Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pollution Prevention Activities in Ohio under PPIS Grant
2007-2009 Final Report
for a grant awarded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Ashok Kumar, Ph.D., P.Eng., BCEE
Professor of Civil Engineering
Akhil Kadiyala, M.S.
Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toledo
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
in
cooperation with the following Ohio Edison Centers
EISC
TechSolve
February 2010
University of Toledo
Department of Civil Engineering
Toledo, OH 43606
ii
COVER LETTER
February 27, 2010
Via E-Mail
University of Toledo
Department of Civil Engineering
Toledo, OH 43606
Ms. Rita Garner
EPA Project Officer
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division
DW-8J
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Il 60604-3590
Dear Ms Garner:
Re: The University of Toledo Pollution Prevention Incentives for States Grant No.
NP00E00701
I am enclosing a copy of the University of Toledo‘s Pollution Prevention Grant three year
report.
This is the final complete three year report and contains a summary of activities for the
entire grant period. So far we have presented thirteen seminars and completed twenty
eight assessments. The UT students helped EISC on P2 assessments and developing the
background material needed by the grant partners for pollution prevention work. The
report also documents actual reductions recorded during this period.
If you have further questions, please contact myself at (419) 530-8136.
Sincerely,
Ashok Kumar
Professor
Attachment: GranTrac form
cc: PPIS Grant Products, Pollution Prevention Division (7409), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460
OSEN members
iii
Abstract
Ohio Edison Centers along with the University of Toledo (UT) provided technical
assistance to small and medium size manufacturing plants in Ohio. During this year of
the grant, assessments were completed in the areas of pollution prevention, energy
efficiency, and environmental management systems. The pollution prevention benefits of
these assessments were reduced waste materials and reduced generation of polluting
emissions.
During this study, numerous helpful recommendations were made to the various
industries. Implementation of these recommendations will lead to the enormous benefits,
some of which are listed below:
2006-2007
1. Savings of $26,700 in annual costs, 380,600 kWh of electricity, and 240 tons of
greenhouse gas emissions from a Cincinnati university.
2. Savings of $10,000 in annual energy costs, 143,000 kWh of electricity, and 96
tons of greenhouse gas emissions from a government building.
3. Savings of $15,000 per year by implementing the no cost energy-saving practices
for a small agricultural equipment manufacturer in London, Ohio.
4. Savings of $87,000 - $90,000 in annual energy costs, 200,000 kWh of electricity,
and 7,893 MM BTU of gas for a large food snack company in Ohio.
2007-2008
1. Savings of 30 grams of Hg, 480 yd3/yr of wood, 37 tons/yr of paper, and
$3,300/year for a Cincinnati Aerospace Parts Manufacturer.
2. Savings of $9,557.93 in annual energy costs, 76,612 kWh of electricity, and 282
MM BTU of gas usage for a Cincinnati food manufacturer.
3. Savings of $11,453.09 in annual energy costs, 26,951 kWh of electricity, and
22,154 MM BTU of gas usage for a Cincinnati printing company.
4. Savings of $15,253.74 in annual energy costs, 63,074 kWh of electricity, and 775
MM BTU of gas usage for a Southwest Ohio garden.
2008-2010 (January)
1. Savings of $100,000 in annual energy costs and 10526 MM BTU of gas usage for
a consumer products manufacturer.
2. Waste reduction of 100 tons for a Cincinnati bakery.
3. Savings of $410,000 in annual energy costs and 5,857,142 kWh of electricity
from an Ohio aerospace product manufacturer, Ohio home décor manufacturer,
Middletown aerospace product manufacturer, and an Ohio electrical control and
distribution equipment company.
The above results demonstrate that it is possible to implement pollution prevention
initiatives at the small and medium size companies in Ohio.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... v
P2 GranTrac System ......................................................................................................... vii
Summary Description ....................................................................................................... vii
Keywords ........................................................................................................................... ix
Project Activities ................................................................................................................. 1
Amendments .................................................................................................................... 1
Partners........................................................................................................................... 1
Sectors ............................................................................................................................. 1
Progress on Individual Tasks.......................................................................................... 1
Task A: Coordination of OSEN: ................................................................................ 1
Task B: Seminars: ...................................................................................................... 2
Task C: Assessments and Computer Tools:................................................................ 7
Computer Tools developed by the University of Toledo ............................................... 29
1. Small Business Self Assessment Tool: ............................................................. 29
2. Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: ............................................. 30
3. Chemical Identification Software Tool:............................................................ 30
4. Food Assessment Tool): ................................................................................... 30
5. Comprehensive Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: ................... 31
Educational Material Related to P2 ............................................................................. 32
P2 Savings and Use of P2 Tools ................................................................................... 33
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................... 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table I: Measurement and Evaluation Statistics for Seminars ........................................... 6 Table IA: Examples of Environmental Programs identified in Assessment No. 3 ........... 11 Table II: Measurement and Evaluation Statistics of Assessments Conducted ................. 12 Table III: Progress Made on Assessments Conducted ...................................................... 19 Table IV: Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 1-10 ..................... 23 Table IV (Contd.): Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 11-20..... 25 Table IV (Contd.): Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 21-28..... 27 Table V: Actual Results from TechSolve for old P2/E2 Assessments ............................. 34 Table A-1: Energy Saving Opportunities for Cincinnati University ................................ 39 Table D-1: Summary of Estimated Savings for Snacks Food Company .......................... 47 Table E-1: Summary of Estimated Savings for a Large Snacks Food Company ............. 49 Table G-1: Summary of Actual Savings for a Cincinnati Aerospace Parts Manufacturer 52 Table H-1: Summary of Office Lighting Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer ..... 53 Table H-2: Summary of Factory Lighting Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer ... 54 Table H-3: Summary of Boiler Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer .................... 54
v
Table I-1a: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Replacing Shop Floor Roof
with Roof of R=12 or Greater ........................................................................................... 56 Table I-1b: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Replacing Warehouse Roof
with Roof of R=12 or Greater ........................................................................................... 57 Table I-2: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Installing Fan and Ductwork . 57 Table I-3: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Installing Make-up Air Unit .. 58 Table I-4: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Upgrading Lighting ............... 58 Table J-1: Economic Summary for a Garden by Replacing Primate Boilers ................... 61 Table J-2: Economic Summary for a Garden by Replacing Autogate Boiler................... 62 Table J-3: Energy Saved for a Garden by Raising Setpoint ............................................. 62 Table J-4a: Comparison of Lighting (T8 vs T12) for a Garden ........................................ 63 Table J-4b: Economic Summary for Upgrading Lighting a Garden ................................. 63 Table J-4c: Recommended Lighting Replacements for a Garden .................................... 63
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 39
Assessment 1: Energy Audit of a Cincinnati University ............................................... 39
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 40
Assessment 2: Energy Audit of a Cincinnati Local Government .................................. 40
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 45
Assessment 3: Energy Audit of an Ohio Small Agricultural Equipment Manufacturer 45
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................... 46
Assessment 4: Energy Efficiency Assessment for a Snack Foods Company ................. 46
Appendix E ....................................................................................................................... 48
Assessment 5: Energy Efficiency Assessment for a Large Food Snack Company ........ 48
Appendix F........................................................................................................................ 50
Assessment 6: Waste Reduction at the Ketchup Processing Plant ............................... 50
Appendix G ....................................................................................................................... 51
Assessment 7: Waste Reduction for a Cincinnati Aerospace Parts Manufacturer ....... 51
Appendix H ....................................................................................................................... 53
Assessment 8: Energy Audit for a Cincinnati Food Manufacturer .............................. 53
Appendix I ........................................................................................................................ 56
Assessment 9: Energy Audit for a Cincinnati Printing Company................................. 56
Appendix J ........................................................................................................................ 60
Assessment 10: Energy Assessment for a Southwest Ohio Garden .............................. 60
Appendix K ....................................................................................................................... 65
Assessment 11: Energy Assessment for a Research Laboratory in Ashland, Ohio ...... 65
Appendix L ....................................................................................................................... 68
Assessment 12: Energy Assessment for Food Safety Systems, Ohio ............................. 68
Appendix M ...................................................................................................................... 70
Assessment 13: Energy Assessment for a Southeast Ohio Casting Facility ................. 70
Appendix N ....................................................................................................................... 72
Assessment 14: Energy Audit of a Consumer Products Manufacturer ........................ 72
Appendix O ....................................................................................................................... 73
Assessment 15: Energy Reduction for an Ohio Vegetable Processor .......................... 73
vi
Appendix P........................................................................................................................ 74
Assessment 16: Energy Audit for an Ohio Aerospace Products Manufacturer............ 74
Assessment 17: Energy Audit for an Ohio Home Décor Manufacturer ....................... 74
Assessment 18: Energy Audit for Middletown Aerospace Products Manufacturer ..... 74
Assessment 19: Energy Audit for an Ohio Electrical Control and Distribution
Equipment Company ..................................................................................................... 74
Appendix Q ....................................................................................................................... 76
Assessment 20: Waste Reduction at a Cincinnati Bakery ............................................. 76
Appendix R ....................................................................................................................... 77
Assessment 21: Waste Reduction and Grey Water Reclaiming/Recycling for a
Cincinnati Concrete Company ...................................................................................... 77
Appendix S........................................................................................................................ 79
Assessment 22: Energy Audit for an Ohio Industrial Chemical Manufacturer ............ 79
Assessment 23: Energy Audit for a Dry Food Products Manufacturer ........................ 79
Assessment 24: Energy Audit for a Columbus Metal Product Fabricator ................... 80
Assessment 25: Energy Audit for an Ohio Electrical Control and Distribution
Equipment Company ..................................................................................................... 80
Appendix T ....................................................................................................................... 81
Assessment 26: Wastewater Assessment of an Industrial Organic Chemicals
Manufacturer ................................................................................................................ 81
Appendix U ....................................................................................................................... 82
Assessment 27: Wastewater Assessment of an Ohio Snack Food Processor ................ 82
Appendix V ....................................................................................................................... 84
Assessment 28: Energy Assessment for an Ohio Chemical Manufacturer ................... 84
Appendix W: Pollution Prevention Assessment Outcomes .............................................. 87
Appendix X: Summary of Computer Tools and Educational Material Related to P2 ..... 92
vii
P2 GranTrac System
General Information
Grantee Name Ashok Kumar
Grant Project Title University of Toledo Pollution Prevention Incentives for States
Grant Number NP00E00701
Year Awarded 2006
Number of Amendments 2
Grant Type 66.708 Pollution Prevention Incentives for States
Region 5
Summary Description
Developing and implementing regulatory and non-regulatory pollution prevention in
states.
Goals and Objectives: The grant project is designed to coordinate the Ohio Statewide
Environmental Network‘s assistance to small and mid-size manufacturers and other
entities through training in source reduction techniques and direct provision of pollution
prevention technical assistance including environmental management systems, clean
manufacturing, and energy efficiency assessments. The goal is to help industry to better
use pollution prevention tools.
Contact Information
Grantee Contact EPA Project Officer
Name Ashok Kumar Name Rita Garner
State Ohio Region Waste, Pesticide & Toxic
Division
Phone 419-530-8136/8115 Phone 312-353-4669
Fax 419-530-8116 Fax
viii
Email Address [email protected] Email Address [email protected]
EPA Grant Specialist
EPA Grant Specialist Name Francisca Ramos
EPA Grant Specialist Phone 312-886-5945
Project Status Information
Date Awarded 09/01/06
Original Planned Completion
Date 09/30/07
Currently Anticipated
Completion Date Jan. 30, 2010
Project Actual Completion
Date 09/30/07 (target date)
Last Progress Report
Received on 02/15/10
Time Period Reporting
covered Oct. 1, 2006 to Jan. 30, 2010
ix
Keywords
Keywords P2 Assessments, Workshops, General Technical Assistance
and Training, Computer Software
Product(s) Produced
This PPIS proposal consists of the following activities that will
supplement OSEN‘s existing pollution prevention efforts:
Coordination of the Ohio Statewide Environmental
Network to provide comprehensive pollution prevention
planning and implementation efforts statewide.
Training in source reduction techniques: Presentation of
seminars to provide outreach to Ohio manufacturers,
providing follow-up measurements of the impact of these
seminars on pollutant generation within the manufacturing
sector.
Technical Assistance targeted to small and medium size
manufacturers: Source reduction through pollution
prevention, environmental management systems, clean
manufacturing, and energy consumption assessments.
Also, measure the success of the program using different
indicators.
Brief Description of
Product(s)
OSEN meetings are conducted in Columbus, OH. Seminars
are given throughout Ohio to cover various aspects of
pollution prevention and energy assessment activities.
Assistance is provided in conducting P2 and energy
assessments for small and medium size manufacturers.
Quantity of Product(s)
Produced
During October, 2007 to January, 2010, the following products
have been produced:
1. Eight OSEN meetings (Dec. 06, Apr. 07, Aug. 07, Dec. 07,
Apr. 08, Sept. 08, Jan. 09, and Oct. 09) were conducted.
2. Thirteen seminars have been presented to Ohio
manufacturers.
3. Twenty eight assessments completed.
1
Project Activities
Amendments
Scope of change
Dates affected by
change/amendment
Funding
Partners (Associated with the Grant)
The University of Toledo is working with the Ohio Edison Centers and other OSEN
members to complete the activities. Details on the partners are as follows:
TechSolve*; Ohio EPA (Industrial Relations, Office of Compliance Assistance and
Pollution Prevention); EISC, Inc. (EISC**); Ohio Department of Development (Edison
Program, Small Business Development Center, and Office of Energy Efficiency); and
The University of Toledo, Department of Civil Engineering.
(* Due to their existing strong relationships with small and medium sized manufacturers
and status as a NIST MEP Center, they are in a unique position to serve as a link, ** An
Ohio Edison Center affiliated with the Center for Innovative Food Technology or CIFT.)
Ohio EPA partnership will be strengthened through their involvement in OSEN meetings.
Sectors
Small businesses, manufacturers, state government.
Progress on Individual Tasks
The following activities were completed during the three years of the PPIS grant.
Task A: Coordination of OSEN:
We have coordinated eight meetings and received information from different agencies
(Ohio EPA, and ODOD) on available resources. Meetings and e-mails were used to plan
the activities under the grant. Everyone was clarified about their role in the project
discussion. Brainstorming sessions were held to establish a baseline of practical
knowledge and experience in pollution prevention principles, definitions, and practices.
2
Each participant gives a project update during the meeting. Comments received are
incorporated in the rest of the activities of the grant. UT handled all the questions related
to the grant throughout the year and resolved the questions related to the sub grants. .
Referral system for pollution prevention services is working fine.
The following information was distributed during the meetings to exchange information:
1. Ohio Energy Saver Software by ODOD
2. New Energy Flyers from ODOD
3. GLRPPR Conference
4. Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund
5. Administrative Changes at Ohio EPA and ODOD
6. The Small Business Resource by Ohio EPA
7. Green Products Tool
8. Energy Management Workshop by TechSolve
9. Mercury Issues and Strategy
10. CIFT
11. Ohio‘s TRI Reduction
12. New Composter near south of Toledo
13. Financial Incentive for Energy Savings
14. Sustainability Project for Universities by Ohio EPA
15. Alternative Energy Work by TechSolve
In addition to the above each organization provides an update on pollution prevention
related projects carried by the organizations during the last six months.
Measurement and Evaluation
5 people attended the OSEN meetings on Dec. 14, 2006, Apr. 26, 2007, Aug. 23, 2007,
Dec. 7, 2007, Apr. 4, 2008, and Oct. 9, 2009, from 4 different organizations. 4 people
attended Sept. 4, 2008 meetings and 5 people attended Jan. 30, 2009 meeting from 5
different organizations.
All attendees presented an update to the group on their pollution prevention related
initiatives and activities. We met our goal for conducting three meetings during 2006-
2007 and 2007-08, and two meetings during 2008-09.
Task B: Seminars:
The following thirteen seminars have been presented:
3
1. TechSolve: TechSolve presented first workshop On October 12, 2006 in Columbus,
Ohio. The topics of the meeting were:
Overview of the Ohio Department of Development
Motor Matters Software
Energy Management Best Practices
DOE Tools and Resources
ODOD Grant and Loan Programs
We had six people from manufacturing and four people from government in attendance.
The session lasted from 9 am to 1 pm.
2. TechSolve: TechSolve presented an Energy Workshop in Dayton, OH on October 26,
2006. The agenda was the same as for the Columbus session. There were 16 people from
industry and 4 from government in attendance.
3. EISC: CIFT offered a free half-day technical workshop at its Toledo, Ohio location on
Jan 9, 2007 on energy efficiency improvement for greenhouse operations. About 12
greenhouse operators and researchers attended. Rick Mazur, CIFT Environmental
Program Manager, presented an overview of greenhouse energy efficiency and the
EISC/CIFT Energy & Environmental Service. Rick also provided updates on the CIFT
Demonstration Projects and the Netherlands greenhouse industry. Somik Ghose, CIFT
Environmental Engineer, discussed heating systems & heat distribution; alternate heating
systems; and greenhouse structures & features. Somik also presented CIFT audit findings
on heaters/heat distribution and greenhouse structures/features. Dr. Jonathan Frantz, from
the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), updated the audience on the computer-
based greenhouse modeling program, Virtual Grower.
