Ice System Evaluation Study WHITTEMORE CENTER

Home , New Hampshire Wildcats

______For:

University of New Hampshire Whittemore Center 128 Main Street Durham, NH 03824

April 23, 2018

Submitted By:

Stevens 2211 O’Neil Road Hudson, WI 54016 800.822.7670

File No. 900.18.307

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Executive Summary

2018

The Whittemore Center has served as the home of the University of New Hampshire Wildcats men’s and women’s ice hockey teams since 1996. The University and its students takes great pride in its rich hockey tradition and the numerous ECAC and Hockey East playoff appearances and titles. The facility is a multipurpose facility hosting dry floor events such as graduations, conferences, robotic events, etc. The facility has been well maintained by University and facility operation and maintenance personnel which maintains a rigorous maintenance program on the refrigeration system.

Stevens, and a specialized team of consultants, were commissioned by the University through to prepare a study that evaluates the existing ice system (refrigeration system, ice rink floor, waster heat recovery system and dasher board system). The study identifies short and long- term replacement and improvement needs and the most feasible replacement options, including applications of new refrigerants and technologies, which will best serve this facility and the University. This study will assist the University in planning for the replacement of the aging systems.

The primary objectives of the study were to: • Identify and evaluate the best options for replacing the existing ice system. • Identify ice system replacement options that will increase safety, maximize performance and energy efficiency, and provide superior ice quality. • Provide a scope of work for recommended improvement project(s). • Provide accurate conceptual cost estimates and project schedules to assist the University in making informed decisions on the recommended and future project(s). • Recommend improvements that maximize energy efficiency while incorporating sustainable design practices that reduce the use of fossil fuels, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce total energy use of the systems and facility. • Identify potential regulatory or patent restrictions for options that incorporate new technology.

Page 2 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

A cost summary of the recommended improvements is presented in the following table. The costs are estimated total project costs for 2019 and are intended to be used for budget purposes only. The costs shown in the table are independent costs and should be selected as follows: • Choose one from Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for improvements to the refrigeration system. • Choose one from Options 6 and 7 for improvements to the ice rink floor. • Choose one from Options 8 and 9 for improvements to the refrigeration room. • Options 10 and 11 are independent.

Table 1. Ice System Improvements/Replacement Options Cost Estimate Summary Item Cost

Option 1 - Maintain existing system as-is $234,000 Option 2 - Make improvements to existing system (added Option 1 to costs) $450,000 Option 3 - New ammonia system $1,855,000 Option 4 - New CO2 indirect system $1,946,000 Option 5 - New CO2 direct system $2,153,000 Option 6 - Replace ice rink floor 200’ x 100’ $1,731,000 Option 7 – Reduce size of rink floor to 200’ x 90’, lower floor 16” to maintain sightlines $2,460,000 Option 8 - Refrigeration room improvements (incl in Option), just to add vestibule $40,000 Option 9 - New refrigeration room (build out at 840 SF x $175/SF) plus cont, design, etc. $244,000 Option 10- Dasher board system improvements Not incl. Option 11 – New RO water treatment system $93,000

Implementing the recommendations in this study, including planning for and replacing the ice system in the future will provide a strong operational, structural and programming foundation for the facility.

Page 3 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Table of Contents

SECTION TOPIC PAGE

Executive Summary

1 Project Information 5

2 Project Overview 7

3 Ice Systems 11

Figures Figure 1 – First Floor Plan 36

Appendices: A List of Reference Material A-1 B Future of Refrigerants B-1 C Cost Estimates C-1 D Project Schedule D-1

End

Page 4 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Section 1 Project Information

Page 5 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Contact Information

Facility Address: Type of Facility: Ice Arena Whittemore Center Seating Capacity: 6,200 (hockey) 128 Main Street Durham, NH 03824

Operations Manager: Client Contact: Director- Campus Planning: Bryan Lee Michael Mason Douglas Bencks Operations Manager Director-Facilities Asset Mgmt. University Architect and Director of University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Campus Planning Whittemore Center Facilities University of New Hampshire 128 Main Street 6 Leavitt Center 22 Colovos Road Durham, NH 03824 Durham, NH 03824 Durham, NH 03824 P. P. 603.862.0842 P. 603.862.2791 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Consulting Engineering Firm: Refrigeration System Operations: Refrigeration Service Contractor: Scott Ward, P.E. David Fecteau Alan Page Owner/Vice President HVAC Tech-Ops B Vice President Sales Stevens Facilities RECCO 2211 O’Neil Road 6 Leavitt Center 22 Sixth Street Hudson, WI 54016 Durham, NH 03824 Woburn, MA 01801 P. 651.436.2075 P. P. 781.404.1829 F. 715.386.5879 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Electric Utility: XXXXX Gas Utility: XXXXX

