bill 668

• Maintenance Shop • King • Smith

Standard 90.1-2004

• Denny • Garinger • Winningham

Standard 90.1-1999

• Cone University Center • Heating Plant w/stack • Boiler Plant (Addn) • Atkins Library (Original)

Standard 90.1-1989

• Kennedy • Macy

J. Sochacki-Caldwell

2012 NC Energy Conservation Code

ICONOGRAPHY

The energy consumption per gross square foot for all State buildings in total must be reduced by 20% by 2010, and 30% by 2015, based on consumption during the 2003-2004 fiscal year.

The NC Building Code Council expects to begin the next code update process in the spring of 2009 with an anticipated effective date of January 1, 2012. While the 2009 IECC will be used as the base code, the state was awarded a $500,000 federal grant to improve its next code’s energy efficiency by 30% and improve compliance through comprehensive training and enforcement.

“Session Law 2110 – 196 HB 1292 AN A C T T O P R O V I D E T H AT A N Y E N E R G Y S AV I N G S R E A L I Z E D B Y C O N S T I T U E N T INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SHALL REMAIN AVA I L A B L E T O T H E I N S T I T U T I O N A N D A P O R T I O N O F T H O S E E N E R G Y S AV I N G S SHALL BE USED FOR OTHER ENERGY C O N S E R V AT I O N M E A S U R E S ; A N D T O E XPA N D T H E U S E O F O P E R AT I O N A L L E A S E S B Y L O C A L B O A R D S O F E D U C AT I O N .”

1973

1971

Holshouser Hall

Other Buildings: Physical Plant Building

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Leslie N Boney Architects GSF: 106,605 Cost: $2,102,000 Student Capacity: 500 Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

Scott Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Leslie N Boney Architects GSF: 109,654 Cost: $2,102,000 Student Capacity: 500 Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1975

Rowe

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Art & Art History GSF: 82,768 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Studios Shape: Donut % Glazing (WWR): 11-25% Roof: Flat, Skylights, Built-Up

McEniry

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Geography, Earth Science GSF: 83,263 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 2-10%% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1970 Dorm Cafeteria (RDH) Belk Gymnasium

1979 Colvard

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Psychology Architect: Harry C Wolf GSF: 120,396 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Lecture Shape: E-W Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 75-100% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1981 Phase 4 Dorms (Cedar, Hickory, Sycamore)

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects GSF: 66,312 Cost: $750,000 Student Capacity: 84 Shape: N-E Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 11-25% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

0 7 19

Friday

198

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: College of Business GSF: 94,854 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1982 Reese Administration Cafeteria Activities (CAB)

1983 Other buildings: Auxiliary Services Building

Hawthorn Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects GSF: 65,764 Cost: $2,460,367 Student Capacity: 232 Shape: North Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 11-25% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1985 Burson (Physical Science) Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Chemistry Architect: Peterson Associates GSF: 103,003 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Lecture Shape: E-W Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1987 Oak Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Gantt Hubermann GSF: 53,992 Cost: $6,725,000 Student Capacity:238 Shape: E-W U-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 11-25% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

Elm, Maple, Pine Hall Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Gantt Hubermann Shape: E-W Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 11-25% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1991 Cameron Applied Research Center

1994 Belk Track and Field

1990 Other buildings: Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Residence, Bookstore and Prospector

1996 Storrs

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Architecture Architect: Gwathmey-Siegel / FWA GSF: 105,050 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Studio Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up, Skylights

Poplar / Witherspoon Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Little & Associates GSF: 117,800 Cost: $3,580,000 Student Capacity: 420 Shape: E-W Y-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Gable, Asphalt

Fretwell

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Liberal Arts & Sciences GSF: 162,747 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Lecture Shape: E-W L-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Flat, Built-Up, Skylights

1995 Wallis Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Little & Associates GSF: 158,114 Cost: $3,580,000 Student Capacity: 388 Shape: E-W C-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Gable, Asphalt

1969 Other Buildings: Barnard Moore Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Leslie N Boney Architects GSF: 105,859 Cost: $1,702,000 Student Capacity: 500 Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1966 Other Buildings: King Smith Engineering

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Engineering Tech Architect: GSF: 91,539 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Labs Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

Sanford Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Leslie N Boney Architects GSF: 106,096 Cost: $1,702,000 Student Capacity: 500 Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1968 Alumni House (Summer Programs)