4. TechSolve: TechSolve presented a pollution prevention workshop on April 10, 2007
for 2 hours covering alternative fuels (bio-diesel and ethanol), State and Federal P2
Initiatives, and various P2 topics: general P2, ISO 14001, green chemistry, and green
manufacturing. There were 3 people from government and 5 from industry in attendance.
5. EISC: A 4 hour renewable energy and wastewater pollution prevention workshop was
conducted on July 26, 2007 at EISC. The three speakers covered anaerobic digestion
fundamentals, operation of a commercial digester and utilization of the digester biogas in
a Solid Oxide fuel cell and fuel cell operation fundamentals. There were 26 attendees
from industry, government and universities.
6. EISC: EISC collaborated with another Ohio Edison Center, EMTEC, for an Advanced
Energy workshop in Dayton, Ohio on June 19 and 20, 2007. Attendance was 168 people
from industry, government and universities. The meeting agenda and presentations are at
4
http://www.emtec.org/ae/events/ae_summit07/. The presentations covered clean
petroleum, wind alternatives, solar energy, biomass and refuse derived fuels and fuel cell
technology.
7. TechSolve: On December 10, 2007, an Energy Efficiency Workshop was hosted by the
Minority Contract Business Assistance Program (MCBAP). The session was held from
8:00 to 11:30 am at the MCBAP facility in Cincinnati. Speakers from the Ohio
Department of Development (ODOD) and TechSolve covered energy services offered by
the State, going green with energy management and pollution prevention, and grant and
loan funds to assist businesses in implementing energy efficiency projects. In attendance
were two representatives from government, two from MCBAP, and four from industry.
As a result of this program, two industrial attendees have requested additional energy
assistance from TechSolve, and one attendee requested additional program information
from the State.
8. TechSolve: TechSolve presented a workshop on March 31, 2008 to The American
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF) Southwest Ohio chapter on energy
management. The entire program including discussion was 2 hours. It was attended by
four people in manufacturing. The presentation covered the State's energy management
program, the elements of an energy management plan, quick and easy energy-saving tips,
and resources for additional information.
9. TechSolve: The workshop on green products and services was held at TechSolve‘s
facility on June 10, 2008 from 1 to 4 pm. Featured at the workshop were 15 tabletop
displays for vendors that provided green services or products including:
Green cleaning products;
High efficiency filters;
Green cooling tower and boiler treatment chemicals;
Recycled paper products;
Recycling services;
High efficiency roofing materials;
High efficiency air products;
Waste assessments; and
Returnable containers.
In addition to the tabletop displays, TechSolve provided a presentation on the Evolution
of Environmental Management which included:
Regulatory compliance;
Pollution prevention;
5
ISO 14001;
Energy management systems; and
Sustainability.
In attendance were three people from government, nineteen from industry, and sixteen
from other businesses.
10. EISC/CIFT: Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Energy Office, and EISC/CIFT
co-sponsored (with U.S. EPA P2 Workshop funds) a one day workshop on waste-to-
energy workshop at Wooster, Ohio on April 7, 2009 aimed at informing and educating
Ohio‘s farm & food processing industries on the role of anaerobic digestion in reducing
air, water, & land quality impacts and integrating combined heat & power (CHP)
technologies with anaerobic digesters for renewable energy. 17 speakers presented at the
workshop attended by over 120 people.
11. TechSolve: TechSolve conducted a seminar on April 14, 2009 on ―Implementing the
‗P2 Pays‘ Strategy‖ presentation in Cincinnati, Ohio. The seminar focused on how a
proactive approach to pollution was more cost effective than a reactive approach; and
developing a P2 strategy allows the company to improve business practices.
12. EISC: On Sep 16, 2009, Bridgewater Dairy Anaerobic Digester and Biogas Plant
Workshop was held at Montpelier, Ohio. Greater Findlay Ag-Business Committee and
CIFT co-sponsored (with U.S. EPA P2 Workshop funds) this tour and workshop attended
by 52 people including OSU and USDA researchers and educators, and representatives of
local agricultural businesses. Information was presented on dairy operation, dairy waste
and wastewater management, anaerobic digester & biogas system, and pollution
prevention best-practices. This is one of the largest dairies in the state with 3000+ heads
operating since 1999 and the first adopter in Ohio to install a full-scale anaerobic digester
system.
13. TechSolve: A seminar was conducted on December 8, 2009 ―Linking Cost Reduction
to Industrial Water Management and P2‖ presentation in Cincinnati, Ohio by TechSolve.
The seminar focused on how development of a fundamental understanding of water
consumption drivers coupled with uncovering the full cost of water supply and
wastewater disposition can lead to improved business performance.
Each Center was involved in the publicity for the seminars. ODOD and Ohio EPA did
additional publicity for the seminars.
6
NOTE: We intended to conduct two 1-day seminars in 2006-07, two in 2007-08, two in
2008-2009. Each center is allowed to offer several seminars of short duration to cover
more manufacturers. We met our commitment to finish the required number of seminars.
Measurement and Evaluation – A summary is given in Table I.
Table I: Measurement and Evaluation Statistics for Seminars
Year Center
Number
of
seminars
conducted
Number
of
attendees
Number
of request
for
assistance
Number of
companies
expanded/
started P2
type work
Summary of
evaluations
2006-07 TechSolve 3 38 6 3 P2 and
Energy
2006-07 EISC 3 206 2 1
2007-08 TechSolve 3 50 2 2 P2 and
Energy
2008-09 EISC 2 172+ 5
2008-09 TechSolve 1 18 8 2 P2 and
Energy
2009-10
(Extension) TechSolve 1 8 6 1
P2 and
Energy
7
Task C: Assessments and Computer Tools:
The Edison Centers identified several different opportunities for pollution prevention,
lean manufacturing, and energy assessments. Work has been completed on twenty eight
assessments. The University of Toledo students are participating in the assessments based
on the needs of each center. EISC has submitted three new proposals to manufacturers for
conducting P2 assessments. The participating Ohio Edison Centers committed for six
assessments for the 2006-07, eight assessments for the 2007-08, eight assessments for the
2008-09 and one less assessment was done in 2007-08. Seven assessments were
completed during the extension period. More proposals are being submitted for the new
grant. The current status on assessments is given below:
1. TechSolve: TechSolve and a contractor conducted an energy assessment of a local
private university in Cincinnati area. The university was founded in 1831 and
provides a liberal arts education in the Catholic, Jesuit tradition. The University is
the third-largest independent institution in Ohio, the sixth-oldest Catholic
university in the nation, and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide.
The details are given in Appendix A.
2. TechSolve: On February 22, 2007, TechSolve conducted an energy assessment of
the Local government‘s Safety Center, Public Works, Recreation Center, and
Municipal Building. The energy assessment included a questionnaire and
walkthrough to identify energy saving opportunities and best practices. The
following report provides a summary of the findings, recommendations, and
resources to assist the Local government‘s efforts towards energy savings. The
results are given in Appendix B.
3. TechSolve: TechSolve worked with a small agricultural equipment manufacturer
located in London, Ohio on energy efficiency. The company has participated in
the ODOD Energy Achiever diagnostic. The details are given in Appendix C.
4. EISC: A large snack food processor in Ohio, pursuing aggressive energy
management goals, wanted an energy assessment performed to identify
improvement and savings opportunities. Overall energy usage trends and usage
distribution, boilers, plant lighting, water heater, and some electrical equipment
were evaluated within the scope of this assessment. The details are given in
Appendix D. The project was completed in February, 2007.
5. EISC: An energy assessment was completed for a large snack food processor in
Ohio to identify improvement and savings opportunities. Several efficiency
8
improvement recommendations those are practical and realistic for
implementation at this facility were provided. One of the potentially more
immediate recommendations was modification to the ventilation system to reduce
temperature stratification in the production room. The project was completed in
April 2007. The details are given in Appendix E.
6. EISC: EISC is investigating ways to reduce product wastage and waste disposal
associated costs as a part of this project in a large ketchup processing plant in
Ohio. More details are given in Appendix F.
7. TechSolve: A large aerospace supplier located in the Cincinnati area wanted to
examine its wood and paper waste to determine if the waste could be reduced or
recycled. The company employs 190 people and manufactures airframe structures
and jet engine components for the military. The company had a recycling program
already in place for scrap metal, oil and silver, but wanted to expand that program
to include other waste streams. Through a pollution prevention assessment,
TechSolve identified additional waste reduction and recycling opportunities,
developed a comprehensive recycling program and assisted the company‘s work
towards its goal of becoming ISO 14001 certified. The details are given in
Appendix G.
8. TechSolve: A local food manufacturing facility wanted to reduce its energy
consumption by 5 percent. The manufacturing site employs approximately 60
people and makes food products for its restaurant chain. TechSolve also
developed an energy management plan to assist the company in sustaining energy
savings through better energy practices. See Appendix H for more details.
9. TechSolve: A small printing company located in Cincinnati, Ohio that
manufactures pressure sensitive, prime and bar code labels and tags, was faced
with increasing energy costs. The company learned about the State‘s energy
program called EnVinta and decided to participate to discover ways to reduce
energy costs. A summary of the assessment is given in Appendix I.
10. TechSolve: A local Garden has taken the initiative to go ―green‖ and reduce its
impact on the environment. The Garden has always been a leader in energy
efficiency, and has Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certified facilities on site. However, the Garden‘s facilities are aging and some of
the infrastructure is outdated and needs to be upgraded. The Garden chose to
examine the State energy program because of its ability to address sustaining
energy savings. See Appendix J for the assessment details.
9
11. EISC: A PPIS project to a testing laboratory plant in Ashland. EISC has
completed the project. The objective of this energy efficiency assessment (E2)
was to analyze usage and compare usage metrics to industry-wide databases to
identify efficiency improvement opportunities. Also, assess renewable energy
opportunities. See Appendix K for more details.
12. EISC: A PPIS project to a food label manufacturing company in Bowling Green.
The objective of this energy efficiency (E2) assessment was to analyze energy
usage and identify efficiency improvement opportunities at Food Safety Systems‘
Distribution Center. Food Safety Systems‘ Headquarter & Office has several
energy efficient features in place including lighting and ventilation and adopted
several green management practices including waste recycling. See Appendix L
for more details.
13. TechSolve: A metals casting facility wanted to reduce its energy consumption
because of rising energy prices and falling market share. More details are given in
Appendix M.
14. TechSolve: TechSolve was engaged by a Cincinnati Area high volume consumer
products company to develop to evaluate specific energy conservation
opportunities and elaborate the energy management plan. Refer to Appendix N for
more details on pollution prevention opportunities.
15. EISC: One assessment on steam optimization and natural gas usage reduction at a
vegetable processor has been completed in July 2009. Follow up for this project
implementation was conducted in Oct 2009 for the steam optimization and natural
gas usage reduction. More details on recommendations made are given in
Appendix O.
16. TechSolve: TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit for an Ohio aerospace
products manufacturer. More details on recommendations made are given in
Appendix P.
17. TechSolve: TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit for an Ohio home décor
manufacturer. More details on recommendations made are given in Appendix P.
18. TechSolve: A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with a Middletown aerospace
products manufacturer. More details on recommendations made are given in
Appendix P.
10
19. TechSolve: TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit for an Ohio small
community electrical control and distribution equipment company. More details
on recommendations made are given in Appendix P.
20. TechSolve: TechSolve team visited a Cincinnati bakery to identify pollution
prevention solutions for waste of buns and dough. More details are given in
Appendix Q.
21. TechSolve: TechSolve team visited a Cincinnati area concrete company to review
operations, collect information for waste reduction and discuss improvement
options. The main focus was on how to better dispose or reduce spent cement
solid materials from truck washing, aggregate recovery, and job returns that
consequently accumulate in the ―mountain‖ at the rear of the property. Also,
establishing a grey water recycling system, the company already has a reclaiming
process. See Appendix R for more details.
22. TechSolve: A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with an Ohio industrial
chemical manufacturer. More details on recommendations made are given in
Appendix S.
23. TechSolve: A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with a dry food products
manufacturer. More details on recommendations made are given in Appendix S.
24. TechSolve: A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with a Columbus metal
product fabricator. More details on recommendations made are given in
Appendix S.
25. TechSolve: A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with an Ohio small community
electrical control and distribution equipment company. More details on
recommendations made are given in Appendix S.
26. TechSolve: TechSolve have performed a wastewater assessment for an Ohio
manufacturer of industrial organic chemicals. The details are given in Appendix
T.
27. EISC: A P2 project at an Ohio Snack Food Processor was studied by EISC for
wastewater system assessment and has been completed in Jan 2010 with a final
report and briefing delivered to the client. Discussions are underway on some
implementation plans. Work was performed by CIFT and consulting partners with
11
US EPA P2 assessment funds and client match. More details are given in
Appendix U.
28. EISC: A P2 project at an Ohio Chemical Manufacturer related to energy
improvement was studied at the production facility. The assessment on process
natural gas usage and waste heat recovery started in July 2009 and has been
completed in Jan 2010, and some follow-up work will be performed in Feb 2010.
Work was performed by CIFT and consulting partners with US EPA P2
assessment funds and client match. Appendix V gives more details.
Under this grant we planned to do a minimum of six assessments in 2006-07, eight
assessments in 2007-08, and eight assessments in 2008-2009. We met our goal of
completing the required number of assessments at the end of grant period.
EISC and TechSolve were not able to use all the funds by the end date of the grant.
EISC/CIFT submitted several P2 assessment proposals. The paper work is in progress on
three proposals and will be covered under the new 2009-10 grant.
A summary of different environmental indicators is given in Tables II, III, and IV, and
Appendix W.
Table IA: Examples of Environmental Programs identified in Assessment No. 3
Issue Objectives Targets Responsibility Program
Energy
audit
Reduce electric
consumption.
Addressing the
Energy Saving
Opportunities
1.) Facility
manager
2.) Employee
Awareness and
Training,
Reporting systems
and Energy load
management.
Measurement and Evaluation - The measurement and evaluation of this effort are
shown in the below table. The recommendations are given in Appendix A to V. The
companies are studying the suggestions. All the companies have started implementing
some of the recommendations. The results will be reported in future.