Certification The opinions stated in this report are based on limited visual observations and physical investigations only. No warranty is made, expressed or implied, that deficiencies that may affect life safety, though not addressed in this report, may not exist. The recommendations and/or description of repairs and energy use estimates and/or savings are for general information only, and should not be relied upon for securing funding and do not constitute design and bidding and/or construction documents. Actual energy use will vary depending on many factors outside Stevens Engineer’s control.

I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

15631______4.23.18_ Scott A. Ward, P.E. Registration Number Date STEVENS

Page 6 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Section 2 Project Overview

Page 7 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Background

The Whittemore Center is a multi-purpose arena located at the University of New Hampshire’s Durham campus. The facility was constructed in 1995 and is the home to the UNH Wildcats men’s and women’s Division 1 hockey teams along with club hockey teams and recreational skating. The University has a long-standing and strong tradition of competitive hockey programs. The facility operates in the ice-mode for 10-12 months of the year. Sometimes the ice sheet is taken out between April 1 and July 1 for maintenance, etc. The ice is covered for “dry floor” events approximately 20 times per year.

The ice system, which consists of the refrigeration system, waste heat recovery system, ice rink floor and dasher board system, includes: an industrial grade, ammonia-based refrigeration system that was manufactured and installed by Rothmar Manufacturing in 1995; a calcium chloride-water solution (brine) as the secondary refrigerant; a concrete ice rink floor with polyethylene piping systems and steel header systems; and a dasher board system.

Some of the refrigeration equipment has been replaced over the years and has been serving the facility well. Some additional improvements to the system are required to extend its useful life. The life safety systems in the refrigeration require improvements. The major item that needs to be addressed immediately is the settlement or moving of the concrete equipment pad under the ammonia refrigeration system. Any movement will add stress to the ammonia piping and increase the risk of a catastrophic failure substantially increasing the health and life safety risk to anyone in the refrigeration room and possibly in, and near, the facility.

In addition to the concrete settlement, the next “weakest link” in the ice system are the header piping systems that serve the ice rink floor and the subfloor heating system. The steel header systems are located in an open trench at the west end of the rink floor under the fixed seating system making it difficult to access. The steel piping is corroding causing leaks in the system. So far, the leaks have been repairable.

The concrete ice rink floor is also showing its age. The piping for the subfloor heating system is believed to be leaking underneath the ice rink floor. The leak has been difficult to locate. The concrete floor is reportedly starting to crack.

A new dasher board system was installed in 2008 and is in good shape. At one point, the dasher board system was changed from a 20-foot radius (deeper) to a 28-foot radius (shallower). Only the playing surface has changed, the size of the concrete ice rink floor remained unchanged.

The existing dehumidification system does not adequately serve the facility. The University typically rents a dehumidification unit in the summer months to supplement the existing system. The design for a new permanent desiccant dehumidification system is currently taking place.

Page 8 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

In a historically slow-moving industry, the design and technology of ice systems is evolving today at a little faster pace due to some significant factors: • Many ice arena facilities throughout the United States have ice systems that are nearing the end of their useful life and will require major repairs, improvements, or replacement to maintain a safe and reliable operating system. • Refrigerant options are becoming more limited due to environmental concerns. • New technology is improving the efficiency of the ice systems. • Innovation in the industry is bringing forward new concepts and ideas. • Funding opportunities are increasing through utilities and being discussed more frequently at the state level.

The University has commissioned Stevens, a consulting engineering firm that specializes in the evaluation and design of ice systems for ice rink facilities, to evaluate the existing ice system at the Whittemore Center and identify short and long-term replacement and improvement needs. This study will assist the University in planning for the replacement of the aging systems. More specifically, the information can be used to: identify the needed improvements to the facility; compare improvement and replacement options; develop scope(s) of work; generate cost estimates to use for budgeting; and develop project schedule(s) according to priorities.