1965 Other buildings: Garinger and Winningham Denny

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Liberal Arts & Sciences Architect: Odell & Associates GSF: 33,415 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Lecture Shape: N-S Sqaure % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

1963 Atkins Library

1961 Kennedy

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: ITS Offices Architect: Odell & Associates GSF: 42, 919 Program: Computer Labs, Offices Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

Macy

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Languages & Culture Architect: Odell & Associates GSF: 17,865 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

2012 Halton-Wagner Tennis Complex

2011 EPIC Building Center City Building (uptown) Motorsports II

2009

Other Buildings: Student Union

2010

Bioinformatics

Building Type: Instruction Research Dept.: Bioinformatics & Genomics Architect: LS3P Associates LTD GSF: 97,066 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Labs Shape: Square % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Hipped, Asphalt

2007 Other Buildings: Student Health Center, Regional Utility Plant 3 Miltimore Hall

0 0

1997 Auxiliary Boiler Plant (No. 5) Regional Utility Plan (RUP-1) Barnhardt Student Activity Center

2002 Student Activity Center Cato (Humanities/Addition)

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Clark Nexsen GSF: 185,544 Cost: $39,100,000 Student Capacity: 431 Shape: E-W C-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-up

Greek Village

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: SFLA GSF: 137,987 Cost: $21,500,000 Student Capacity: 350 Shape: E-W Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Gable, Asphalt

College of Health & Human Services

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Kinesiology, Public Health Architect: Pease Associates GSF: 179,278 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Hipped, Asphalt

2006

Other Buildings: Memorial Hall (Broker), Cone University Center, Harris Alumni Center Grigg Hall

2004 Other buildings: Regional Utility Plant 2

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Physics, Optoelectronics Architect: Perkins + Will GSF: 147,424 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: SW-NE U-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

2005 Other Buildings: Stadium, Facilities and Public Safety, Duke Cent. Hall College of Education

Lynch Hall

Building Type: Dormitory Architect: Little & Associates GSF: 150,151 Cost: $17,560,748 Student Capacity: 500 Shape: E-W U-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Gable, Asphalt

Robinson Hall

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Performing Arts Architect: Odell & Associates GSF: 153,664 Program: Classrooms, Theatres Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 51-75% Roof: Flat, Built-Up

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Education, Multiples GSF: 131,172 Program: Classrooms, Offices Shape: N-S Rectangle % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Hipped, Asphalt

Woodward Hall

Building Type: Instruction Research Department: Electrical & Computer Engineering GSF: 235,240 Program: Classrooms, Offices, Labs Shape: L-Shape % Glazing (WWR): 26-50% Roof: Gable, Asphalt

Building Type

Instruction / Research

Languages & Culture Studies

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Engineering Technology, Construction Management

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Art & Art History

Geography, Earth Science, Biology

Psychology

College of Business

Chemistry

Department

ITS Offices

Building Name

0001 - Kennedy

0002 - Macy

0008 - Denny

0009 - Garinger

0010 - Winningham

0012 - Smith

0016 - Barnard

0019 - Rowe

0020 - McEniry

0032 - Colvard

0035 - Friday

0038 - Burson

Year Built

1961

1965

1966

1969

1971

1975

1979

1981

1985

Original Cost

$418,000

$569,000

$1.6 million

$4 million

$8 million

Architect

Arthur Gould Odell

Odell & Associates

Harry C Wolf

Peterson Associates

Building Liason

Judy Vitallo jvitallo@uncc.edu

Joye Palmer jpalmer@uncc.edu

N/A

Linda Smith lsmit217@uncc.edu

George Kaperonis gkaperon@uncc.edu

Daniel Rowe dnrowe@uncc.edu

Jinny Bradley jgbradle@uncc.edu

George Kaperonis gkaperon@uncc.edu

Patrick Jones ajones@uncc.edu

Catherine Johnson cathjohn@uncc.edu

Jonathan Finn jcfinn@uncc.edu

Dewey Williams williams@uncc.edu

42,919 29,439

17,865 11,065

33,415 18,338

18,270 9,927

17,854 10,052

91,539 60,025

17,898 10,888

82,768 46,992

83,263 50,960

120,396 76,165

94,854 58,395

103,003 74,248

SPACE SUMMARY GSF (Gross) ASF (Assigned)