12
Table II: Measurement and Evaluation Statistics of Assessments Conducted
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
1 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
380,600 kWh per
year
2 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
143,000 kWh per
year
3 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
250,000 kWh per
year
4 EISC E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
200,000 kWh and
7,893 MM BTU per
year respectively
13
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
5 EISC E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
1,000,000 kWh and
17,000 MM BTU
per year
respectively
6 EISC P2 Waste
Management
Waste
Reduction YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Over 30% of
ketchup could be
diverted from
becoming waste
7 TechSolve P2/ISO Waste reduction
or material reuse
Waste
minimization YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduction of about
30 grams of
mercury, 480 yd3 of
wood, and 37 tons
of paper per year
8 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
76,600 kWh and
280 MM BTU per
year respectively
14
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
9 TechSolve E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
27,000 kWh and
22,150 MM BTU
per year
respectively
10 TechSolve E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
63,000 kWh and
780 MM BTU per
year respectively
11 EISC E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption and
natural gas usage
by approximately
5,250,000 kWh and
190 MM BTU per
year respectively
12 EISC E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
Energy
Efficiency YES Assessments
complete,
Reduced electric
consumption by
15
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
air pollution implementation in
progress
approximately
181,000 kWh per
year
13 TechSolve E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
between 1.45 × 106
and 1.98 × 106
kWh
per year
14 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced natural
gas usage by
approximately
10,500 MM BTU
per year
15 EISC E/P2
Reduce energy
use and indirect
air pollution
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced natural
gas usage by
approximately
5,000 MM BTU per
year
16 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
16
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
17 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
5,860,000 kWh per
year 18 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
19 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
20 TechSolve P2 Waste
Management
Waste
Reduction YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
Reduction of nearly
100 tons of waste
comprising of
dough and baked
products
21 TechSolve P2 Waste
Management
Waste
Reduction YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
N/A
22 TechSolve E/P2 Energy
Management
Energy
Efficiency YES Assessments
complete,
17
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
Planning implementation in
progress
Reduced electric
consumption by
approximately
1,950,000 kWh per
year
23 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
24 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
25 TechSolve E/P2
Energy
Management
Planning
Energy
Efficiency
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
26 TechSolve P2 Wastewater
Management
Water
Consumption and
Wastewater
Reduction
YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
N/A
27 EISC P2 Wastewater
Management
Chemicals
Reduction YES
Assessments
complete,
implementation in
progress
N/A
28 EISC E/P2 Reduce energy Energy YES Assessments
18
S. No. Center Variety of
Assessment
Environmental
Impact
Considered
Types of
Pollution
Prevention
Addressed
Match by
company
Action by
company
(Environmental
Improvement)
Reduction in
Amount of waste
use and indirect
air pollution
Efficiency
complete,
implementation in
progress
N/A
19
Table III: Progress Made on Assessments Conducted
No. Center Assessment
Number of
Recommendations
Made
Recommendations
Implemented by the
Company
Percent of
Recommendations
Implemented
Amount of Waste
Eliminated
1 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A
480,000 lbs/year of green
house gas emissions
reduction and annual
savings of $26,700
2 TechSolve E/P2 12 In progress N/A
192,000 lbs/year of green
house gas emissions
reduction and annual
savings of $10,000
3 TechSolve E/P2 9 2 22
335,000 lbs/year of CO2
emissions reduction and
annual savings of $15,000
4 EISC E/P2 3 In progress N/A
1,191,481 lbs/year of CO2
emissions reduction and
annual savings of 87K –
90K
5 EISC E/P2 4 1 25
3,326,000 lbs/year of CO2
emissions reduction and
annual savings of 220K –
250K
6 EISC P2 1 In progress N/A 30% savings in ketchup
7 TechSolve P2/ISO 7 3 42.86 Annual savings of $3,300
20
No. Center Assessment
Number of
Recommendations
Made
Recommendations
Implemented by the
Company
Percent of
Recommendations
Implemented
Amount of Waste
Eliminated
8 TechSolve E/P2 3 In progress N/A
Annual savings of $9,560
and reduction of 134,000
lbs/year of CO2 emissions
9 TechSolve E/P2 3 2 67
2,628,200 lbs/year of CO2
emissions reduction and
annual savings of 11K
10 TechSolve E/P2 4 In progress N/A
Annual savings of $15K
and reduction of CO2
emissions by 175,225
lbs/year
11 EISC E/P2 13 In progress N/A
7,054,000 lbs/year of CO2
emissions reduction and
annual savings of 484K
12 EISC E/P2 7 In progress N/A
Reduction of CO2
emissions by 242,000
lbs/year and annual
savings of $12K
13 TechSolve E/P2 7 In progress N/A
Energy savings of 11% -
15% on electrical
consumption and
reduction of 10,000 tons
of carbon dioxide
emissions per year
21
No. Center Assessment
Number of
Recommendations
Made
Recommendations
Implemented by the
Company
Percent of
Recommendations
Implemented
Amount of Waste
Eliminated
14 TechSolve E/P2 1 In progress N/A
Annual savings of $100K
and reduction of CO2
emissions by 1,231,540
lbs/year
15 EISC E/P2 1 In progress N/A
Energy savings of 20%
and 584,000 lbs/year of
green house gas reduction
16 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A Annual savings of
$410,000 and reduction of
7,848,000 lbs/year of CO2
emissions
17 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A
18 TechSolve E/P2 7 In progress N/A
19 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A
20 TechSolve P2 2 In progress N/A Reduction of 100 tons of
waste
21 TechSolve P2 9 In progress N/A N/A
22 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A Annual savings of
$136,250 and reduction of
2,608,000 lbs/year of CO2
23 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A
24 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A
22
No. Center Assessment
Number of
Recommendations
Made
Recommendations
Implemented by the
Company
Percent of
Recommendations
Implemented
Amount of Waste
Eliminated
25 TechSolve E/P2 5 In progress N/A emissions
26 TechSolve P2 2 In progress N/A N/A
27 EISC P2 4 In progress N/A N/A
28 EISC E/P2 4 In progress N/A N/A
23
Table IV: Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 1-10
Benefit TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve EISC EISC EISC TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Raw materials
savings by
recycling
No No No No No No Yes No No No
Material
substitution
savings
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Elimination of
pollution
control
equipment
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Improved
process
productivity
N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes
Better product
quality N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A N/A Yes
Reduced labor
from pollution
elimination
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Reduction of N/A N/A No No No Yes N/A No No No
24
Benefit TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve EISC EISC EISC TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve
permitting
requirements
Reduction
and/or
elimination of
off-site waste
disposal
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Reduction
and/or
elimination of
off-site waste
storage
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Reduction of
personal
injury risks
under OSHA
N/A N/A No No No No N/A No No No
Permitting
requirements
minimized
N/A N/A No No No Yes N/A No No No
25
Table IV (Contd.): Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 11-20
Benefit EISC EISC TechSolve TechSolve EISC TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Raw materials
savings by
recycling
No No No No No No No No No No
Material
substitution
savings
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Elimination of
pollution
control
equipment
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Improved
process
productivity
Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
Better product
quality N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reduced labor
from pollution
elimination
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Reduction of No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
26
Benefit EISC EISC TechSolve TechSolve EISC TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve
permitting
requirements
Reduction
and/or
elimination of
off-site waste
disposal
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Reduction
and/or
elimination of
off-site waste
storage
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Reduction of
personal
injury risks
under OSHA
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
Permitting
requirements
minimized
No No N/A No No No No No No N/A
27
Table IV (Contd.): Potential Pollution Prevention Benefits from Assessments 21-28
Benefit TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve EISC EISC
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Raw materials savings
by recycling Yes No No No No No No No
Material substitution
savings No No No No No Yes No No
Elimination of
pollution control
equipment
No No No No No No No No
Improved process
productivity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Better product quality Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A
Reduced labor from
pollution elimination No No No No No No No No
Reduction of
permitting
requirements
No No No No No No No No
28
Benefit TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve TechSolve EISC EISC
Reduction and/or
elimination of off-site
waste disposal
Yes No No No No No No No
Reduction and/or
elimination of off-site
waste storage
No No No No No No No No
Reduction of personal
injury risks under
OSHA
No No No No No No No No
Permitting
requirements
minimized
No No No No No No No No
29
Computer Tools developed by the University of Toledo
Over the years, UT students have worked on the development of 14 different tools for the
use by small and medium companies. These are: 1) Gap Analysis tool, 2) MSDS
Manager for P2, 3) Emission reduction calculator, 4) Lean Manufacturing, 5) HVAC
Checklist, 6) Energy Assessment Spreadsheet, 7) Hybrid HVAC system Design Tool, 8)
Building Sustainability Tool, 9) Pollution Prevention Tool For Hospital Assessment, and
10) Database of Green Products, 11) Small Business Self Assessment Tool, 12)
Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool, 13) Chemical Identification Software,
and 14) Food Assessment Tool. The first ten tools are described in the earlier PPIS report
(Kumar et al., 2006). Other tools developed by UT students for encouraging pollution
prevention work between 2007 and 2010 are summarized below.
1. Small Business Self Assessment Tool: The need for this Small Business Self
Assessment Tool (SBSAT 1.0) was identified in early 2006 during an OSEN
meeting. The purpose of the tool is to help companies to learn about the Ohio
EPA requirements. This is a small business compliance tool used to check if the
business is in compliance with the regulations or not. Business owners are
encouraged to do compliance assessments regularly to improve environmental
quality, increase worker safety, identify ways to reduce pollution, and reduce the
possibility of violations and penalties if they are inspected. This user friendly tool
primarily consists of the following six sections:
Waste Water and Drinking Water
Air Pollution
Wastes
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Toxic Substances.
The tool has been developed on a spreadsheet and each section has a series of
questions for which the answer will be either yes or no. Points are allotted for
each answer and the points are summed up at the end. The number of points
obtained is proportional to compliance with regulations. Also after the tool is run,
one gets a list of regulations that the company is in compliance with and a list of
regulations that the company needs to be in compliance with. A set of instructions
will be displayed in the output of the tool which guides the company to take
necessary steps to be in compliance with the regulations. Final copy of this tool is
available at
http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/pptools.htm#SBSAT.
30
2. Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: Department Specific Hospital
Assessment Tool (D-HAT 1.0) is an extension of hospital assessment tool (HAT-
1.0) developed to assess the wastes produced in the entire hospital as a whole. The
tool covers seven departments namely surgery, emergency, psychiatric, dialysis,
laboratories, nursing home care, and radiology. This tool is developed using
Microsoft Excel. The user will have an option to select either ―Yes‖ or ―No‖
from the drop down menu for each question under each department. All the
positive answers will be allotted ―1‖ point while the negative answers will be
allotted ―0‖ points. The points are summed up towards the end of each section and
a statistic indicating the performance of each department as ―Excellent, Good,
Poor, Very Poor‖ is summarized in the end. The summary sheet of software helps
the user identify departments and areas that needs to be addressed. Final copy of
D-HAT 1.0 is available online at
http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/pptools.htm#D-HAT1.0.
3. Chemical Identification Software Tool: Chemical Identification Software (CIS
1.0) is a user friendly tool developed to help multinational industries determine if
the chemicals being used in the industries are enlisted as ‗hazardous‘ by the U.S,
Europe, the UK, and Australia. The chemical lists used in the development of the
software are:
Hazardous Chemicals List issued by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) [Consolidated List Of Chemicals (By CAS number) Subject
to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act]
European List of Notified Chemical Substances [ELINCS].
UK List of Approved Workplace Exposure Limits.
Australia‘s Hazardous Substances Information System.
The output of software for any chemical selected from the drop down list displays
all the lists under which the chemical is classified as hazardous, its properties, and
corresponding limiting values. The software is developed using Microsoft Access
Forms. CIS 1.0 is available online. During this period the chemical database was
expanded to 1250 after making editorial revisions. A draft copy of the tool is
available at
http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/pptools.htm#CIS.
4. Food Assessment Tool): Food Assessment Tool (FAT 1.0) is a pollution
prevention tool developed to help food processing facilities checks the degree of
compliance associated with applicable regulations and laws. Various sections
covered under this tool are waste management, storage and transportation,
environmental emergencies, environmental contamination, pollution prevention
31
techniques, drinking water, waste water, packaging, composting, clean up
procedures, preventive maintenance, pesticide use, food banks, and air quality
regulations. The tool developed would enable food processing facilities
understand the amounts of waste produced in each section and determine the
alternative approaches to be used in achieving the task efficiently. EISC provided
the literature to start the development and OSEN members provided comments on
the conceptual frame work. The tool is developed using Microsoft Excel. The user
will have to select appropriate option from the drop down box that includes ‗Yes‘,
‗No‘, ‗Cant Determine‘, and ‗Not Applicable‘. All the positive answers will be
allotted ―1‖ point while the negative answers will be allotted ―0‖ points. The
points will be summed up towards the end of each section and a statistic
indicating the performance of each section as ―Excellent, Good, Poor, Very Poor‖
is summarized in the end. Comments received from OSEN members on the initial
framework of the model were taken into consideration and the final copy of
FAT1.0 is available online at
http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/pptools.htm#FAT.
5. Comprehensive Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: Comprehensive
Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool (CD-HAT 1.0) is an extension of
department specific hospital assessment tool (D-HAT 1.0). The tool covers up to
29 departments namely administration, anesthesia, autopsy services, biomedical
engineering services, clinical research, construction and renovation, critical care
services, emergency care services, emergency dental services, endoscopy
services, food services, groundskeeping, housekeeping, incineration services,
inpatient care services, kidney dialysis services, laundry services, maintenance,
morgue, nuclear medicine, oncology services, outpatient services, pharmacy
services, physical therapy services, radiology, respiratory care, sterilization
reprocessing and distribution, surgery services, laboratory testing, pathology, and
histology services. The tool is being developed based on the questions obtained
from ―Best Management Practices for Hospital Wastes‖. This tool will be
developed using Microsoft Excel. The user will have an option to select either
―Yes‖ or ―No‖ from the drop down menu for each question under each
department. All the positive answers will be allotted ―1‖ point while the negative
answers will be allotted ―0‖ points. The points are summed up towards the end of
each section to determine the performance of each section in the hospital. The
summary sheet of software helps the user identify departments and areas that
needs to be addressed. Comments received from OSEN members are being
incorporated. Students have been reviewing literature to identify best management
practices for any missing departments that are not included in the 29 departments
listed above. A draft copy of the tool is currently being developed.
32
Educational Material Related to P2
Several areas have been identified during the OSEN meetings to develop material on
various topics. They are listed below:
1. List of Recyclers: Internet search was conducted to develop a list of recyclers
who will accept the byproducts and waste found during the assessments. The list
was reviewed by the OSEN members. The list is being expanded based on the
suggestions provided by the group. The complete report is posted on the web site
for use by the companies at http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/Recyclers.pdf.
2. Hospitals for Healthy Environment: This topic is selected for developing
presentation as it relates to pollution prevention. UT students have prepared
PowerPoint presentation for the use of OSEN members. The presentation is
posted on the website for use by health organizations at
http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/aprg/ppis/H2E.ppt.
3. Comparison of Green Material Tools: We completed a comparison of three tools
to help the companies. A report was prepared in summer 2007 and has been
distributed to OSEN members for comments. The report was published in
Environmental Progress, a journal rad by about 4000 chemical engineers. The
citation is ―P. Nimse, A. Vijayan, A. Kumar and C. Varadarajan, A Review of
Green Product Databases, Environmental Progress, 26(2), 131-137, 2007.‖
4. A software article on the small business self assessment tool was prepared for
Environmental Progress. The citation is ―A. Kadiyala and A. Kumar,
Development of an Environmental Compliance Tool for Small Businesses,
Environmental Progress, 26(4), 316-326, 2007.‖ The journal is read by about
4000 chemical engineers.
5. A review paper based on green products‘ patents was prepared and has been
published. The purpose is to make information available to industry if they are
looking to introduce new green products in Ohio. A copy has been shared with
the OSEN members. The citation is ―A. Kumar and A. Bhat, A Review of Recent
Patents on Green Products, Recent Patents on Chemical Engineering, 1(3), 232-
238, 2008.‖
6. A software article on the department specific hospital waste was prepared for
Environmental Progress. The journal is read by about 4000 chemical engineers.
The citation is: ―A. Kadiyala, D. Somuri, and A. Kumar, Development of a Tool
for the Assessment of Department Specific Hospital Waste, Environmental
Progress, 27(4), 432-438, 2008.‖
7. A software article on the chemical identification was prepared for Environmental
Progress. The citation is: ―A. Kadiyala, S. Velagapudi, and A. Kumar,
Development of Chemical Identification Software for Multinational Industries,
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28(1), 13-19, 2009. The journal is
read by about 4000 chemical engineers.
33
8. A software article on the food industry waste was prepared for Environmental
Progress. The journal is read by about 4000 chemical engineers. The citation is:
―A. Kadiyala, V. V. K. Nerella, and A. Kumar, Development of an Assessment
Tool for Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency in Food Industry,
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28(3), 310-315, 2009.
9. A report based on patents on waste minimization techniques was completed. This
review helps industry to know about various waste minimization techniques in
different sectors, and provides insight into developments in reduction of waste.
Online database available from the United States Patents and Trademark Office
(USPTO) is being searched for patents related to the sectors of manufacturing,
hospitals, biosolids, construction, and agriculture. A draft of this report has been
submitted to the members of OSEN for comments.
10. A review report based on the patents submitted on 'energy efficiency' is being
prepared. It provides insight into the industry/sector dealing with energy
efficiency, the energy form consumed, and the energy form conserved; which
helps the industry to better understand the energy form conservations. The data
required for this review report is being acquired from an online database available
from the United States Patents and Trademark Office [USPTO]. A draft of this
report will be submitted to the members of OSEN for comments.
P2 Savings and Use of P2 Tools
The actual results from old and current P2/E2 assessments that have not been reported are
given below.
a) TechSolve
TechSolve contacted six companies. The following projects have been implemented or
are underway:
Company in Appendix G is working towards ISO 14001 certification. They
completed general awareness training of 155 employees with training package
developed by TechSolve.
Company in Appendix I has installed the energy efficient lighting, new roof, and
makeup air unit. It is too soon to notice the energy savings.
Company in Appendix J has applied for the EnVinta grant monies ($50K) for two
new boilers to be installed in August 2008. Energy conservation activities
34
continue for a Cincinnati area botanical garden audited in 2007. With assistance
from an electrical utility and the State of Ohio, the facility will study the
feasibility of a small scale biomass waste to energy facility processing up to 800
pounds of manure daily. The facility is converting a very large lighting load
from incandescent to LED. It has converted its diesel fleet to blended biodiesel
and has installed a 2500 square foot green roof which reduces the volume of
storm water loading on the Cincinnati Municipal Sewer District. The facility has
successfully managed its energy costs which declined by 7% between 2005 and
2007 while the facility expanded its building square footage by 15% and utility
rates increased by 14% during the same period.
TechSolve reported the following new actual results in Feb. 2010 from old P2/E2
assessments by the companies:
Table V: Actual Results from TechSolve for old P2/E2 Assessments
Electrical use reduction 1,056,033 KwH
Thermal energy reduction 8,640,000 # steam
CO2 emissions 1,920 tonnes
SOx emissions 23 tonnes
NOx emissions 4 tonnes
From Feb. 2007 PPIS report (Final report for 2003-06):
Company in Appendix I is still ISO 14001 certified.