2.2 Purpose To continue the University’s effort to: improve the operations, programming, and financial success of Whittemore Center; address concerns regarding the aging ammonia-based ice system including the reliability of the systems; plan wisely for future improvements to the facility; and continue to provide the highest quality ice surface for its very successful Division I hockey programs and other user groups. The primary objectives of this study are as follows: • Identify and evaluate the best options for improving or replacing the ice system. • Identify ice system replacement options that will increase safety, maximize performance and energy efficiency, and provide superior ice quality. • Provide a scope of work for recommended improvement project(s). • Provide accurate conceptual cost estimates and project schedules to assist the University in making informed decisions on the recommended and future project(s). • Recommend improvements that maximize energy efficiency while incorporating sustainable design practices that reduce the use of fossil fuels, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce total energy use of the systems and facility. • Identify potential regulatory or patent restrictions for options that incorporate new technology.

It is recommended that the findings presented in this report be used to plan for improvements to the facility. The information in this report may also be used to assist in identifying possible rebates, grants or other funding programs from utility or energy companies or departments, state and federal agencies, or other sources. Additional information may be required for funding applications or securing funding assistance.

Page 9 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

2.3 Scope of Services The scope of the study included the following systems and areas of the ice arena facility. The assessment was limited to visual observations, existing drawing and document review, and anecdotal evidence from University and facility staff. No detailed investigation, material testing, etc. was performed by Stevens. When specific improvements are being considered for execution, a more detailed evaluation or preliminary design of alternatives should be performed. • Improvement and replacement options for the existing refrigeration system including discussion on refrigerant options, equipment and material options, safety, and relative efficiency of system options. • Replacement options for the ice rink floor and header piping systems. • Replacement options for the existing dasherboard system including materials, trends, improving safety and spectator viewing, and accessibility. • Improvement and replacement options for the existing heat recovery options including subfloor heating system beneath the rink floor and the snow melt pit system. Evaluate any other potential uses. • Refrigeration room improvements required by code (isolation walls, egress, ventilation, life safety, etc.) • Project schedule for improvement options.

The following areas were not included in this study: • Evaluation of life safety systems, building systems, structural systems, electrical systems, code assessments not directly related to the ice system. • Evaluation of building and structural systems related to the ice rink floor. • Evaluation of building and structural systems related to the settlement or movement of the concrete floors, equipment pads, etc. • Accessibility and associated code assessments were also not included in the scope.

Page 10 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Section 3 Ice System

Page 11 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

3.0 ICE SYSTEMS 3.1 General The ice system, which consists of the refrigeration system, waste heat recovery system, ice rink floor and dasher board system, includes: an industrial grade, ammonia-based refrigeration system that was manufactured and installed by Rothmar Manufacturing in 1996; a calcium chloride-water solution (brine) as the secondary refrigerant; a concrete ice rink floor with polyethylene piping systems and steel header systems; and a dasher board system.

This section of the study evaluates the options for improving and replacing the existing ice system. Additional information on the ice system such as common terms, definitions, and the future of refrigerants can be found in Appendix B. Recommendations and associated costs for improving or replacing the existing ice system are included at the end of this section and expanded in Appendix C.

3.2 Observations of Existing Conditions – Ice Systems Stevens toured the facility on March 1, 2018 with University management, operating and maintenance personnel and with RECCO. RECCO is a refrigeration mechanical contractor that provides service and maintenance for the ice system at the Whittemore Center. We have the following observations and comments. • The ice sheet was in place during our site visit. • Intercollegiate hockey season runs from approximately October 1 to March 31 (6 months). The facility maintains ice all year except sometimes removing the ice in April and May for maintenance. Hockey camps usually start around July 1. • There are no reported ice quality concerns or problems. However, there is some staining taking place in one location on the east end of the rink floor. • Overall, the ice system has been well maintained by the University’s/facility’s operational and maintenance personnel and outside service contractors. A thorough maintenance program is followed. • The building was originally designed for ice and dry floor events. Dry floor events included basketball, robotics shows, graduations, bridal shows, etc. The facility was determined to be too large for basketball events. However, about 20 times per year other dry floor events take place in the facility. The dasher board system remains in place during these events but the glass shielding is typically removed. There is no air condition system for the arena space.

Page 12 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures: (clockwise starting top left): Arena facing east; Arena facing north; Arena facing west; Arena facing north.