Program Variants

Computer labs, offices

Classrooms, offices

Classrooms, offices, lecture hall

CUA: Average Hours in Use Student Station Occupancy

11.00%

56.00%

74.00%

# Floors

Envelope Cladding

Precast Concrete

Building Shape

Square

Length Orientation

None

Classrooms, offices

Classrooms, offices, lecture halls

Classrooms, offices

184-seat lecture, smaller lecture halls, 21 laboratories, reinforced concrete radiation labs

70.00%

64.00%

63.00%

59.00%

Precast Concrete

Brick

Curtain Wall

Brick

Square / Rectangle

Rectangle / L-Shape

Square / Donut

Rectangle

Rectangle / Square

North - South

East - West

None

North - South

East - West

North - South

East - West

26-50%

Classrooms, offices

Classrooms, laboratories, offices

62.00%

66.00%

Precast Concrete

Rectangle

Square

Rectangle

North - South

East - West

North - South

Classrooms, offices

Classrooms, offices, studio spaces

CORE & SHELL

Structural System % Glazing (WWR)

51-75%

26-50%

51-75%

26-50%

51-75%

11-25%

2-10%

Steel frame 75-100%

Roof Shape Roof Material

Flat Built-Up

Flat, Skylights Built-Up

Flat Built-Up

3,858,105 89.89

917,964 51.38

6,370,340 72.86

2,235,201 24.42

1,250,157 15.10

14,284,266 171.56

4,258,176 35.37

6,824,000 71.94

9,163,301 88.96

47,136,970 1098.28

750,504 42.01

3,413,092 39.03

4,967,056 54.26

5,024,617 60.71

8,439,923 101.36

37,963,413 315.32

1,885,471 19.88

4,271,483 41.47

1,689,100 19.32

1,700 0.02

377,200 4.56

3,818,800 45.86

3,800 0.04

1,574,900 18.01

198,800 2.17

519,600 6.28

74,700 0.90

2,100 0.02

211,500 2.05

57,745

226,900

9,627,616

517,088

88,298

3,741,200

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers District Steam Central Heater

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot water Ducted air to registers District Steam Central Heater

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers Electric Central Heater

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers District Steam Central Heater

ELECTRIC ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI

NAUTRAL GAS ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI WATER PROFILE 2011-12 Cubic Feet (CF)

89,641

HVAC SYSTEM Fuel Type HVAC Equip Cool HVAC Equip Heat HVAC Terminal DHW Fuel Source DHW Equipment

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers District Steam Central Heater

Building Type

Instruction / Research

Architecture

Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering

Department

Instruction / Research

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Instruction / Research

Performing Arts

Education / Multiple

Instruction / Research

Electrical & Computer Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Engineering Science

Physics and the Center for Optoelectronics and Optical Communications

Instruction / Research Kinesiology, Public Health Sciences, Social Work, Nursing 0063 - College of Health Human Services

Building Name

0041 - Storrs

0042 - Cameron

0045 - Fretwell

0051 - Robinson Hall

0052 - College of Education

0056 - Woodward Hall

0057 - Duke Cent. Hall (COB)

Year Built

1990

1991

1996

2004

2005

Original Cost

$3,657,000

Architect

Gwathmey-Siegel / FWA

Building Liason

Rich Preiss repreiss@uncc.edu

Patricia Keene pgkeene@uncc.edu

Susan Triplett striple4@uncc.edu

Beverly Luike bblueke@uncc.edu

Charles Hughes cdhughes@uncc.edu

GSF (Gross) ASF (Assigned)

105,050 59,894

131,738 66,770

162,747 87,263

153,664 56,516

131,172 71,678

Program Variants

Classrooms, 2 lecture halls, studio spaces, offices, wood shop lab, daylighting lab, computer labs

Offices, laboratories, classrooms

Classrooms, lecture halls, offices

340-seat and 125-seat theater, classrooms

CUA: Average Hours in Use Student Station Occupancy

74.00%

51.00%

68.00%

46.00%

72.00%

27.00%

66.00%

# Floors

Envelope Cladding

CMU

Brick

Building Shape

Rectangle

Rectangle / L-Shape

Rectangle

L-Shape

Length Orientation

North - South

East - West

North - South

Structural System % Glazing (WWR)

