1. Turning Renewal Needs into Opportunity: Campus Utility Plant and Master Plan

2. UMCP Learning Objectives
Case study of a combined utility master plan and condition assessment to identify long term costs
Preparation of near and long term implementation plans and using continuous commissioning to ensure intended results
Tools for condition assessments
UMCP

3. University of Maryland College Park
6/4/2018
Campus Growth
Existing campus ~13.5 million gross square feet
Near term identified 17% increase in building area
Energy Infrastructure
Central Energy Plant (CEP)
Combustion Turbines
Heat Recovery Steam generator
Boilers
Steam distribution
13.8 kV Electrical distribution
13 District chilled water plants (SCUBs)
UMCP

4. UMCP Background Development of the study Third Party Operates
2012: Developed Utility Master Plan (did not include assessment of infrastructure)
2014: Assessed major equipment in Energy Plant
2015: Assessed electrical and steam distribution
Third Party Operates
CEP
Steam distribution
Electrical distribution
1 of 13 SCUBs
Current contract with third party will end by fiscal year 2019
Potential to extend contract an additional 5 years
UMCP

5. Goals of Assessment and Studies
Determine upgrade needs for the next 25-year phase of operation
Include campus growth
Synchronize with campus goals
Resiliency
Minimized financial impact
Sustainability
UMCP

6. Agenda – Utility Master Plan
Steam System Review
Current condition
Potential future options
Electrical System Review
Chilled Water System Review

7. Steam Distribution Assessment
Manhole survey
Thermal aerial flyover
Piping segment age / general condition summary
Renewal
Piping & manhole
Consequences
Options (District Hot Water)
Building steam use
Energy savings for hot water loop
Updated steam piping costs

8. Steam Manhole Survey Summary
Manhole C-125
Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole C-155
Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole STM-123
Structural Repair
Manhole 510
Condensate Leak

9. Steam Manhole Survey Site
Capital Renewal
Steam Manhole Costs:
$~12 Million

10. Steam and Condensate Piping
Steam Piping
Condensate Piping

11. Steam Piping Renewal
Reactive Piping Replacement (0-5 years): $17.4 million
Proactive Piping Replacement (6-15 years): $62.9 million
Total Piping Costs: $80.3 million
Manholes Upgrades Costs: $11.7 million
Total Steam Distribution Costs: $92.0 million

12. Central Energy Plant Assessment
Combustion Turbine (not completed by RMF)
Back Pressure Steam Turbine (not completed by RMF)
Heat Recovery Steam Generators
Boilers
Deaerator Nos. 1, 2,3
Condensate Receiver
No. 2 Fuel Oil Piping
Polishers/ Softeners

13. Capital Renewal for Central Energy Plant

14. Existing Chilled Water SCUB Sites
Chiller
Location
Replacement Interval (age > 25 yrs)
0-5 yrs
(Tons)
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
> 15 yrs
SCUB’s
5,120
10,490
---
3,925
Buildings
2,600
250
5,200
Total
7,720
10,740
9,125
28%
39%
33%

15. Capital Renewal / Future Chiller
Total Replacement costs: $51.8
New costs: $8.9
Total costs: $60.7

16. Electrical Manhole Survey Summary
Total No. of Manholes: ~360 manholes
Manholes Surveyed: Manholes
Minor maintenance items identified

17. Building Transformers
62 Building Transformers (36 buildings surveyed)
A.V. Williams South B
Epply
Physics

18. Splice Testing
Modular Splice installations was concerning due to recent failures.
RMF inspected 2 of the 5 locations in question
Findings
Installation Issues
Deterioration of components
Possible Failure Points
Deteriorated splice components were replaced
Entire splice assembly was tested and placed back into service.
Feeder 4 still had low test results on Phase A.

19. Future Feeder Capacity

20. Base Option Recommendation

21. Alternative Considered
Steam Distribution Alternatives
Energy Plant Alternatives
Interconnect Existing SCUBs
Islanding CEP from Utility System

22. Alternative to Steam: Building Steam Use

23. Hot Water Analysis

24. Hot Water Costs Comparison

25. Energy Plant Alternatives
Replace Existing Cogeneration with:
Smaller units
Same size units
Larger Units

26. Energy Plant Recommendation
Larger cogeneration units
More economical when compared to purchasing power
Higher first cost
Has a higher carbon footprint than purchasing “green power”
Largest units may require SCR or Urea
University Input Required

27. Chilled Water Interconnection
Base Option
Interconnection of SCUBs
Replacement cost: $36 M
Distribution costs: $ --- M
New chiller cost: $ 9 M
Replacement cost: $36 M
Distribution costs: $ 9 M
New chiller cost: $ --- M
Additional benefits include more efficient operation with part loading existing equipment
Less maintenance required

28. Recommended Alternative

29. Simplified Heating Schematic

30. Potential Funding Opportunities
New Operating Agreement for Cogeneration system
Bond for steam and hot water piping
Energy savings from CHP and Piping
Renewable Energy District or Renewable energy
Controls Integration project
Resiliency projects
UMCP

31. University of Maryland Director, Engineering and Energy
Questions?
Mary-Ann Ibeziako, PEM
University of Maryland
Director, Engineering and Energy
(301)
Andy Jones, PE
RMF Engineering, Inc.
Project Manager
(800)