• The following is a list of the major improvements or maintenance that has been performed on the ice system (ice rink floor, refrigeration and dasher board systems) over the years: ▪ 2017 – Replaced water sump tank, replaced some ammonia piping, replaced drain valves, ▪ 2015 – Replaced chiller vessel and surge drum, insulation, ▪ 2010 – Added compressor 3 and replaced the evaporative condenser. ▪ 2008 – Changed ice rink floor playing surface radius from 28-foot to 20-foot. ▪ 2008 – Replaced the dasher board system. ▪ ____ - Replaced one rink pump. ▪ ____ - Replaced subfloor heating system pump. ▪ ____ - Replaced pressure relief valves. ▪ ____ - Upgraded Vilter control panel for compressors. ▪ ____ - Replaced waste heat recovery heat exchanger for subfloor heating system. ▪ Replaced brine charge at least twice. A red colored brine was installed the last time. ▪ Painted ammonia piping to and from the evaporative condenser. ▪ Replace solenoid on liquid line to chiller. ▪ The goal inserts in the ice rink floor have been relocated 3 times.

Page 13 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Refrigeration System. The ice arena is served by an industrial grade, ammonia/brine indirect-type refrigeration system manufactured and installed by Rothmar Manufacturing, Inc. The following observations and reports were made: ▪ The refrigeration system was installed with the building construction in 1994 and some improvements to the system have been made over the years as outlined above. ▪ Many of the refrigeration system components have been replaced except for Compressors 1 and 2, the motor control panel, one rink pump and the snowmelt system desuperheater and pump. Overall, the refrigeration system is in good condition. The facility maintains a very thorough maintenance program. ▪ The concrete pad beneath the refrigeration system appears to be settling and/or moving and is breaking apart. Associated recent problems include pump coupling sheared off and concrete pad is coming apart. At least one area of the refrigeration package has reportedly settled up to 1.5 inches. This is very concerning because any movement will add stress to the ammonia piping and increase the risk of a catastrophic failure substantially increasing the health and life safety risk to anyone in the refrigeration room and possibly in, and near, the facility. This should be evaluated and addressed as soon as possible. The University stated that a structural engineer would be evaluating the settlement and cracking over next several months. RECCO stated they could isolate and cut an ammonia pipe during the off season to investigate the degree of tension or stress on the pipe. ▪ The primary refrigerant is ammonia, the secondary refrigerant is 21% calcium chloride and water solution (commonly referred to as brine). The brine is tested by the HydroTech company one to two times per year. RECCO will be sampling and testing the brine in the month of March or April. There is a side stream filter system on the brine system. It is unknown when this system was added. It is use to filter out the sediment from the brine solution. The sediment has typically been high in iron. The filters are changed every two weeks. There is no coupon test rack connected to this system to measure corrosion activity in the system. ▪ Compressors: The system uses three Vilter 450 series, 6-cylinder compressors. Each compressor has a nominal capacity of 60 tons for a total system capacity of 180 tons. Other observations include: o The third compressor was added in 2010. o Two compressors typically operate during games. One compressor will hold the ice when the ice is not in use or during light use. o The compressors are water cooled with water from the condenser system. o Regular maintenance such as top ends, annual oil changes, etc. are performed on the compressors. o Compressors are rebuilt yearly and as recommended by the manufacturer. ▪ Cooling tower: The cooling tower is an evaporative type system and was replaced in 2010. The new unit was manufactured by the Baltimore Aircoil Company Model CXV 171. The unit is all stainless steel. There is no VFD on condenser fan. A remote water sump tank is located in the refrigeration room. The water pump was manufactured by Taco and is Model FE-3008-7.3 E2F, 345 gpm at 50 feet, 10 HP, 1800 RPM, 91% efficiency. There is a chemical treatment system for the condenser water. White rust has been an issue in the past and is now part of the treatment program. HydroTech performs the testing and chemical treatment of this system. ▪ High Pressure Receiver: A high pressure receiver is located outside near the condenser. There are no reported problems with refrigerant migrating to the condenser or receiver. Page 14 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

▪ Pumps: There are two rink pumps. Both are original. One primary and one back up. Each pump is Armstrong Model 4030 8x6x10 rated for 1200 gpm at 50 feet of head. ▪ Controls: The existing control system for the refrigeration system was developed and manufactured by M&M Refrigeration. Each compressor also has a new Viltech controller. Some refrigeration system monitoring points are being sent to the Building Management System (BMS), an Alerton based system, including brine supply and return temperature, alarms, etc. ▪ Electrical panel. There is a motor control panel mounted on the refrigeration package. The parts and materials are outdated and have been becoming more difficult to find. ▪ Diffusion tank – There is no diffusion tank on this system. Diffusion tanks dilute the ammonia released through the pressure relief valves on the system before venting to the atmosphere. ▪ Brine piping – It is reported that the existing brine piping contains a lot of sediment and may need to be replaced.