Steel Frame 51-75%

26-50%

Steel Frame 51-75%

Roof Shape Roof Material

Flat, Skylights Built-Up

Flat Built-Up

Flat, Skylights Built-Up

Flat Built-Up

1761530.30 16.77

2,651,827 20.13

13,360,027 82.09

8,115,548 77.25

130,969,883 994.17

7,809,652 47.99

15,000 0.14

5,553,800 42.16

10,600 0.07

4,400 0.04

6,095,200 46.27

6,842,100 42.04

182,752

1,783,892

1,033,149

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers Electric Central Heater

NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot water Ducted air to registers District HW Central Heater

0058 - Grigg Hall

Instruction / Research

Bioinformatics and Genomics

Engineering

0068 - Bioinformatics Building

0072 - EPIC Building

2006

2007

2009

2011

$24 million

$31.2 million

$35 million

$78 million

LS3P Associates LTD

Perkins+Will

Pease Associates

LS3P Associates LTD

Creech & Associates

Daniel Rowe dnrowe@uncc.edu

Patricia Keene pgkeene@uncc.edu

Mary Zink mbzink@uncc.edu

Patricia Artis partis@uncc.edu

Daniel Rowe dnrowe@uncc.edu

127,210 63,104

147,424 52,068

179,278 94,818

97,066

241,951

34 classrooms, 6 laboratories, numerous conference/seminar rooms and offices

Classrooms, auditorium, wet labs, proteomics lab, conference rooms, offices, computer labs

Classrooms, lecture halls, conference rooms, clean room, high structural bay, offices, laboratories

Brick

Rectangle

U-Shape

Rectangle

Square

U-Shape

N-S & E-W

SW - NE

North - South

SW - NE

SE - NW

Steel Frame 26-50%

Steel Frame 51-75%

Steel Frame 26-50%

Steel Frame

Hipped Asphalt

Gable Asphalt

Flat Built-Up

Hipped Asphalt

2,601,882 19.84

15,554,164 66.12

6,520,008 51.25

0 0.00

1,806,065 18.61

0 0.00

53,100 0.40

14,844,400 63.10

12,500 0.10

2,418,600 16.41

1,117,300 11.51

11,390,900 67.63

152,053

371,869

340,500

95,977

227,846

82,787

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers District HW Central Heater

$24,654,500 Odell & Associates Teresa Dahlberg tdahlber@uncc.edu

SPACE SUMMARY 235,240 110,899 Classrooms and laboratories, are housed in Woodward Hall. Laboratories include VLSI, microstructures, integration ultrasound, power, communications and microwave.

Center for Precision Metrology Lab, computational modeling lab, orthopedic bioengineering lab

CORE & SHELL

ELECTRIC ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI

NAUTRAL GAS ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI

7,747,100 50.42

WATER PROFILE 2011-12 Cubic Feet (CF) HVAC SYSTEM Fuel Type HVAC Equip Cool HVAC Equip Heat HVAC Terminal DHW Fuel Source DHW Equipment

NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot water Ducted air to registers District HW Central Heater

District Heat NG Chiller / Cooling Tower District Sys Ducted air to registers District HW Central Heater

Typology

Dormitory

$2385 - $3400

Dormitory 0535 Cedar (Dorm & Laundry) 1981 $750,000 McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects $2865 - $3435

GSF (Gross) Assigned # of Students

105,859 500

106,096 500

109,654 500

106,605 500

66,312 84

Program Variants

Double rooms, Hall Bathrooms, floor lounge, laundry facilities and kitchen

Double rooms, Hall Bathrooms, floor lounges, laundry facilities and kitchen

Single & Double rooms, Hall Bathrooms, floor lounges, laundry facilities and kitchen

# Floors

Envelope Cladding

Precast Concrete

Brick

Building Shape

Square

Length Orientation Structural System % Glazing (WWR) Roof Shape Roof Material

n/a Steel, CMU 51-75% Flat Built-Up

300,256 2.84

3,799,262 35.81

6,186,980 56.42

8,599,605 80.67

2,619,802 39.51

2,468,582 23.32

2,089,850 19.70

1,890,241 17.24

2,917,260 27.37

1,106,409.24 16.68

Building Name

0501 Moore Hall

0502 Sanford Hall

0503 Scott Hall

0504 Holshouser Hall

Year Built Original Cost

1969 $1,702,000

1971 $2,102,000

1973 $2,102,000

Architect 2013-14 Semester Rates

Lesslie N Boney Architects

Leslie N Boney Architects

Lesslie N Boney Architects

Dormitory 0536 - Hickory (Dorm & Laundry) 1981 $750,000 McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects $2865 - $3435