Company in Appendix M is still ISO 14001 certified. The company has reduced
scrap by 10 percent which translates to reducing rubber scrap by 10,000 lb/yr
containing 0.05% lead or 5 lb/yr.
Company in Appendix N is still ISO 14001 certified. They have recently
implemented a tramp oil removal system to prolong machine fluid life—no results
as of yet. They have saved approximately 50% of their solvent use (about 4000
gallons per year) through better management practices. Recently they have begun
cardboard recycling—no quantity yet. The company eliminated most of their
MEK. They now use less than 10 lb/yr. They have also reduced their solvent use
by 30% or by 2,400 lb/yr.
Company in Appendix O did install the new melter and have achieved an
estimated natural gas savings of 22,000 million Btu/yr.
35
Company in Appendix Q has changed out T12 lights for T8s saving them
$35,000/yr or 500,000 kwh/yr.
b) EISC
EISC contacted five companies to get an idea on the reduction in natural gas usage, kWh
saved, and reduction of waste. The three companies provided the information given
below.
The turkey slaughterhouse and processing plant in Ohio listed in Appendix V in Feb.
2007 PPIS report (Final report for 2003-06) partially implemented lighting upgrades,
water heater efficiency optimization, and refrigeration system loading optimization. This
project was completed in Nov. 2006. This effort has started savings at a rate of
approximately 50,000 kWh/year & 500 million Btu/year of natural gas.
A large snack food processor in Ohio as discussed in Appendix D of this report partially
implemented lighting upgrades and boiler efficiency optimization. The project was
completed in Feb. 2007 by EISC. This implementation has started savings at a rate of
approximately 1,000 million Btu/year of natural gas and 75,000 kilowatt-hours/year of
electricity.
An automotive supplier saved 50,000 gal/year of city water by improving boiler
condensate return and reducing feedwater requirements. The assessment was completed
in 2004 under 2000-03 grant period.
The following P2 savings have been reported from previous assessments (see summary in
Appendix X):
1. Lighting Upgrades at Hill Manufacturing, Wauseon have been completed (Energy
Assessment 2005). They replaced 120 450-Watt Metal Halides with 225-Watt 6-
Lamp Fluorescent Fixtures in early 2006. The savings are $12,000 -$15,000/year
(100,000+ KWH saved/year @ 15 cents /KWH). The payback period is <2 years.
2. A local manufacturer reduced cleaning solvent consumption by more than 10
percent in first six months. Annual savings estimated to be $2,000 per year for
this hazardous and permitted solvent.
3. A northeast Ohio manufacturer installed a quality control sensor to reduce scrap
generation due to out-of-specification rubber product. The savings anticipated
from this effort is 10,000 pounds per year of a lead-containing rubber product.
36
4. An Ohio solenoid manufacturer reduced MEK use by 50 lb/yr and reduced parts
washer solvent use by 800 lb/yr.
5. An Ohio coining company installed plant air compressor equipment and is
estimated to save 30,000 kwh/yr.
6. An Ohio rubber manufacturer installed sensors for quality and has reduced scrap
generation by approximately 80 percent on one line or approximately 2,000 lb/yr
lead-containing rubber. Plans are underway to retrofit the remaining lines.
7. The local agricultural equipment manufacturer is estimated to save $15,000
annually from fixing compressed air leaks, shutting off paint booth ventilation
when not in use, changing the set-point on the compressor, and adding building
insulation by the end of 2008. This equates to 150,000 kwh/yr energy use
reduction. The project is being implemented in phases. The work has started
shutting of the paint booth ventilation and the company is in the process of fixing
the compressed air leaks. They have not started the building insulation as of yet.
The company is estimated to save 1500 kwh during July to Sept. 2007.
We have started tracking of the use of different tools that are available on our web site.
So far we have found the following:
1. TechSolve introduced the MSDS tool to a company that participated in ISO study.
They are using the tool.
2. TechSolve also gave the MSDS tool to another client recently that is planning to
use it.
3. Energy and sustainability tools are introduced in the Pollution Prevention class
taught by Dr. M. Abraham in the Department of Chemical Engineering for the last
three years. During spring 2007, 15 undergraduate and 5 graduate students used
the tools.
4. Energy tools for the last several years are being used by graduate and
undergraduate students in the Industrial Ventilation course taught by Dr. Kumar.
5. Sustainability tool has been introduced for the last two years in the Indoor Air
Quality class taught by Dr. Kumar.
6. EISC has used ERC tool in several assessments.
7. In part based on the PPIS project work experience EISC/CIFT has performed in
the past, CIFT has extended activity into a variety of greenhouse energy related
work. CIFT continues to provide technical support to the USDA ARS to improve
the Virtual Grower greenhouse energy software which is becoming more widely
used across the USA. CIFT uses this VG software on Ohio greenhouses as well.
This has encouraged greenhouse operators to make the CIFT recommended
greenhouse construction modifications such as the insulating horizontal and
vertical curtains and other similar improvements in thermal insulation. Improved
37
thermal insulation features immediately reduce natural gas and propane energy
usage.
8. The University of Toledo prepared a presentation on the Hospital Assessment
Tool at the request of the Ohio Department of Development for a one day seminar
by the Ohio Hospital Association in Feb. 2008. The presentation was delivered
by the ODOD staff to over 50 professional from different hospitals because we
could not go due to a storm. We know that at least one hospital is using the tool
for assessing the hospital waste and their telephone number is 740-374-1472.
9. The University of Toledo prepared a presentation on the Energy Efficiency
Assessment Tools for the joint meeting of military engineers and the AWMA in
June 2008. The presentation was delivered by Dr. Kumar to over 50 professional
from different organizations. Many engineers showed interest in using the tools
after the presentation. The presentation is available at the project site under
presentations.
10. Rick Mazur, Environmental Program Manager at CIFT made a presentation on
Waste-to-Energy at the Ohio Polymer Summit, June 3-5, 2008 at Columbus,
Ohio.
11. Somik Ghose, Environmental Engineer at CIFT participated in USDA‘s Clean
Energy Workshop, Sept. 12, 2008 at Huron, Ohio.
12. Dr. Vijayan, who worked on the PPIS projects while working on his MS (2004)
and PhD (2007) at the University of Toledo, is involved in energy assessments in
California. He conducted one energy assessment in Ohio.
13. Energy tools and emission rate tool developed under PPIS grants were discussed
in the Industrial Ventilation (12 students) during fall 2008.
14. The University of Toledo was contacted by Manufacturing & Technology Small
Business Development Center for the use of different tools by their companies.
15. Energy tools and emission rate tool developed under PPIS grants were discussed
in the Sustainability class by Dr. Apul (12 graduate students) and Indoor Air
Quality class (16 undergraduates and 12 graduate students) during fall 2008.
16. Ma. Krizia Hautea Ledesma, 24 years old and a Registered Nurse in the
Philippines is currently undertaking Master of Arts in Nursing in the Philippines
at Saint Paul University Iloilo. She is using the Hospital Assessment Tool for
"Assessment of Tertiary Hospitals in Iloilo City."
17. Energy tools and emission rate tool developed under PPIS grants were discussed
in the Sustainability class by Dr. Apul during Fall 2009 and will be discussed with
undergraduate students in March 2010.
18. We are using the Hospital Waste Assessment Tool for the 2009-10 PPIS grant.
Toledo Hospital and Flower Hospital in Toledo area has asked us to conduct the
study under the PPIS grant.
38
TechSolve have sent the web link out to about 200 companies through their compliance
collaborative.
Concluding Remarks
The University of Toledo is working with Ohio Edison Centers, OhioEPA, and ODOD.
We identified opportunities for twenty eight P2 assessments, thirteen seminars, five P2
tools, and ten topics for educational material. We completed thirteen seminars, twenty
eight assessments, four P2 tools, one educational PowerPoint presentation, one
educational report, two patent review papers, and five software articles. We completed all
the work as outlined in the PPIS proposals during the grant period.
39
Appendix A
Assessment 1: Energy Audit of a Cincinnati University
TechSolve and a contractor conducted an energy assessment of a local private university.
The university was founded in 1831 and provides a liberal arts education in the Catholic,
Jesuit tradition. The University is the third-largest independent institution in Ohio, the
sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation, and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and
universities nationwide.
TechSolve conducted an Envinta 125 diagnostic for the university to determine the
current state of energy management practices. The Envinta diagnostic tool was developed
by a company from Australia, Energetics, based on the ISO 14001 philosophy of plan,
do, check, and act for continuous energy management improvement. The university
received a two-star rating which means that some energy efficiency practices were in
place, but there were no formal procedures or system in place. The critical action items
defined for the university include:
Awareness and Training
Targets and Key Performance Indicators
Metering and Monitoring
Understanding Performance and Opportunities
Planning
Based on these recommended action items, TechSolve developed an energy management
plan for the university, and a consulting firm conducted an energy audit to determine
opportunities for energy savings. A management plan was customized for the university
and covered the following topics:
Leadership
Understanding
Planning
People
Financial Management
Supply Management
Operations and Maintenance
Plant Equipment
Reporting
Achievement
The technical audit found several opportunities for cost savings including:
Table A-1: Energy Saving Opportunities for Cincinnati University
Energy Opportunity Estimated Annual Cost
Savings
Estimated
Savings,
Kwh
Estimated Greenhouse
Gas Savings, tons
Residence hall boiler plant – heat
recovery, stack dampers $5,500 78,000 49
Village Apartments – condensing
boiler $2,000 28,600 18
Modify kitchen hood make-up air - - -
Condensing boilers $10,800 154,000 97
High bay light fixture replacement $8,400 120,000 76
40
Appendix B
Assessment 2: Energy Audit of a Cincinnati Local Government
On February 22, 2007, TechSolve conducted an energy assessment of the local government‘s
safety center, public works, recreation center, and municipal building. The energy assessment
included a questionnaire and walkthrough to identify energy saving opportunities and best
practices. The following report provides a summary of the findings, recommendations, and
resources to assist the local government‘s efforts towards energy savings.
Safety Center
The Safety Center houses the fire department, police department, non-emergency call center,
emergency management services, and temporary jail. The building is approximately 40 years
old, and is open 24 hours per day/seven days per week.
Energy Recommendations:
Caulk and seal remaining windows and doorways (use of an infrared detector to
determine heat loss may be beneficial);
Provide additional insulation to facility;
Provide motion sensor light switches in areas not used on regular basis;
Phase out existing appliances and office equipment and replace with Energy Star
equipment;
Complete re-lamp of building to T-8 or T-5 fluorescent lights and ballasts (see attached
information);
Garage doors that can be interlocked with heater to shut off heat when door is open.
Public Works
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the streets, vehicles, drinking water
plant, storm sewers, and signs. The department has an office and a garage that was converted
from a construction company facility.
Some recommendations for energy savings include:
Use of motion sensors or timing switches to shut off lights.
Employ practices prescribed by Motor Matters for determining motor efficiency,
replacement, and replacement decision for drinking water operations. Information on
Motor Matters can be found at http://www.motorsmatter.org/. TechSolve is hosting a
one-day Motor Master DOE training session on April 24, 2007.
City engineer should use electronic storage capabilities for documents and drawings to
reduce paper consumption.
41
Phase in use of Energy Star computer and office equipment, and appliances.
Recreation Center
The recreation center originally was a YMCA built in 1985 just outside of the city limits. The
local government bought the facility for its residents‘ use charging a small fee for residents and
non-residents to use the facility. An outdoor pool and water park are currently being
constructed. Inside various athletic activities are offered including pilates, spinning and yoga
classes, a gym for miscellaneous adult and children activities, and a batting cage. A portion of
the facility is being upgraded and reorganized to better meet the patron‘s needs.
Some recommendations for energy savings include:
Use motion sensors for areas to shut off lights not in use;
Evaluate replacement of heating and cooling systems with new, energy efficient models
and provide zoned heating to balance and direct heat and cooling where most needed—
especially since building occupancy has changed from the original owner/design;
Replace old fluorescent lights and ballasts with T-8 or T-5 lights, preferably the low
mercury, green tip lights;
Replace showers with water-saver shower heads;
Develop and maintain outdoor pool pump system;
Complete window replacement project.
Municipal Building
The municipal building was constructed in 1910 as a school building and has been remodeled to
upgrade the building‘s appearance and energy efficiency. Some of the added features/energy-
saving practices in this facility include:
Replacement windows;
Some Energy Star office equipment;
Shut down of lights and computers at night;
New air conditioning unit.
Some energy/waste saving opportunities found during the site walkthrough includes:
Provide motion sensor switches for common areas such as bathrooms, conference rooms,
etc.
Provide added insulation and ensure doors and windows are properly sealed;
42
Designate one person to ensure lights, computers, fax and copying machines are turned
off or are in sleep mode every evening;
Double-side paper documents whenever possible; and
Minimize use of personal fans, heaters, coffee pots, etc.
General Organization Energy Saving Tips
Specify Energy Star rated computer equipment, copiers, fax machines and appliances as
part of daily procurement practices. Energy Star equipment can be found at
www.energystar.gov.
Employ computer recycling program to properly rid Safety Center of unusable computer
equipment. One local recycler used by Hamilton County Environmental Services is
Technology Recycling Group. TRG‘s contact information can be found at
http://www.recyclegroup.net/.
Vending machines are another opportunity. Attached is a fact sheet that provides energy
saving tips. Another resource for vending machine energy savings is SnackMiser® and
can be found at:
a. http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Energy%20Miser/
snackMiser.htm.
b. http://www.goodmart.com/products/511745.htm
The Public Works Director was questioned as to the overall energy management practices for the
local government. The following practices were in place:
Management wants to reduce energy;
Someone reviews the energy bills;
General cost-saving ideas have been identified;
Budget is prepared annually for each energy form;
Back-up power has been assessed;
Energy sources are turned off when not needed;
List of energy saving projects;
Automated controls to shut down equipment;
Adequate maintenance staff;
Preventive maintenance is conducted to reduce energy inefficiency;
Monthly energy bills reviewed and recorded;
Access to interval energy data; and
Energy saving projects implemented in the last year.
Energy management practices that were not implemented:
Energy policy in place;
Energy on the agenda in manager‘s meetings;
Assigned energy manager to oversee energy usage and projects;
Provide general energy awareness;
43
Share energy reduction opportunities with employees;
Formal energy management training;
Energy usage evaluated for trends;
Cost savings for major equipment;
Budgeted energy projects for next year;
Energy reduction goals;
Established metrics for facilities;
Energy rates reviewed;
Written instructions for energy equipment;
Solicit energy-saving ideas from staff; and
Verification of energy savings for projects.
Overall energy saving recommendations for local government:
1) Designate or hire an energy manager to oversee energy-saving projects, building
operation, and new installations. The energy manager‘s role will be to: a) ensure that
new energy-saving opportunities are implemented for existing equipment, b) watch for
trends in energy usage to minimize excessive use, c) ensure that existing equipment is
maintained and operated at maximum efficiency, d) oversee new installations and ensure
that energy efficiency has been incorporated into the design, and e) develop new ideas for
energy savings through seeking innovative technologies and equipment.
2) Specify Energy Star equipment in purchasing department whenever feasible.
3) Evaluate the feasibility of green building designs and concepts for new and retrofitted
installations. Some information on green building design are:
http://www.usgbc.org/
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/
http://www.greenbuildingsolutions.org/s_greenbuilding/index.asp
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/
Participate in the local US Green Building Coalition workshops and events. See
http://chapters.usgbc.org/cincinnati/.
4) Have key personnel attend energy training workshops. Several workshops are planned
through local organizations including motor systems and green building design. In
addition, Energy Star offers on-line courses at
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_internet_presentations.
5) Provide general awareness training to employees including placement of reminders at
light switches, computers, etc. to turn off these items when not in use.
6) Conduct building commissioning for all new facilities and equipment. Verifying that the
building or equipment meets the specified energy efficiency prior to project sign-off will
help to ensure that the building/equipment will function as designed. Information on
building commissioning can be found at:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/operate/buildingcommissioning.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tech/commissioning/
http://www.aceee.org/buildings/projects/current/bld_cxny.htm
http://www.hoksustainabledesign.com/may02/Feature/commissioning.htm
44
7) Incorporate energy management practices throughout the organization to ensure that
energy savings are sustained. Development of an energy management plan will provide a
framework for these energy management practices and will sustain energy savings.
8) Ensure community growth is appropriately planned to minimize waste and energy
consumption. Information on community growth best practices can be found at
http://www.glrppr.org/hubs/toc.cfm?hub=800&subsec=7&nav=7.
9) Investigate the use of EnFocus provided by Duke Energy for major building meters to
review trends and peak loads.