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): existing refrigeration system on steel framework; third compressor, water pump and poly water tank, glycol piping on refrigeration package; evaporative condenser located outside the refrigeration room.

▪ Expansion tank – The system is designed with an open-type expansion tank for the rink floor, subfloor and snow melt systems.

Page 15 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): original glycol pump on the refrigeration system; refrigeration package on steel framework; white poly diffusion tank; open brine expansion tank.

• Waste heat recovery system. Waste heat is recovered from the refrigeration system, by two separate systems, and used for serving the subfloor heating system and the snow melt pit system. The following observations or reports were made: ▪ The subfloor heating system consists of a new heat exchanger and new pump. The system uses a brine solution and has been problematic including leaks in the piping system beneath the ice rink floor. Typically, these systems would use a glycol solution in place of brine to lessen problems with corrosion. ▪ See discuss in the Ice Rink Floor section on the leaks in the subfloor heating system piping. The system loses 3 to 5 gallons of brine per month. Even though there is reportedly a leak in the piping system, the system is reportedly maintaining above freezing temperatures in the subgrade below the rink floor as indicated with the subfloor sensor and as required. ▪ The snow pit system is believed to use an existing desuperheater type heat exchanger manufactured by E.S.P. Industries and an existing pump. This system is also believed to use a brine solution. The snow melt pit is only used during the winter months because it adds too much moisture to the air during the summer months. The resurfacer dumps outside during the summer months. The performance of the snow melt pit was not noted during our visit.

Page 16 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): resurface room; snow melt pit; snow melt pit close up; resurfacer dumping at the snowmelt pit.

• Ice Rink Floor. The size of the ice rink floor is 200 feet by 100 feet by 28 feet radii. The 2017-18 NCAA standard college rink dimensions are 200 feet by 85 feet x 20-foot radii, however, many Division 1 hockey college rinks use 28-foot radii. 28-foot radii are mandated in the NHL. The following observations or reports were made: ▪ The existing drawings show the rink floor consists of the following: 5 inches of concrete; 1.25-inch polyethylene rink piping at 3.5 inches on center, double hose clamped to steel return bends on the east end of the rink and the 8-inch steel header system on the west end of the rink; 4 inches of floor insulation (confirmed to be Dow blue board insulation by facility staff) and a subfloor heating system. The subfloor heating system includes 1.25-inch polyethylene piping at 24 inches on center, double hose clamped to 3-inch steel header system and 11 inches of sand. ▪ There is one in-floor slab sensor to measure the ice temperature and one subfloor heating system sensor. ▪ It was not confirmed if the facility uses infrared temperature sensors to measure the ice surface temperature or to control the refrigeration system. ▪ The goal inserts have been moved 3 times. The poly rink piping was damaged and repaired at least once during these changes. ▪ It was reported that the concrete ice rink floor has started to crack. ▪ It was reported that the polyethylene rink piping is fairly brittle.

Page 17 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

▪ Since 1995, there has been a stain on the east end of the rink. Since the subfloor system was leaking, it was believed that this area was the location of the leak. After chipping through the concrete floor, rink pipes, floor insulation and digging up the sand beneath the rink floor, no leak was found. During the last few years the concrete in this area has deteriorated to some extent. ▪ The brine in the subfloor was also dyed orange in efforts to find the leak. The leak still could not be found. ▪ Header piping systems. Currently, the 8-inch steel header system for the ice rink floor and the 3-inch steel header system for the subfloor heating system are the main area of concerns with the rink floor. They are located in an open trench on the west end of the ice rink floor. The header piping system and pipe trench were frozen at the time of our site visit. The lower 8-inch header pipe is reportedly corroding more than the upper 8- inch header pipe. The 3-inch subfloor heating system header pipes sit in water when they are not frozen during the ice season. A sump pump has been used to try to keep water out of the trench but has been unsuccessful. Several valves in the header system have been replaced. Access to the header system is beneath the existing, fixed, seating system and is very difficult. The steel frames for the seating system, above the header trench, is corroding. The facility staff has everything on hand to address a leak in the header system including Hymax couplings for the steel pipe.