Dormitory 0537 - Sycamore (Dorm & Laundry) 1981 $750,000 McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects $2865 - $3435

66,312 80

66,312 84

Dormitory

0538 - Hawthorn Hall

0540 - Oak

0542 - Maple

0544 - Witherspoon

0545 - Wallis

0546 - Lynch Hall

Greek Village (14 Bldgs)

0561 - Miltmore Hall

1983 $2,460,367 McMurray, Abernathy, Poetzsch Architects $3,110.00

1987 $6,725,000

1987

1990 $8,445,600

1995 $18,850,000

2004 $17,560,748

2007 $21,500,000

2011 $39,100,000

65,764 232

53,992

Gantt Huberman $3,110.00

$3,400.00

Little & Associates

Little & Assoicates

Little & Associates

SFLA

Clark Nexsen

$3,580.00

$3280 - $3435

$3,635.00

$3715 - $3875

117,800 420

158,114 388

150,151 500

137,987 350

185,544 431

Suites (2 bed, 1 bath, living, kitchen, balcony), Apartments (4 bed, 2 bath, living, kitchen, balcony), laundry facility

Suites (2 or 4 bed, bathroom, living), Apartments (4 bed, 1.5 bath, living, kitchen)

Single & Double bedrooms, lounges, study rooms, laundry, 2 classrooms, community room & kitchen

Single bedrooms, shared and private bathrooms, community kitchen and living, laundry

1-4 bedroom suites & apartments, study rooms,

SPACE SUMMARY 238 bed

Suites (2 bed, 1 bath, living room) laundry and kitchen facilities

Apartments (4 bed, 1 bath, living room, kitchen, balcony), laundry facilities, community room

Brick

Rectangle

U-Shape

Rectangle

Y-Shape

C-Shape

U-Shape

Rectangle

C-Shape

North - East Steel Frame 11-25% Flat Built-Up

North CMU 11-25% Flat Built-Up

East - West CMU 11-25% Flat Built-Up

East - West Steel Frame 11-25% Flat Built-Up

East - West Steel Frame 26-50% Gable Asphalt

E-W & N-S Steel Frame 51-75% Gable Asphalt

E-W & N-S Steel Frame 26-50% Gable Asphalt

East - West Steel Frame 26-50% Gable Asphalt

E-W & N-S Steel Frame 51-75% Flat Built-Up

15,651,936 238.00

1,547,264 28.66

475,565 5.89

415,913 3.30

6,454,139 40.82

998,010 15.18

569,122 10.54

343,452 4.25

1,063,749 8.43

3,572,388 22.59

4,341,326 28.91

0 0.00

2,256,268 12.16

2,541,700 16.93

2541700 18.42

4,373,500 23.57

Suites (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, Suites (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, Suites (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, sitting room), laundry sitting room), laundry sitting room), laundry facilities, community kitchen facilities, community kitchen facilities, community kitchen

CORE & SHELL

ELECTRIC ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI

NATURAL GAS ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) kBTU EUI 2011-12 kBTU EUI

8,021,844 75.78

7,451,859 70.24

2,023,300 19.11

1,790,300 16.87

4,140,100 37.76

2,575,400 24.16

472,000

473,000

767,431

650,588

53,206

1,259,666

1,557,497

481,564

NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot water Ducted air to registers Gas Central Heater

51,300 0.77

1,766,400 26.86

1,380,500 25.57

527,200 4.18

4,751,100 30.05

33,400 0.50

1,005,600 15.29

809,900 15.00

590,700 4.68

3,960,100 25.05

338,000

231,998

781,440

513,731

WATER ENERGY PROFILE 2002-03 (Baseline) Cubic Feet 2011-12 Water Cubic Feet

380,043

297,262

HVAC SYSTEM Fuel Type HVAC Equip Cool HVAC Equip Heat HVAC Terminal DHW Fuel Source DHW Equipment

Electric Furnace Furnace PTACs Gas Central Heater

NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot water Zone Boxes Gas Central Heater

NG Furnace Furnace PTACs Gas Central Heater

NG Chiller / Cooling Tower Boiler - Hot Water Zone Boxes Gas Central Heater