See http://www.cinergy.com/enfocus/eissignup/eishomepage.asp for more information
about this subscription offering from Duke.
10) Evaluate use of ODOD loan program to increase availability for energy project funds.
See attached information about the loan program. The ODOD contact for the loan is
Carolyn Seward (614) 466-4053.
11) Rebuild America offers an opportunity to connect with DOE professionals and other local
governments to learn more about energy saving measures. For more information about
this program, please see
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/program_areas/rebuild.html. The ODOD contact
for this program is Dr. Manny Annunike, (614)
12) Energy Star has software that allows for organizations to assess their facilities and track
trends. See
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager.
With these changes, it is expected that the local government will save approximately:
$10,000 in annual energy costs;
143,000 Kwh of electricity; and
96 Tons greenhouse gas emissions.
45
Appendix C
Assessment 3: Energy Audit of an Ohio Small Agricultural Equipment Manufacturer
TechSolve worked with a small agricultural equipment manufacturer located in London, Ohio
with energy efficiency. The company has participated in the ODOD Energy Achiever
diagnostic. Based on this diagnostic, the company needs assistance in the areas of:
Energy Saving Opportunities;
Energy Supply;
Awareness and Training;
Reporting Systems;
Energy Load Management.
TechSolve has completed the management plan for the company.
In addition, to the energy management improvements, the company and TechSolve also
determined that energy savings could be achieved through:
Improved heating of the manufacturing area with radiant heaters;
Replacement of T-12 lighting with more efficient T-8 or T-5 lights;
Improved building insulation;
Providing vinyl flaps on garage door openings; and
Replacement of old, inefficient saws, presses, etc.
The University of Dayton‘s Industrial Assessment Center conducted a one-day energy
assessment for the company on May 7, 2007. In addition to the recommendations provided by
TechSolve, the students recommended the following:
Institute a preventative maintenance program to fix compressed air leaks;
Reduce the pressure set point on the 30-hp compressor;
Turn off the paint booth exhaust fan when the booth is not in use;
Replace smooth V-belts with notched V-belts on all belt-driven applications
The company has already implemented the compressed air repairs and shutting off the paint
booth. Future plans include the replacement of lighting and adding insulation to improve overall
building efficiency.
It is estimated the company will save more than $15,000 per year by implementing the no cost
energy-saving practices.
TechSolve is currently assisting the company to pursue these energy-saving measures.
At a cost of 6 cents per kWh in Ohio for industrial sector, annual energy savings are
(15,000/0.06) 250,000 kWh. At 1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh generation, annual CO2 reductions are
335,000 lbs (167.5 tons).
46
Appendix D
Assessment 4: Energy Efficiency Assessment for a Snack Foods Company
A large snack food processor in Ohio, pursuing aggressive energy management goals, wanted an
energy assessment performed to identify improvement and savings opportunities. Overall energy
usage trends and usage distribution, boilers, plant lighting, water heater, and some electrical
equipment were evaluated within the scope of this assessment. Comparison of gross finished
products with energy usage indicates an increase in production efficiency from 2005 to 2006
from an energy usage perspective in Btu/lb and KWh/lb utilization. However, total costs have
also increased for both gas and electricity from 2005 to 2006 due to increased utility rates.
Therefore, energy input costs in cents per lb have both increase for gas and electricity. Two gas-
fired boilers each rated at about 5 MM Btu/hr and operating 24 hrs/6 days a week provide steam
for the renderers, water heater and some other uses in the plant. Gas usage by the boilers is
estimated to be around 25-30% (about 45,000 MM Btu/year) of total usage. At an average recent
cost of $9.50 per MM Btu, this usage costs about $428,000 per year. Through combustion
testing, the estimated gross efficiency of Boiler 1 was around 70% at full load and 64% at idle.
Boiler 4 seemed to be a bit higher at around 72%, and performing better at lower loads. Better
oxygen control could improve Boiler 1‘s gross efficiency by roughly 5%, worth about $10,000
per year. For this, upgrades in boiler controls and possibly variable frequency drives for the
blowers could be investigated further. Better recovery of stack heat for both boilers could
improve performance by another 5% each, worth about $10,000 per boiler yearly. For this, a
maintenance check on the extent of heat exchanger scaling should be followed by an
investigation into boiler stack economizers. These measures could improve gross thermal
performance of the boilers in the 80% range. Operation of multiple boilers, particularly to handle
fluctuating loads and modulate between part-load and full load conditions, could be further
improved with PLC & PC-based centralized control system. It is guessed that around 5%
efficiency gains or more in the overall system could be achieved. This could be worth around
$10,000 per year for each of the boilers. Total plant lighting consumes around 550,000
kilowatt-hours annually, costing around $30,000 per year at the gross rate of 5.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour. This is about 8% of the total annual electricity cost of around $350,000 and is low
by industry standards. A lighting survey was conducted at the plant. While lighting intensities
seem adequate in most general areas, quite low intensities were recorded in between equipments,
equipment rears and corners. Many of these low intensity areas (particularly in the front and
middle dryer rooms, meat dumper inspection stations, and separator room) are active processing
and maintenance areas and improved lighting intensities in these areas could improve safety and
operational convenience. A replacement of the plant metal halide fixtures with a good layout of
T8 fluorescent fixtures with electronic ballasts together with some task lighting and lighting
controls in specific areas of the plant can reduce lighting electricity consumption in the 40 - 50%
range, simultaneously improving lighting quality approaching 50%. Direct savings in electricity
would be in the $12,000-15,000 per year, not including any economic value for improved safety
and productivity. This is approaching a 4% reduction in overall electricity consumption. Payback
on capital is estimated in the 5 year range; this is somewhat higher than normal due to the
expected higher cost of specialty fixtures needed in a food processing plant (enclosed, shielded,
chemical resistant and suitable for wet location). Hot water usage is estimated at around 15,000
gallons/day, 5 days a week. Total water usage at the plant is estimated at 50,000 gallons/day (5-
47
day average). The hot water needs consumes about 5000 MM Btu/year (about $50,000/year) and
is about 12% of the boiler load (and only 3% of total gas usage). Overall hot water generation
efficiency is expected at around 70% or below. Direct-fired condensing hot water heaters 95-
99% efficient are available for sanitizing hot water needs at food processing plants. So,
apparently a large efficiency approaching 30% can be gained in the hot water system with a new
replacement. However, the low hot water consumption, and subsequent low natural gas
utilization may yield a payback of 5 years or longer. 30% of estimated current consumption
would be worth about $15,000 per year at a natural gas rate of $9.5/MMBtu.
Table D-1: Summary of Estimated Savings for Snacks Food Company
Energy Opportunity Annual Savings Estimated Savings Estimated Greenhouse
Gas Savings, tons
2 Boilers @ $10K/year by
oxygen control $20K
2105 MM BTU
($20K/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
123 tons (@117 lbs of CO2
per MM BTU)
2 Boilers @ $10K/year by
recovery of stack heat $20K
2105 MM BTU
($20K/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
123 tons (@117 lbs of CO2
per MM BTU)
2 Boilers @ $10K/year by
operation of multiple boilers $20K
2105 MM BTU
($20K/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
123 tons (@117 lbs of CO2
per MM BTU)
Electricity $12K - $15K 200,000 kWh ($12K/0.06
per kWh)
134 tons (@ 1.34 lbs of CO2
per kWh generated)
Replacement of water heaters $15K
1578 MM BTU
($15K/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
92 tons (@117 lbs of CO2 per
MM BTU)
48
Appendix E
Assessment 5: Energy Efficiency Assessment for a Large Food Snack Company
An energy assessment was completed for a large snack food processor in Ohio to identify
improvement and savings opportunities. Several efficiency improvement recommendations those
are practical and realistic for implementation at this facility were provided. One of the potentially
more immediate recommendations was modification to the ventilation system to reduce
temperature stratification in the production room. Modifications to the ventilation system as
describe in more detail below may potentially provide an attractive return on investment, ROI.
This idea is clearly one that merits further engineering considerations because of the low capital
costs and attractive ROI and estimated saving in the $20,000 - $40,000 per year range. Another
recommendation that would potentially have the most significant impact of these energy
efficiency ideas is using fryer stack waste heat to preheat the frying oil. Stack temperatures as
measured on the roof indicate that there is a considerable amount of wasted energy. Collecting
this waste stack heat and using it to preheat the frying oil would provide E2 savings all year,
even in the hottest summertime days. The estimated savings are in the $150,000 per year range
though further investigation would be needed into the available heat recovery equipment and
installation. Examples of packaged heat recovery products specific to snack-food fryers include
Heat & Control‘s Booster Heater (Model BH Series) for pre-heating cooking oil and their Heat
Recovery System (Model HRS Series) for space and water heating or product drying. Several
other manufacturers provide condensing economizers and heat recovery systems for use with
boilers, turbines and food-processing fryers and ovens, like Combustion & Energy Systems‘
ConDex condensing economizer. Also available are integrated pollution control and heat
recovery systems that incinerate oil, particulates and volatiles from fryer stacks and transfer the
waste heat to the cooking oil (Heat & Control‘s KleenHeat Pollution Control Heat Exchanger,
Model KHX Series).
Conversion to T8/T5 fluorescent lighting throughout the plant is already underway. The
estimated impact of this change on electric usage is in the $40,000 – $50,000 per year range.
The conversion from metal halide HID lighting to well implemented T8/T5 lighting in a food
plant typically has a pay back ROI in the 3 - 5 year range due to the relatively higher cost of the
enclosed and fixtures capable of handling the sanitizing chemicals and water sprays. Two A.O.
Smith Dura-Max water heaters, rated at 1.81 MM Btu input & 80% nominal efficiency, provide
hot water for sanitizing and other needs at the plant. Direct-fired condensing water heaters rated
at or above 98% efficiency, like Kemco Systems‘ 99.7% efficient TE 100 Direct Contact Water
Heater, are often used at food-processing plants for hot water supply. While overall hot water
generation efficiency can be increased by as much as 20% (from 75% with existing heaters to
95%), the initial savings estimate of $11,500 per year for 24,000 gal/day hot water usage would
not justify the capital expense of immediately replacing the existing systems with a direct-fired
system. It was recommended that as the existing water heaters reach their end of life and need
replacement or if plant expansion and modifications require a rework of the existing system,
direct-fired water heating system should be given consideration and investigated.
49
Table E-1: Summary of Estimated Savings for a Large Snacks Food Company
Energy Opportunity Annual Savings Estimated Savings Estimated Greenhouse
Gas Savings, tons
Modification to Ventilation $20K - $40K 333,333 kWh ($20K/$0.06
per kWh)
223tons (@1.34 lbs of CO2
per kWh generated)
Collecting Waste Stack Heat $150K
15,789 MM BTU
($150K/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
923 tons (@117 lbs of CO2
per MM BTU)
Electricity $40K - $50K 666,666 kWh ($40K/$0.06
per kWh)
446 tons (@1.34 lbs of CO2
per kWh generated)
Heater $11,500
1210 MM BTU
($11,500/$9.5 per MM
BTU)
71 tons (@117 lbs of CO2 per
MM BTU)
50
Appendix F
Assessment 6: Waste Reduction at the Ketchup Processing Plant
A large ketchup processing plant in Ohio wants to investigate ways to reduce product wastage
and waste disposal associated costs. Residual product at the end of production shift in transfer
pipelines throughout the plant gets washed down the sewer during cleaning shift. Apart from lost
product, high sewer surcharges are incurred for this waste. The assessment will quantify volume
and economic value of lost product, develop appropriate recovery and preservation strategies,
and reuse options for the recovered product. Estimates related to potential sewer surcharge
reduction were included in the economic analysis. Initial estimates indicate that over 30% could
be diverted from the waste stream and reformulated into finished product. Sampling and testing
of the residual product at the end of production shift was completed by EISC and plant staff. The
conclusion from the sampling and testing of the ketchup discharged down the sewer is that there
is sufficient product to collect at the end of the shift to make the piping modifications beneficial
and would result in significant pollution prevention of the wastewater discharged by the plant.
EISC is contacting the company to find out if they have implemented any recommendations.
51
Appendix G
Assessment 7: Waste Reduction for a Cincinnati Aerospace Parts Manufacturer
Background
A large aerospace supplier located in the Cincinnati area wanted to examine its wood and paper
waste to determine if the waste could be reduced or recycled. The company employs 190 people
and manufactures airframe structures and jet engine components for the military. The company
had a recycling program already in place for scrap metal, oil and silver, but wanted to expand
that program to include other waste streams. Through a pollution prevention assessment, the
team would identify additional waste reduction and recycling opportunities, develop a
comprehensive recycling program and assist the company‘s work towards its goal of becoming
ISO 14001 certified.
Approach
TechSolve and a County representative initiated the project by conducting a facility walkthrough
to determine the:
Types of wastes being generated;
Method for storing and handling the wastes;
Quantities of waste generation; and
Processes generating the waste streams.
Based on this walkthrough, the team determined that the wood waste and office paper waste
were the largest volume wastes, and that measures could be taken to reduce the waste. The team
discussed ideas as to how to reduce these two waste streams and developed some options.
The wood waste being generated was from crates that were used to deliver parts, and pallets that
were used for supply delivery. The company placed a separate trailer for collection of these
wood wastes. To reduce the amount of wood waste, the team recommended that the company
offer the crates back to the supplier or to find a local company that could use the crates. As a
second alternative, the team recommended the company contract with a local recycling firm to
prevent the wood waste from being disposed in the landfill.
Paper waste is being generated by the office staff during normal business activities and much of
this paper is retention and eventual disposal of customer orders and drawings. Confidential
documents are first destroyed in a paper shredder, and then disposed with the other municipal
trash. The team recommended the following actions to reduce paper waste:
Use electronic document storage whenever allowable;
Double-side copies whenever possible;
Scan and store documents on CDs or other electronic media; and
Minimize paper magazines and have employees‘ access on-line media rather than
ordering magazines and catalogs.
52
In addition to the paper and wood waste, TechSolve also provided the company with a training
program for ISO 14001 general awareness that was delivered by the company to all employees.
The team also provided the company with a free mercury pick-up option so that the company can
remove the remaining mercury switches from its facility and reduce the possibility for an
accidental release.
Table G-1: Summary of Actual Savings for a Cincinnati Aerospace Parts Manufacturer
Project Annual Cost Savings Environmental Results Status
Mercury Recovery $1,500 – actual 30 grams of mercury Fully implemented
Wood recycling $1,800 – actual 480 yd3/yr Fully implemented
Office recycling TBD 37 tons /yr In progress
53
Appendix H
Assessment 8: Energy Audit for a Cincinnati Food Manufacturer
Background
A local food manufacturing facility wanted to reduce its energy consumption by 5 percent. The
manufacturing site employs approximately 60 people and makes food products for its restaurant
chain.
Approach
The company‘s most viable option for addressing energy savings was the Ohio Department of
Development‘s (ODOD) energy grant program. The program is geared towards companies that
spend $350,000+ per year on energy, and it would enable the company to purchase new energy-
efficient equipment with grant funds up to $50,000. The grant required the company to fulfill the
following:
Phase 1—Energy Diagnostic
Phase 2—Management plan development (third-party energy audit)
Phase 3—Implementation (subsidy for equipment purchase)
Agreeing to the initial phase of the grant, the company participated in the energy diagnostic that
was conducted by TechSolve on behalf of the ODOD. The commissary earned a ―needs
improvement‖ rating, indicating an opportunity to move forward on Phases 2 and 3 of the grant.
Projects identified in the third-party energy audit (Phase 2) are eligible for grant subsidy (phase
3) while funding lasts.
Results
Lighting
Most of the lighting in the commissary area is high bay, T12 fluorescent lights with low
temperature ballast. A few of the areas have 400 W metal halide fixtures. The office lighting is
mostly T12s, with a few areas that have been upgraded to T8.
Table H-1: Summary of Office Lighting Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer
54
Table H-2: Summary of Factory Lighting Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer
Boiler Controls
Currently, the first boiler is set to maintain a certain pressure (85 psi) and the second boiler
stages on when the pressure falls 15 psi in the header. There are a couple of energy-related issues
with this scenario. If the pressure drop is a temporary one (which is what may happen when all
process kettles fire on at once), by the time the second boiler is enabled and heats up the water
from ambient temperature to the temperature needed for steam (usually about 15 minutes), there
may no longer be a need for steam pressure and the second boiler goes into standby, without ever
having contributed any steam to the system. A boiler staging control system would eliminate
frequent second boiler cycling, and would automatically equalize run hours between them.
Table H-3: Summary of Boiler Savings for Cincinnati Food Manufacturer
55
In addition to the technical audit provided by the contractor, TechSolve also developed an energy
management plan to assist the company in sustaining energy savings through better energy
practices such as:
Strategic planning;
Integrating energy into the business culture;
Documenting all energy-related actions; and
Establishing minimum criteria for addressing energy issues.