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): overall rink floor; stain on east end of rink that keeps reoccurring; end header system that is exposed under stadia – freezes solid during the season; poly rink piping clamped to steel return bends in concrete rink floor – clamps loosen up and leak over time.

Page 18 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

▪ The floor is not used for heavy vehicles or equipment during dry floor events, however, a large lift is driven on to the rink floor for maintenance of the building. ▪ It was reported that the entire ice rink floor level is located below the elevation of the natural groundwater table. Sump pumps are used to keep the water table below the ice rink floor level. There is a storm water diversion channel on the north and east sides of the facility where local storm water is routed to. Storm water may be routed to another location in the near future to keep it away from the facility. Storm sewer inlets are located at the overhead door and ramp outside the resurfacer room. The ice rink floor has flooded several times. The soils under the facility are reported to be clay with possible ledge rock in locations.

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): storm water diversion channel with native long grasses on north and east sides of the building; sump pump access hatch; ramp outside resurfacer room; drains at bottom of ramp outside resurfacer room.

Page 19 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Refrigeration room. The existing refrigeration room is located on the west end of the facility and is equipped with one interior and one exterior door. The size of the room is approximately 975 square feet. There is one small section of exterior wall for direct access outside which is beneficial when using ammonia refrigerant. See Figures 1 in this report. The following observations and reports were made: ▪ Life safety systems. o There is an existing refrigerant gas monitoring system with two strobe lights; one located in the back hallway/corridor and one by the resurfacer equipment gate near the rink floor. There are no strobe lights or audible alarms located in the refrigeration room. The gas monitoring system is reportedly tied into the fire alarm system. o There are emergency power shunt trips for the refrigeration system located near the resurfacer entrance, in operations office, near the exterior door by the condenser tower, on one side of the VilTech compressor controller in the refrigeration room, and one other location not noted clearly during the walkthrough. o There is one manual switch for turning on the mechanical ventilation system in the refrigeration room and its located in the corridor outside the room. o It was not noted when the pressure relief valves were replaced. The replacement is required every 5 years. o There is one eyewash/shower station and it is located in the resurfacer room. o There is minimal signage on the two doors to the refrigeration room. ▪ Ventilation system. The refrigeration room has a mechanical ventilation system. However, it is unknown how well the system operates. A temporary flexible air pipe has been installed to provide some additional ventilation while maintenance is performed on the refrigeration equipment.

Page 20 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): room looking north across existing overhead door, room view facing west, room view facing east on south side of room, room view facing east on north side of room.

• Dasher board system. The manufacturer of the existing dasher board system is Rink Systems. The system was installed new in 2008. It is steel framed system with shielding heights of 6 feet on the sides (seamless) and 8 feet on the ends and radii (posted). The following additional observations and reports were made: ▪ Overall, the system appears to be in good condition. ▪ The shielding is removed up to 20 times per year and there are removable panels that align with the isles in the seating areas to accommodate dry floor events. ▪ The existing drawings show that the existing dasher board system is located on the ice rink floor as opposed to the perimeter concrete. ▪ The University would like to accommodate sled hockey in the future.

Page 21 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): overall rink floor; dasherboard/rink floor interface; resurfacer access; player’s box/rink floor interface.

• Resurfacer Machines and Water Systems. ▪ There are two resurfacer machines; one is powered by natural gas and the other is electric. ▪ Hot water for filling the resurfacer is provided from the University’s central steam plant. ▪ Water Treatment – There is an existing water treatment system manufactured by Jet Ice. It appears to be a sand-based filter system. The system has reportedly never been used even though the water quality is reported to be challenging at times. One of the University’s concerns with the facilities water source is the amount of sand it contains. Some filtering it done at the facility to clean up the water source. When the humidity level is high in the facility, bicarbonate is added to the water to increase its hardness to improve the bonding capabilities of the water. The City will be building a new water treatment facility is the near future. ▪ There are two existing electric water heaters that are used to heat the resurfacer water to 140-degree Fahrenheit. The University’s central steam plant is used as a back up source of heat. In addition, there is one storage tank connected to this system.