The company is currently reviewing the energy projects to be implemented.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $737 + $6,140.40 + $2,680.53 = $ 9,557.93
Energy saved in kWh/yr = [(0.28*33,000) + (0.44*153120)] = 76,612.8 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 76,612.8 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 51 tons
Energy saved in MM BTU/yr = ($2,680.53/$9.5 per MM BTU) = 282.16 MM BTU
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 282.16 MM BTU @117 lbs of CO2 per MM BTU = 16 tons
56
Appendix I
Assessment 9: Energy Audit for a Cincinnati Printing Company
Background
A small printing company located in Cincinnati, Ohio that manufactures pressure sensitive,
prime and bar code labels and tags, was faced with increasing energy costs. The company
learned about the State‘s energy program called EnVinta and decided to participate to discover
ways to reduce energy costs.
Approach
TechSolve conducted the required Phase 1 diagnostic using the EnVinta Achiever software.
Based on the outcome of this diagnostic, it was recommended that the company focus on:
Understanding saving opportunities
Metering and Reporting
Energy supply
Awareness and training
Targets and Performance Indicators
.
In addition, it was also recommended that the company have a technical audit conducted to
identify energy savings opportunities that could be funded through the State‘s energy program.
The company agreed to proceed with Phase 2 part and have a technical audit conducted by a
contractor and the energy management plan developed by TechSolve.
Results
Based on the technical review, the contractor recommended the company:
Re-roof the facility with higher efficiency foam roofing materials;
Re-lamp the facility with T-8 fluorescent lights; and
Recover heat from the processing area.
ECM-1 - Replace the shop floor roof with a roof of R=12 or greater.
The building is masonry construction with a metal deck, ballasted EPDM (ethylene propylene
diene monomer rubber) roof. The walls lack insulation, and the roof is minimally insulated
(R=6). Because of the disruption to the building inherent with retrofitting insulation into the
walls, this was not evaluated as a potential for energy savings. However, the roofs of both the
shop floor, and the warehouse, are in need of replacement. It is recommended that both roofs be
replaced with new roofs with increased insulation value. The new roofs are recommended to
have an R value of 12 or greater to achieve the energy savings shown below.
Table I-1a: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Replacing Shop Floor Roof with
Roof of R=12 or Greater
Energy Usage, Initial, mmbtu/yr 467.6
Energy Usage, After upgrade, mmbtu/yr 257.2
Energy savings, % 45%
57
Estimated Utility Cost Savings $3,694.96
Installed Cost $59,345.00
Simple Payback >20 years
ECM-1 (cont) - Replace the warehouse roof with a roof of R=12 or greater.
Table I-1b: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Replacing Warehouse Roof with
Roof of R=12 or Greater
Energy Usage, Initial, mmbtu/yr 120
Energy Usage, After upgrade, btu/yr 72
Energy savings, % 40%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings $931.35
Installed Cost $29,672
Simple Payback >20 years
ECM- 2 – Install a fan and ductwork to recover the heat rejected by the air compressor.
There is potential for recovering the heat in the area of the air compressor. Another option
would be to install a fan with a small amount of ductwork and an intake near the air compressor,
to convey the warm air from the area around the compressor to either the second floor of the
warehouse, or the first floor.
Additionally, for occupant comfort in the warehouse, consideration should be given to adding an
exhaust fan in the compressor area, to relieve heat buildup in the area in the summer.
Table I-2: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Installing Fan and Ductwork
Energy Usage, Initial, ccf 2000
Energy Usage, After upgrade, ccf 1028
Energy savings, % 48%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings $1186.62
Installed Cost $10,000
Simple Payback 8.4 years
ECM-3– Install a make-up air unit with gas heat for the printing shop area.
Because of the volume of air exhausted from the space, doors are difficult to close and the strip
curtain from the dock into the shop area was blowing inwards. This indicates that a high amount
of infiltration of outside air is occurring. High infiltration increases cooling and heating load in
the space. Typically, manufacturing spaces that exhaust a lot of air provide make-up air to the
space. However, since this make-up air is not air conditioned, it would not lessen cooling load.
The make-up air could be preheated before introducing it to the space. This may be a route to
investigate after operating the space into the winter without the boiler. It may be possible to
eliminate operation of the boiler entirely if heated, make-up air is provided to the printing shop
area. If this option is pursued, the duct configuration could utilize pulling air from the area of the
air compressor (to recover this waste heat) and using this air to preheat the outdoor air before it is
introduced to the building.
58
Table I-3: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Installing Make-up Air Unit
Energy Usage, Initial, CFH 4800
Energy Usage, After upgrade, CFH 2308
Energy savings, % 52%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings per year $3043.84
Installed Cost $25,000
Simple Payback 8.2 years
ECM-4– Upgrade lighting in print shop area.
Lighting in the shop area is fluorescent strip lighting, with supplemental metal halides. The
fluorescent strip lighting needs to use a certain type of bulb so that the color spectrum is
appropriate for viewing printed material. The shop area has (40) 8 foot, 2 lamp fluorescent
fixtures with what appeared to be magnetic ballasts. There are (16) metal halides, which have
experienced considerable color change (indicating that the lamps are near the end of their service
life). It is recommended that the lighting in the shop area be upgraded. The strip lighting should
be replaced with T8 lamps of appropriate spectrum, with matched electronic ballasts. The metal
halides should be replaced with high bay compact fluorescents. The upgrade of the high bay
fixtures would provide the most utility cost savings.
Table I-4: Economic Summary for Printing Company by Upgrading Lighting
High Bay 1 fixtures 16 fixtures
Energy Usage, Initial, kwh 2855 45680
Energy Usage, After upgrade, kwh 1583 25328
Energy savings, % 44% 44%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings per year $120.82 $1933.12
Installed Cost $390 $6240
Simple Payback 3.2 years 3.2 years
Strip Fluorescents, Shop 1 fixtures 40 fixtures
Energy Usage, Initial, kwh 951
38068
Energy Usage, After upgrade, kwh 777 31080
Energy savings, % 18.3% 18.3%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings per year $16.58 $663.20
Installed Cost $95 $3800
Simple Payback 5.7 years 5.7 years
To date, the company has replaced its roof to the more efficient roof and is implementing the
lighting retrofit. The energy management plan provided by TechSolve is designed to sustain
energy savings through better energy practices including:
Developing energy trends and reviewing demand and power factor;
Providing general awareness training for its employees;
59
Correcting energy waste as it is identified and identifying the resources that can assist
with energy waste reductions; and
Documenting efforts towards energy management.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ (3694.96 + 931.35 + 1,186.62 + 3,043.84 +1,933.12 +663.20) =
$11,453.09
Annual savings in MM BTU = [(0.45*467.6) + (0.4*120) + (0.48*(2000 CCF*0.1 MM
BTU/CCF)) + ((0.52*4800CFH*103BTU/hr*8765.8hr/yr)/10
6)] = 22,154.42 MM BTU
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 22,154.42 MM BTU @117 lbs of CO2 per MM BTU =
1,296 tons
Annual savings in kWh = [(0.44*15680) + (0.18*38068)] = 26,951.44 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 26,951.44 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 18 tons
60
Appendix J
Assessment 10: Energy Assessment for a Southwest Ohio Garden
Background
A local Garden has taken the initiative to go ―green‖ and reduce its impact on the environment.
The Garden has always been a leader in energy efficiency, and has Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified facilities on site. However, the Garden‘s facilities are
aging and some of the infrastructure is outdated and needs to be upgraded. The Garden chose to
examine the State energy program because of its ability to address sustaining energy savings.
Approach
TechSolve conducted the initial Phase 1 energy diagnostic to determine the Garden‘s current
energy management practices. According to the diagnostic results, the Garden needs to focus on
the following elements to improve energy management:
1. Reporting, feedback, and control systems
a. Generate monthly reports depicting overall energy use per unit of activity (e.g.,
kWh per area) and examine results where they show large cost or usage variance
from target.
2. Targets, key performance indicators (KPI), and motivation
a. Set overall energy savings targets for reducing energy costs or improving energy
efficiency based on benchmarking or an assessment of opportunities.
3. Operating procedures
a. Establish basic operating procedures/work instructions for all energy intensive
processes and equipment.
4. Purchasing procedures and alternative energy options-
a. Routinely review energy prices to determine if better rates can be attained.
5. Metering and monitoring
a. Regularly monitor the energy use of all major facilities/cost centers/energy-
intensive end users.
b. Calibrate and regularly service energy metering/monitoring systems to ensure
reliable data are available
TechSolve was hired to develop an energy management plan that will assist the Garden with
their green initiatives and to sustain energy savings. The Garden was also in need of a technical
audit to determine what projects would provide quick payback energy savings. A contractor was
hired to conduct the energy assessment.
Results
TechSolve based the energy management plan on the results of the EnVinta diagnostic and the
initiatives that Garden personnel were currently or planning to undertake to reduce waste and
improve energy efficiency. The plan focused on several elements including:
61
Developing a Green Team to help implement the plan elements, provide continual
identification of energy and waste saving opportunities, and provide general awareness
training;
Documenting projects and other elements of the energy plan; and
Providing a three-year strategic plan for project and element implementation.
ECM-1: Replace Primate boilers with modular boilers.
The primary boilers were installed in 1972. At the time the boiler system was designed, it was
intended to put a roof over the outdoor yard and heat this area. This roof was never installed, but
the extra capacity was installed into the boiler system, resulting in considerably more boiler
capacity than is actually required for building usage. Also, the boilers are 30 years old and
nearing the end of their service life. Their estimated efficiency, according to a sales
representative familiar with this type of equipment, is no greater than 80%, and probably less,
due to their age. The boiler system consist of (2) fire-tube, 100 HP boilers, and (1) 500,000 btuh
input boiler. The pumping system is primary/secondary. If the boiler system were replaced with
(2) 2,000,000 btuh input condensing boilers, this would considerably improve system efficiency.
The combustion efficiency would increase to 90 to97 percent, depending on water temperature,
which would result in a corresponding decrease in gas usage. Overall pumping power would
decrease, because the primary pumping power dramatically decreases when a condensing boiler
is utilized. Full modulation of the boiler, rather than an oversized boiler with a 4 to 1 turndown,
would result in boiler burner operation more closely in line with actual load, and would also
decrease gas usage.
Table J-1: Economic Summary for a Garden by Replacing Primate Boilers
Energy Usage, Initial, btu 4,311,953,605
Energy Usage, After upgrade, btu 3,599,013,917
Energy savings, % 16.5%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings per year $9512.52
Installed Cost $175,000
Simple Payback 18.3 years
The economics summary represents the savings due to boiler efficiency and pumping power
only. Additional savings due to full modulation of an appropriately sized boiler, versus an
oversized boiler with limited turndown will also be realized.
ECM-2: Replace Autogate boiler with a modular boiler.
The Autogate boiler is original to the building, which dates from about 1968. It is a cast iron
sectional boiler, and it has noticeable degradation of the tube sheet. It has past the end of its
service life. Replacing this boiler would reduce gas usage in the Autogate. Gas usage for the
last service year was 3495 CCF, or $4675. This is a fairly high number for a building of its size.
62
Table J-2: Economic Summary for a Garden by Replacing Autogate Boiler
Energy Usage, Initial, btu 329,333,850
Energy Usage, After upgrade, btu 265,591,814
Energy savings, % 19.4%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings per year $706.22
Installed Cost $15,000
Simple Payback >20 years
ECM-3:
Continue to encourage personnel to raise their thermostat setting to 74-75 degrees in summer and
68 in winter. If thermostats are able to be fixed by HVAC maintenance, then set the thermostats
at the above temperature.
A table indicating energy saved from raising setpoint during cooling season is shown below:
Table J-3: Energy Saved for a Garden by Raising Setpoint
Dry Bulb temperature Btuh/1000 CFM saved, per degree of increase
72 --
73 2,700
74 2,657
75 3,000
Total saved (if thermostat is raised from 72 to
75) 8,357
For example, if the recently remodeled administration building, with 5 units at an average of
1,800 CFM were set up from 72 to 74 degrees during cooling season, this would result in an
energy savings of approximately 48,213 btuh. At an average electrical use of 1.4 kwh/ton for
2500 cooling hours, this would result in a savings of 16,874 kwh or $1350 per year of electrical
usage costs. This example is for one building—the savings would be greatly increased if the
thermostat settings in all the buildings would be raised 2 or 3 degrees.
ECM-4: Lighting.
Lighting systems in several buildings have been upgraded, or are under contract to be upgraded,
to T8 with electronic ballasts, from T12 with magnetic ballasts. This upgrade reduces overall
energy usage for lighting, reduces cooling load from lighting, and also, slightly improves power
factor.
Duke Energy is currently offering small incentives to upgrade these fixtures. A comparison table
of lighting efficiencies and costs is provided below:
63
Table J-4a: Comparison of Lighting (T8 vs T12) for a Garden
Fixture
type Lumens/fixture
Watts/
fixture
Cost per
fixture
Installation
costs
Rebate
from
Duke
Cost to
operate/year
T12,
magnetic
ballast, 2
lamp,2x4
4558 172
$45
(replace
lamp and
ballast)
$35 $26.42
T8,
electronic
ballast, 2
lamp,2x4
5700 124 $55 $35 $4 $19.05
Continuously upgrade T12 lighting to T8 with electronic ballasts where applicable.
Table J-4b: Economic Summary for Upgrading Lighting a Garden
1 fixtures 100 fixtures 500 fixtures
Energy Usage, Initial, kwh 330
33000 165000
Energy Usage, After upgrade,
kwh 238 23800 119000
Energy savings, % 28% 28% 28%
Estimated Utility Cost Savings
per year $7.37 $737.00 $3685.00
Installed Cost (less rebate) $86.00 $8600 $43,000
Simple Payback 11.6 years 11.6 years 11.6 years
The Garden also has a wide variety of other light fixtures. Wherever it is possible, the following
light substitutions should be made:
Table J-4c: Recommended Lighting Replacements for a Garden
Lighting type Higher efficiency
substitution
Approximate wattage
savings/fixture
100 W incandescent Compact fluorescent 50 watts or more
High bay metal halide High bay compact
fluorescent
200 watts
Christmas lights
The Garden hosts an annual holiday event, which involves thousands of strands of Christmas
lights. LED Christmas lights are beginning to be available, and advertise that they use one tenth
64
of the power of traditional Christmas lights, which are incandescent. They are somewhat limited
in design (not as many different options available) but more and more are becoming available.
The costs for these LED strings varied depending on design, but most were in the $8.00-$20.00
per strand, which is somewhat more expensive than a comparable incandescent strand.
However, the cost is not prohibitively higher. The manufacturers claim that the bulbs last
200,000 hours, which would surely outlast the wiring. More research should be done in this
area, such as evaluating several manufacturers for pricing and durability, and then, consideration
should be given to replacing light strands as they fail with comparable LED lights if available.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ (9,512.52 + 706.22 +1,350 +3,685) = $15,253.74
Annual savings in MM BTU = [(0.165*4311.95) + (0.194*329.33)] = 775.27 MM BTU
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 775.27 MM BTU @117 lbs of CO2 per MM BTU = 45 tons
Annual savings in kWh = [16,874 + (0.28*165,000)] = 63,074 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 63,074 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 42 tons
65
Appendix K
Assessment 11: Energy Assessment for a Research Laboratory in Ashland, Ohio
Background
Research Labs contacted Dr Ashok Kumar at University of Toledo Civil Eng. for assistance.
Supplemented by a US EPA Pollution Prevention grant through the University, this assessment
was conducted by CIFT engineers Mr. Rick Mazur & Mr. Somik Ghose. Support was provided
by maintenance and operations personnel at Research Labs. Akhil Kadiyala & Ravikanth
Garimella, Graduate Assistants at the University also assisted in the survey and data analysis.
Walk-through surveys & discussion sessions at site were conducted on May 15 and June 26,
2008.
Summary
The objective of this energy efficiency assessment (E2) was to analyze usage and compare usage
metrics to industry-wide databases to identify efficiency improvement opportunities. Also, assess
renewable energy opportunities.
Utility bills and other records from 2003 to 2008 have been analyzed for electricity and
natural gas. Usage has increased in 2006 and 2007 following most recent expansions. Annual
electricity usage is about 13.5 million kilowatt hours and costs $1.2 million at an average rate of
9 cents per kilowatt hour; about 50% of this cost is demand charges with average monthly billing
demand of 3000 kVA at $18 per kVA. Annual natural gas usage is about 108,000 mcf (1000 ft³)
and cost $1 million at an average rate of $9.5 per mcf. The heating, ventilating and air-
conditioning (HVAC) system is the major user of energy with ventilation and cooling consuming
about 40% and 25% of total electricity respectively, and heating consuming over 90% of total
gas. Water bills analyzed for 2008 indicate an average usage of 100 ccf (100 ft³) or 75,000
gallons per day that would cost about $260,000 annually at $7.2 per ccf total for water & sewer.
Comparison to datasets from DOE & US EPA‘s Labs21 environmental performance
program indicates a well-designed and optimized system at Research Labs on an average. Usage
metrics are in mid-range of Labs21 data and improvement opportunities exist at Research Labs
to reduce consumption to best (low) ranges. However, Research Labs is subject to higher utility
rates increasing total cost than average Labs21 data. Among featured energy efficiency
technologies, Research Labs has already implemented many in the newer expansions like
variable air volume (VAV) ventilation system and fume hoods; variable frequency drives
(VFDs) for pump, fan and chiller motors; NEMA premium efficiency motors; exhaust air heat
recovery; direct digital control (DDC) building automation system; power factor correction;
efficient lighting with timers & photo-sensors; efficient cage-washers with counter-current rinse
water recycling; and alkaline digester for waste management.
Further improvements could be possible with operational changes and best management
practices, which are usually low-capital, fast-return opportunities but require a systems approach
for implementation and performance verification. For example, manual or automatic night-time
and unoccupied-time setbacks for HVAC & lighting; HAVC temperature, humidity or air flow
set-point changes; dry pre-cleaning with squeezes before wet wash-down, etc. Larger
improvements also could be possible with higher efficiency HVAC system and other equipment
over the moderate efficient equipment at Research Labs; these are usually capital-intensive,
longer-return opportunities, but with significantly higher savings numbers and incentives.
66
Finally, renewable energy systems like geothermal heat pumps for HVAC application and others
like wind turbines or photovoltaic panels could be integrated for sustainability. Various financial
incentives are available for most E2 and renewable energy systems that help reduce installation
capital cost and enhance the economics & return on investment.
Summary of Recommendations
Investigate best available water-cooled chilled-water cooling system with closed-loop
cooling towers, especially for new installation or replacement at end of older equipment
life. Estimates show a $17,000/yr savings for a 200 ton unit over average efficient air-
cooled water chillers at Research Labs. Consider lifecycle analysis and not first cost only.
Consider best available roof top units, especially for new installation or replacement at
end of older equipment life. A 10 ton high efficiency EER 12.5 (Energy Efficiency ratio)
unit will save $400/yr in electric over older EER 9 units at Research Labs.
Investigate further optimization of the HVAC system through E2 set-point changes in the
building automation system. A 2% E2 improvement would be $40,000/yr savings.
Investigate ventilation air change setback opportunities for night-time and unoccupied-
times. A 12 to 4 air change per hour (ACH) reduction in lab spaces considering 1/3rd
unoccupied time would save $40,000/yr.
Investigate any remaining opportunities for variable frequency drives, NEMA premium
efficiency motors, and waste heat recovery. Return on investments is often 1 year or less
depending on applications.
Investigate condensing feedwater economizer for a steam boiler, savings could be
$12,000/yr for a 200 HP boiler. Investigate high efficiency condensing heating systems
with 95-99% efficiency over moderate 80% efficient equipment at Research Labs.
Investigate desiccant-based dehumidification system to replace part of cold-coil
dehumidification that costs $300,000/yr.
Investigate peak demand management opportunities with thermal storage and distributed
generation. 800 kW of peak demand reduction during summer months could save
$75,000/yr.
Consider occupancy sensors & controls for lighting.
Ensure high 0.97-0.99 power factor with correction capacitors.
Consider R30 wall and R50 roof insulation for future expansions. Installation premium
for higher insulation levels in new construction and major renovations usually pays back
in 1 to 2 heating seasons.
Investigate a vertical loop geothermal heat pump that operates as a dual heating &
cooling system for part of total HVAC load.
Consider financial incentives for E2 & renewable energy systems.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ (17,000 + 400 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 12,000 + 300,000 + 75,000) = $
484,400
Annual savings in MM BTU = [(0.15(estimated % savings)*12,000 (Annual Savings)/9.5(Cost
per MM BTU or mcf)] = 189.47 MM BTU
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 189.47 MM BTU @117 lbs of CO2 per MM BTU = 11 tons
67
Annual savings in kWh = [(17,000 + 400 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 300,000 + 75,000)Total
Savings/(0.09)Cost per kWh] = 5,248,888 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 5,248,888 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 3516 tons
68
Appendix L
Assessment 12: Energy Assessment for Food Safety Systems, Ohio
Background
Food Safety Systems contacted Center for Innovative Food Technology (CIFT) for
assistance. Supplemented by a US EPA Pollution Prevention grant through the University of
Toledo Civil Engineering, this assessment was conducted by CIFT engineers Mr. Rick Mazur &
Mr. Somik Ghose. Support was provided by several maintenance and operations personnel at
Food Safety Systems. Walk-through surveys & discussion sessions at site were conducted on
May 7 and June 18, 2008.
Summary
The objective of this energy efficiency (E2) assessment was to analyze energy usage and
identify efficiency improvement opportunities at Food Safety Systems‘ Distribution Center.
Food Safety Systems‘ Headquarter & Office has several energy efficient features in place
including lighting and ventilation and adopted several green management practices including
waste recycling.
Utility bills and other records from 2006 to 2008 have been analyzed for natural gas and
electricity at the Distribution Center. Annual natural gas usage is about 2,300 mcf (1000 ft³) and
cost $27,500 at an average rate of $12 per mcf. The heating, ventilating and air-conditioning
(HVAC) roof top packaged units consume almost 100% of total gas. Annual electricity usage is
about 365,000 kilowatt hours and costs $26,000 at an average rate of 7 cents per kilowatt hour.
The roof top units are also the major user of energy with summer cooling consuming about 35%
of total electricity ($8,900/year) and winter ventilation another 20% of total electric
($5,300/year). Lighting accounts for 15% ($3,700/year) of total electric with the rest 30%
assumed to be for processing and support.
Further improvements could be possible with insulation on the concrete block wall and
air-circulation ceiling fans. An R10 insulation improvement on the current 10,000 ft² of R2
hollow-core concrete block wall will reduce heating energy cost by $10,000 per year; some
additional savings from insulation would also occur in cooling mode during summer. Air-
circulation fans have the potential of preventing air stratification in the high-bay areas,
particularly during winter, and enhance year-round occupancy comfort in the working spaces.
Regular inspection and maintenance of the roof top HVAC units will ensure efficient operation
and prevent increase in energy usage. Finally, renewable energy systems like geothermal heat
pumps for HVAC application and others like small wind turbines or small photovoltaic systems
could be integrated for sustainability. Various financial incentives are available for most E2 and
renewable energy systems that help reduce installation capital cost and enhance the economics &
return on investment.
Summary of Recommendations
Investigate R10 insulation system on the concrete block wall. The concrete hollow-core
block wall is the single largest type of surface area with the least insulation, estimated at
R2 (All the way to 20-feet high in the south and south-east and south-west corners and 7-
feet high from the base in the north, west and the north-east corner). About 2‖ of suitable
insulation could provide insulation of R10 or higher and an annual savings estimated at
69
$10,000. With a material cost of $1/ft² or less for the insulation, a one year payback on
materials is expected. Installation cost needs to be factored in for complete payback
estimate.
Examples for appropriate insulation on the concrete wall could be rigid foam panels or
insulation batts with a stud wall setup or could be sprayed foam-in-place. Some
information provided in appendix.
Investigate insulation improvement for the current sheathed wall with only about 1.5 inch
insulation. This insulation system is deteriorating with age and seems damaged at some
locations.
Alternatively for insulation, investigate exterior wall insulation for entire building.
Several manufacturers provide this solution called Exterior Insulation & Finish System
(EIFS).
Investigate ceiling mounted large diameter (24‖ or higher) low-wattage slow-rpm fans at
strategic locations in the high-bay area to facilitate better air circulation around partition
walls and high storage racks. Heating and cooling energy will be reduced and occupancy
comfort in working spaces will improve in both winter and summer. Annual total HVAC
related cost is $41,200 and a 3% reduction would save $1200/year.
Consider best available roof top units, especially for new installation or replacement at
end of older equipment life. A 10 ton high efficiency EER 13.0 (Energy Efficiency ratio)
unit will save over $200/yr in electric over older EER 9 units at Food Safety Systems.
Implement a regular pre-season inspection and maintenance schedule for the roof top
units. In particular, pay attention to the mechanical performance of the economizer. In
general economizers can save up to 20% of the RTU‘s annual energy consumption. 20%
of $6500/year in heating & cooling for each 20-ton unit like at Food Safety Systems will
be $1300/year.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ (10,000 + 1,200 + 200 + 1,300) = $ 12,700
Annual savings in kWh = [(12,700)Total Savings/(0.07)Cost per kWh] = 181,428 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 181,428 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 121 tons
70
Appendix M
Assessment 13: Energy Assessment for a Southeast Ohio Casting Facility
Background
A metals casting facility wanted to reduce its energy consumption because of rising energy
prices and falling market share. The company employs approximately 50 people at this location,
and manufactures bearings for the automotive industry.
Approach
The company participated in the Ohio Department of Development‘s (ODOD) EnVinta energy
grant program. EnVinta is a diagnostic tool based on the ISO 14001 philosophy of continuous
improvement through established checks and balances. ODOD has purchased licenses from
EnVinta to administer a diagnostic session to allow manufacturers to determine the current state
of energy management practices at their facility and to determine the improvements to achieve
the level of energy management desired. The program is geared towards manufacturers that
spend $350,000+ per year on energy, and it would enable the company to purchase new energy-
efficient equipment with grant funds up to $50,000 issued through ODOD. The grant requires
the company to fulfill the following:
Phase 1—Energy Diagnostic
Phase 2—Management plan development (third-party energy audit preferred)
Phase 3—Implementation (subsidy for equipment purchase)
Agreeing to the initial phase of the grant, the company participated in the energy diagnostic that
was conducted by TechSolve on behalf of the ODOD. The company earned a two-star rating out
of five stars which indicates the company has some energy reduction measures underway, but
documented procedures have not been fully established.
Results
The company is currently undergoing a major facility overhaul, and for that reason, a technical
audit has not been performed for this facility. TechSolve developed an energy management plan
to assist the company with procedures and practices to sustain energy savings. The plan includes
information on:
Forming an energy team to sustain the energy program;
Identifying roles and responsibilities;
Specifying requirements for records and documentation for historical information;
Developing an energy policy;
Providing general awareness training;
Modifying operations and maintenance procedures to incorporate energy efficiency; and
Auditing the energy management program for continuous improvement opportunity
identification.
Based on the EnVinta diagnostic, the company has the potential annual savings of:
11 to 15 percent on its electrical consumption or 1.45 x 106 to 1.98 x 10
6 kwh/yr
10,000 tons carbon dioxide
71
These estimates are based on the industry sector and the responses to the EnVinta diagnostic.
The project was completed in July 2008.
72
Appendix N
Assessment 14: Energy Audit of a Consumer Products Manufacturer
TechSolve was engaged by a Cincinnati Area high volume consumer products company to
develop to evaluate specific energy conservation opportunities and elaborate the energy
management plan. Key opportunities include reuse of low pressure steam for process heating,
closed loop water cooling to eliminate extensive use of descaling chemistry, reduction of
sewerage through reuse of condenser water, and recovery/reuse of caustic that is currently
neutralized and sewered. The project entailed development of material and energy value stream
process maps.
Current Process
Purchased steam (150# and 366 F) is used to heat and maintain process temperatures in
one process. The liquid condensate is then returned to the supplier.
Recommendation
Consider substituting the used steam (25# and 260F) from for higher pressure steam. A
rough estimate for capital cost is thought to be $5000 for piping, $5000 for valves, $5000
for labor and $5000 for miscellaneous or $20,000 total.
Benefits
Economic
o Energy savings -Reduced new steam purchases
o Reduced processing costs
Environmental
o Conservation of natural resources/energy
ROI
The use of lower pressure steam will save a minimum of $100,000 annually (and perhaps double
that) at an implementation cost of $50,000 – roughly a six month payback.
Calculation Summary:
Annual savings in MM BTU = [($100,000 (Annual Savings)/9.5(Cost per MM BTU)] = 10526.3
MM BTU
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 10526.3 MM BTU @117 lbs of CO2 per MM BTU = 615
tons
73
Appendix O
Assessment 15: Energy Reduction for an Ohio Vegetable Processor
An Ohio vegetable processor wants to optimize steam and reduce natural gas usage for pollution
prevention. This assessment by EISC identified a 20 to 22% improvement in steam usage and
thereby an equivalent reduction in natural gas usage for steam boiler system of 5,000
MMBtu/year (at 20% reduction, resulting in avoided emissions of about 292 ton/year CO2
and 750 lb/year of NOx), and recommended installation of a multiple-boiler sequencing
controller. Working with the client, multiple price quotation from equipment vendors and
suppliers have been procured and evaluated for a payback analysis, and implementation is
targeted for the 2010 processing season.
74
Appendix P
Assessment 16: Energy Audit for an Ohio Aerospace Products Manufacturer
A phase 1 energy audit for an Ohio aerospace products manufacturer was conducted by
TechSolve. Key energy management recommendations included:
Generate monthly reports of energy use
Implement an annual planning process
Conduct basic energy-awareness activities the organization
Implement maintenance practices
Store monthly bills and metered energy use information in a database for ready access
Assessment 17: Energy Audit for an Ohio Home Décor Manufacturer
A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with a rural Ohio home décor manufacturer. Key energy
management recommendations included:
Bring energy costs to attention of management
Set overall energy saving target
Conduct basic energy-awareness activities the organization
Develop resource planning activities to reduce energy waste
Review energy savings projects annually
Assessment 18: Energy Audit for Middletown Aerospace Products Manufacturer
A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with a Middletown aerospace products manufacturer.
Key energy management recommendations included:
Obtain interval metering for all major energy supplies
Establish energy consumption by major users
Report on energy management activities in executive-level meetings
Assign accountability of energy management to end users and support improvements
Establish a group to coordinate energy management activities
Establish specific performance indicators
Recognize energy management achievements of individuals/teams
Assessment 19: Energy Audit for an Ohio Electrical Control and Distribution Equipment
Company
A phase 1 energy audit was conducted with an Ohio small community electrical control and
distribution equipment company. Key energy management recommendations included:
Conduct basic energy-awareness activities within the organization
Assign accountability of energy management to end users and support improvements
75
Establish a group to coordinate energy management activities
Calibrate and regularly service energy metering/monitoring systems
Recognize energy management achievements of individuals/teams
The average indicative energy savings for these companies in assessments 16, 17, 18, and
19, totals $410,000. TechSolve is proposing a Phase 2 detailed assessment to evaluate
specific energy conservation opportunities and elaborate the energy management plan.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ 410,000
Annual savings in kWh = [(410,000)Total Savings/(0.07)Cost per kWh] = 5,857,142 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 181,428 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 3,924 tons
76
Appendix Q
Assessment 20: Waste Reduction at a Cincinnati Bakery
A TechSolve team visited a Cincinnati bakery to identify Pollution Prevention solutions for
waste of buns and dough.
Current process
The bakery produces 1.3 million buns per day. Each bun is produced with one ounce of
dough. Presently, 200,000 pounds (100 tons) of mixed dough (~20%) and baked
product (~80%) are rejected and land filled. More than $100,000 in material, labor and
landfill cost is incurred annually.
Recommendation
Locate a free or paying recycler that will pick up the waste material in a convenient and
timely manner.
Work with TechSolve on solving the human error problem that creates the waste.
Benefits
Economic
o Unnecessary disposal costs will be avoided
o Possible revenue stream from the sale of the costly waste material
o Cost savings by reducing downstream rejects and out of spec batches
Environmental
o Recycles the waste into a useable product
o Reduces the waste by solving human error problem
77
Appendix R
Assessment 21: Waste Reduction and Grey Water Reclaiming/Recycling for a Cincinnati
Concrete Company
A TechSolve team visited a Cincinnati area concrete company to review operations, collect
information for waste reduction and discuss improvement options. The main focus was on how
to better dispose or reduce spent cement solid materials from truck washing, aggregate recovery,
and job returns that consequently accumulate in the ―mountain‖ at the rear of the property. Also,
establishing a grey water recycling system, the company already has a reclaiming process.
Current process
The heaviest materials (aggregates) fall out in the first stage, then the slurry of lighter
suspended materials overflow into the second pit over a weir. This lighter material falls
out and becomes sludge. These materials are removed to the mountain. The water is
reusable. The company sources fresh water from well on the property and from CWW.
Some of the mountain materials are hauled from the site and used as fill. This is a small
use and is somewhat dependant on fuel (hauling) expenses. Hauling expenses are around
$50,000 per year.
Recommendations
More use of left over concrete on large blocks (expand present market);
Invest in slurry reuse technologies. These technologies fall into P2 solutions in that they
reuse a waste.
o This one is expensive ($350,000 plus $100,000 installation). According to
management, the performance and maintenance requirements are suspect at this
time. In order to pursue this technology, a significant confidence building and
verification commitment by the vendor will be required.
o A less expensive approach investigated by a former employee. This information
needs to be found and reviewed.
Blend with another company‘s waste or by-product to produce a useable material. Paper
mill sludge and grease and oil bottoms were discussed
Treat the unused, returned concrete in the trucks with a chemical additive that will extend
the life (overnight) so that it can be redeployed he following day.
Investigate another useful concrete product line such as the large blocks.
Partner with a complimentary company that makes concrete products
Consider hybrid systems that synergistically combine two or more of the above
alternatives. For example, some returned concrete could be treated for extended life and
the remainder ―slurried‖ for reuse.
Purchase a grey water recycling system
Use stabilizing chemical admixture system
Benefits
Economical
o Develops a profit stream by converting waste into a useable product
78
o Reduces processing costs
o Possibly increasing customer base by expanding product line/usage
o Saves labor and equipment costs
Environmental
o Reduce, recycle and reuse waste
o Decreases environmental problems associated with the disposal of residual wash
water
o Reduces amount of water required for wash down
o Reduces the need to dispose of wash water
A financial comparison of a recycle system vs. admixtures should be considered before adopting
either approach.
79
Appendix S
Assessment 22: Energy Audit for an Ohio Industrial Chemical Manufacturer
TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit for an Ohio industrial chemical manufacturer. Key
energy management recommendations included:
Implement an annual planning process that identifies all priority projects, schedules,
responsibilities and budgets.
Use vendor and publicly available energy efficiency guidelines when selecting new
equipment.
Incorporate energy efficiency guidelines from equipment manuals/vendors into your
operating procedures for energy intensive operations. Recognize the linkage between
energy efficiency and production throughput in all operating instructions and include
actions to reduce energy use during turndowns, stoppages, and delays.
Conduct or provide energy-awareness training for operations and maintenance teams
in energy intensive areas that includes energy-related procedures and work
instructions aimed at optimizing energy performance. Conduct or provide basic
training for project management staff in energy-efficient plant design, and
specification, procurement, and repair of equipment to maximize energy efficiency.
Account for the human resources required to implement projects on time while
planning energy management activities. Ensure this process considers the time
impacts for all related activities, including project management and verification.
Assessment 23: Energy Audit for a Dry Food Products Manufacturer
TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit for a dry food products manufacturer. Key energy
management recommendations included:
Conduct a baseline study ("energy audit") to establish energy consumption by major
users and opportunities for savings.
Review the results of major energy saving projects at the end of each year.
Develop a strategic, long term energy plan for at least the next two to three years,
with specific actions to improve energy performance and management systems.
Establish specific performance indicators (i.e. kWh per unit of output, dollars per unit
of output, etc.) for energy to manage progress towards overall cost reduction targets.
Have management recognize energy management achievements of individuals and
teams through awards, newsletter articles, etc.
Incorporate energy efficiency guidelines from equipment manuals/vendors into your
operating procedures for energy intensive operations. Recognize the linkage between
energy efficiency and production throughput in all operating instructions and include
actions to reduce energy use during turndowns, stoppages, and delays.
80
Assessment 24: Energy Audit for a Columbus Metal Product Fabricator
TechSolve conducted a phase 1 energy audit with a Columbus metal product fabricator. Key
energy management recommendations included:
Bring energy costs to the attention of management. Emphasize that energy costs are
controllable and are not a fixed overhead cost. If not already the case, list each energy
stream as a separate line item in budgets.
Generate monthly reports depicting overall energy use per unit of activity (e.g. kWh
per ton) and examine results where they show large cost or usage variance from
target.
Conduct a baseline study ("energy audit") to establish energy consumption by major
users and opportunities for savings.
Set overall energy savings targets for reducing energy costs or improving energy
efficiency based on benchmarking or an assessment of opportunities.
Routinely review energy prices to determine whether better rates can be attained.
Assessment 25: Energy Audit for an Ohio Electrical Control and Distribution Equipment
Company
TechSolve performed a phase 1 energy audit was conducted with an Ohio small community
electrical control and distribution equipment company. Key energy management
recommendations included:
Review energy prices at least annually to ensure energy procurement at the best rates
Conduct energy awareness activities within the organization
Incorporate specific energy targets in overall operational cost saving targets
Review energy efficiency trends on a regular basis
Assess the opportunity for peak electrical demand control
The average indicative energy savings for these companies from assessments 22, 23, 24,
and 25 totals $136,250. TechSolve is proposing a Phase 2 detailed assessment to
evaluate specific energy conservation opportunities and elaborate the energy management
plan. TechSolve is currently under contract to conduct a Phase 2 assessment for one of
the companies receiving a Phase 1survey during the last quarter.
Calculation Summary:
Total annual savings = $ 136,250
Annual savings in kWh = [(136,250)Total Savings/(0.07)Cost per kWh] = 1,946,428 kWh
Annual CO2 reduction for savings of 1,946,428 kWh @1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh = 1,304 tons
81
Appendix T
Assessment 26: Wastewater Assessment of an Industrial Organic Chemicals Manufacturer
An Ohio industrial organic chemicals manufacturer is considering an upgrade to its wastewater
treatment equipment and requested that TechSolve review its water consumption to determine
how to proceed. TechSolve completed the assessment and made several recommendations to the
company. They included the reuse of product and change from organic to inorganic flocculants.
Additional details are being held up for confidentiality concerns.
82
Appendix U
Assessment 27: Wastewater Assessment of an Ohio Snack Food Processor
An Ohio Snack Food Processor was studied by EISC for wastewater system assessment and has
been completed in Jan 2010 with a final report and briefing delivered to the client. Given below
are the recommendations made.
Summary of Recommendations:
IFM feels quite confident that changes in chemistry added prior to the Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF) would most likely improve the operation of both the DAF and Belt Press. However, the
following mechanical improvements should be considered before a change in chemistry.
Changes of chemistry should be tested evaluated a few more times before a final
recommendation is made. The following mechanical improvements would likely improve
efficiency and reduce chemical consumption.
Repairs to existing water air saturation column or install a multistage pump to replace the
existing recycle pump and column.
o From our visits, it appears the dissolved bubble formation is not working
consistently indicating that the saturation vessel is water logged and fittings,
valves and diaphragms are fouled with solids. Likely, the existing unit needs to be
torn apart, cleaned, and evaluated with components replaced.
o Use of multistage pump, which takes atmospheric air and creates fine bubbles as
water is pumped through its number of vanes. This option eliminates the need for
compressed air and the saturation column. This pump would be much more
maintenance friendly and work more consistent day in and day out floating
materials.
Further evaluation of different coagulants and flocculants that not only improve DAF
removal rates, but positively improve the dewatering ability of the sludge going to the
Belt Press. By accomplishing improvements of both systems, loadings on the DAF
should ultimately decrease leading to possibly and overall reduction of chemicals and
improved quality of water going to the sewer.
o Preliminary testing and operational observations indicate that the foam generator
is having little effect on float quantity / quality. Also, excessive foam is leaving
the underflow (effluent) of the DAF going to the City of Marion. This indicates an
overfeeding of surfactant that could be adding BOD5 or binding some BOD5 that
could be potentially removed chemically. Also, this surfactant is likely having a
counter affect on the Belt Press making the solids slimy and difficult to dewater.
o Phased approach for possible chemical improvements should be considered per
the following
Improve DAF Float and DAF effluent Quality
83
See if this improvement then leads to improved dewatering of solids on the
Belt Press and Filtrate water from the press is improved.
Other improvements following the above mentioned include,
Sludge Thickening considerations: Analysis of float after operational changes are
considered and completed, it may be likely that DAF Float going to sludge holding tank
can be dewatered or thickened prior to the Belt Press.
o Free water from tank thickening could be analyzed for BOD5, TSS, FOG and
possibly discharged directly or blended with DAF Effluent so this water is not
retreated.
o Possibly filtrate of water from press discharged directly to sewer if suspended
solids are not excessive. Note, a high majority of this water is wash water from
the belt wash system and may not need to be treated through the DAF again based
on sample results.
o Possible expansion of the existing OrTec Press. Or-Tec has been contacted about
this possibility. Wyandot should consider the previous mentioned steps before
that improvement is determined.
Future BOD5 removal considerations: Chemistry changes may improve BOD5 levels
discharged somewhat, but with the high amount of Soluble BOD5 in the waste stream,
other technologies would have to be considered.
o Biological Treatment – the most efficient form of soluble BOD5 removal. These
systems include,
Aerobic systems, which are extremely large and use a large amount of power
and utilities
Anaerobic – based on sample data, this could be looked at for possible energy
production and savings and less solids to dispose of.
o Membrane Technologies – in combination with biological systems, soluble BOD5
could be removed. A membrane system would have to follow the DAF as
typically most membrane systems cannot tolerate high levels of FOG.
84
Appendix V
Assessment 28: Energy Assessment for an Ohio Chemical Manufacturer
An energy assessment was conducted for an Ohio Chemical manufacturer by EISC for
improvements to process energy utilization and waste heat recovery opportunities. The
assessment has been completed in Jan 2010 with a final report and briefing delivered to the
client. Given below are the project summaries.
Project tasks performed.
An energy audit to determine the processes that are candidates for energy improvements.
Energy balances on the candidate processes.
Recommendation on methods for reducing the energy consumption of, and/or using the
wasted energy from, the candidate processes.
Energy Balance for Process Reactors:
85
Energy Balance for Finishing Pots
Energy Balance for Spray Tower
86
Energy Balance for Absorber Tower
87
Appendix W: Pollution Prevention Assessment Outcomes
No. Assessment Center Hazardous
Material
Waste
Water Solid
Annual Energy
Savings kWh, MM
BTU, and $
Water
Green
House Gas
Reduction
(lbs)
Clients
Developing
EMS
1 Energy Audit of a
Cincinnati University TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
380,600 kWh and
$26,700 N/A 480,000
2
Energy Audit of
Cincinnati Local
Government
Buildings
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A 143,000 kWh and
$10,000 N/A
192,000
3
Energy Audit of a
Small Ohio
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A 250,000 kWh and
more than $15,000 N/A 335,000
4
Energy Efficiency
Assessment for a
Snack Foods
Company
EISC N/A N/A N/A
200,000 kWh, 7,893
MM BTU, and $87
K – $90 K per year
N/A 1,191,481
5
Energy Efficiency
Assessment of a
Large Food Snack
Company in Ohio
EISC N/A N/A N/A
1,000,000 kWh,
17,000 MM BTU,
and $220,000 –
$250,000 per year
N/A 3,326,000
6.
Waste reduction
at the Ketchup
Processing Plant
EISC N/A N/A N/A
Over 30% of
ketchup can be
diverted from
becoming waste
N/A N/A
7 Waste Reduction for TechSolve Yes N/A 30 grams $ 3,300 per year N/A N/A Yes
88
No. Assessment Center Hazardous
Material
Waste
Water Solid
Annual Energy
Savings kWh, MM
BTU, and $
Water
Green
House Gas
Reduction
(lbs)
Clients
Developing
EMS
a Cincinnati
Aerospace Parts
Manufacturer
of Hg, 480
yd3/yr of
wood &
37 tons/yr
of paper
8
Energy Audit for a
Cincinnati Food
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
76,600 kWh, 280
MM BTU, and
$9,560
N/A 134,000
9
Energy Audit for a
Cincinnati Printing
Company
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
27,000 kWh, 22,150
MM BTU
$11,453.09
N/A 2,628,200
10
Energy Assessment
for a Southwest Ohio
Garden
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
63,000 kWh, 780
MM BTU, and $15
K
N/A 175,225
11
Energy Assessment
for a Research
Laboratory in
Ashland, Ohio
EISC N/A N/A N/A
5,250,000 kWh, 190
MM BTU, and $484
K
N/A 7,054,000
12
Energy Assessment
for Food Safety
Systems, Ohio
EISC N/A N/A N/A 181,000 kWh and
$12,700 per year N/A 242,000
13
Energy Assessment at
Southeast Ohio
Casting Facility
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A 1.45 x 10
6 - 1.98 x
106 kWh/yr
N/A 20,000,000
89
No. Assessment Center Hazardous
Material
Waste
Water Solid
Annual Energy
Savings kWh, MM
BTU, and $
Water
Green
House Gas
Reduction
(lbs)
Clients
Developing
EMS
14
Energy Audit of a
Consumer Products
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A 10,500 MM BTU
and $100 K N/A 1,231,540
15
Energy Reduction for
an Ohio Vegetable
Processor
EISC N/A N/A N/A 5,000 MM BTU N/A 584,000
16
Energy Audit for an
Ohio Aerospace
Products
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
5,860,000 kWh and
$410,000
N/A
7,848,000
17 Energy Audit for an
Ohio Home Decor TechSolve N/A N/A N/A N/A
18
Energy Audit for a
Middletown
Aerospace Products
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A N/A
19
Energy Audit for an
Ohio Electrical
Control and
Distribution
Equipment Company
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 Waste Reduction at a
Cincinnati Bakery TechSolve N/A N/A
100 tons
of mixed
dough and
N/A N/A N/A
90
No. Assessment Center Hazardous
Material
Waste
Water Solid
Annual Energy
Savings kWh, MM
BTU, and $
Water
Green
House Gas
Reduction
(lbs)
Clients
Developing
EMS
baked
product
21
Waste Reduction and
Grey Water
Reclaiming/Recycling
for a Cincinnati
Concrete Company
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
22
Energy Audit for an
Ohio Industrial
Chemical
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
1,950,000 kWh and
$136,250
2,608,000
23
Energy Audit for a
Dry Food Products
Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
24
Energy Audit for a
Columbus Metal
Product Manufacturer
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
25
Energy Audit for an
Ohio Electrical
Control and
Distribution
Equipment Company
TechSolve N/A N/A N/A
26 Wastewater
Assessment of an TechSolve N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
91
No. Assessment Center Hazardous
Material
Waste
Water Solid
Annual Energy
Savings kWh, MM
BTU, and $
Water
Green
House Gas
Reduction
(lbs)
Clients
Developing
EMS
Industrial Organic
Chemicals
Manufacturer
27
Wastewater
Assessment of an
Ohio Snack Food
Processor
EISC N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
28
Energy Assessment
for an Ohio Chemical
Manufacturer
EISC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
92
Appendix X: Summary of Computer Tools and Educational Material Related to P2
Computer Tools:
Small Business Self Assessment Tool: For small business owners to assess if they are in compliance with regulations and laws.
Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: For department specific hospital waste assessment and grading the hospital based on
its practices.
Chemical Identification Software Tool: For industries to identify the classification of chemical in hazardous lists.
Food Assessment Tool: For food facilities tto check the degree of compliance with regulations and laws.
Comprehensive Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: Advanced version of Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool.
Educational Material related to P2:
List of Recyclers: Gives a list of recyclers who accept byproducts and waste found during assessment.
Hospitals for Healthy Environment: Presentation is posted on the website.
Comparison of Green Material Tools: Three green material tools are compared to help companies.
Small Business Self Assessment Tool: Helps understand the importance and usefulness of SBSAT and its application.
Review of Patents on Green Products: Discussion on information related to green products is given.
Department Specific Hospital Assessment Tool: Helps understand the importance and usefulness of D-HAT 1.0 and its application.
Chemical Identification Software Tool: Helps understand the importance and usefulness of CIS 1.0 and its application.
Food Assessment Tool: Helps understand the importance and usefulness of FAT 1.0 and its application.
Review of Patents on Waste Minimization Techniques: Discussion on information related to waste minimization techniques is given.
Review of Patents on Energy Efficiency: Discussion on information related to energy efficiency is given.
93
Summary of P2 Tool Users:
Tool Center No. of Users
MSDS TechSolve 2
Energy and Sustainability Dept of Chemical Engg (Green Engg) 20
Energy and Sustainability Dept of Civil Engg (Industrial Ventilation, Indoor
Air Quality) Several
Sustainability Dept of Civil Engg (Dr. Apul) Several
ERC EISC Several
P2 Tools link TechSolve 200 companies
HAT 1.0 / D-HAT 1.0 Ohio Hospital Association 1 hospital, 1 student, and one assessment for
2009-2010
Energy Efficient Assessment
Presentation Military engineers (AWMA 2008) NA
Waste-to-Energy Ohio Polymer Summit NA
Summary of P2 Savings from Previous Assessments:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$12,000 -
$15,000/year by
lighting upgrades
$2,000/year by
reducing cleaning
solvent
10,000 lbs/year by
installing a quality
control sensor
800 lb/yr of
reduced
washer
solvent.
30,000 kWh/yr
by Ohio
coining
company
2000
lb/year
lead
containing
rubber.
$15,000/year
94
Note: Additional calculations are based on the facts that 1.34 lbs of CO2 emissions are
produced per kWh
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric ) and
163 lbs of CO2 emissions are produced per MM BTU for natural gas
(http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp).