Page 22 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): the existing water treatment system is located in the resurfacer room; close up picture of the water treatment system; existing dehumidification system; the desiccant wheel in the dehumidification system was recently replaced.

• HVAC&D Systems. Evaluating the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and dehumidification (HVAC&D) systems in the facility were not included in the scope of this study. However, these systems do have an effect on the performance of the ice system and the following observations and reports were made: ▪ The existing dehumidification system is a Desicair unit manufactured by Air Technology Systems, Inc. See the lower two photographs in the picture box above. This system does not adequately serve the facility and reportedly only aids in reducing actual dripping from condensation but cannot control fogging in the arena. ▪ The excess moisture that occurs in the facility creates additional ice maintenance especially along the edge of the rink. ▪ Because the existing dehumidification system underperforms, the staff has started dumping the ice shavings, generated during resurfacing, outside the building rather than in the snow melt pit. This requires open the overhead door more often, letting in hot and humid air, and brings in sand and dirt that needs to be washed off the resurfacer tires each time it comes back into the building. ▪ The University typically rents a dehumidification unit from Aggreko to operate during the summer months.

Page 23 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

▪ The design phase for a new permanent desiccant-based dehumidification system has recently started. A roof location might be possible since a large roof top unit was recently removed. A screen wall may be required if the unit is placed on the roof. ▪ The temperature in the arena space reportedly increases about 5 degrees F during games. The actual temperature and humidity levels were not provided. A vent in the roof at center ice can be opened if needed to release warm air from the arena space. ▪ There are no air conditioning units to serve the arena space. ▪ There is no low emissivity ceiling in this facility. • Structural Concerns. Evaluating the structural components of the building were not included in the scope of this project. However, there appears to be some movement in the concrete floor at least on the west end of the facility. Cracks have opened up in the resurfacer room and other areas. The sanitary sewer has reported to be backing up more often in the last 3 to 6 months. The concrete equipment pad that supports the refrigeration system has reportedly settled as much as 1.5 inches causing failure in equipment and piping components. This is very concerning because any movement will add stress to the ammonia piping and increase the risk of a catastrophic failure substantially increasing the health and life safety risk to anyone in the refrigeration room and possibly in, and near, the facility. This should be evaluated and addressed as soon as possible. The University stated that a structural engineer would be evaluating the settlement and cracking over next several months. RECCO stated they could isolate and cut an ammonia pipe during the off season to investigate the degree of tension or stress on the pipe.

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): The first three pictures are cracks in concrete floor in resurfacer room; the last picture (lower right corner, picture is rotated 90 degrees left) is of the refrigeration concrete pad that is cracking/failing due to possible settlement. Page 24 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Emergency Generator. The facility has an emergency generator. It is not connected to, or sized for, the refrigeration system.

3.3 Recommendations – Ice Systems

3.3.1 General The main focus of this study is the planning and budgeting for improvements to, or replacement of, the 23-year old refrigeration system. Areas of the ice system is showing its age along with increasing operational challenges. We recommend the University plan and budget for the capital improvements for the existing ice system at the facility as outlined in this section. Cost estimates are provided for each recommendation in the table at the end of this section.

The following options were identified for improving or replacing the ice system components at this facility ranging from maintaining the existing system to a total replacement of the ice system. The equipment, materials and systems recommended in this study are of the similar or better quality and life expectancy as the existing systems. Supplement information can be found in Appendix B.

The following options were identified for improving or replacing the ice system: Option 1: Maintain existing system as is. Option 2: Make improvements to the existing system. Option 3: New indirect, industrial grade, ammonia-based system. Option 4: New indirect, carbon dioxide (CO2) based system. Option 5: New direct, carbon dioxide (CO2) based system. Option 6: Ice rink floor replacement. Option 7: Reduce size of ice rink floor to standard NCAA size. Option 8: Refrigeration room improvements. Option 9: New refrigeration room. Option 10: Dasher board system improvements. Option 11: Water treatment improvements.

3.3.2 Option 1: Maintain existing system as-is Description: The University may elect to keep operating the existing ammonia indirect-type ice system with the goal of replacing the system in the near future. Under this option only typical maintenance items and life safety items would be completed. Advantages: • Lower near-term costs (both capital and utility costs). • Avoid disruption from construction activities. • Allow time for the new refrigerants and technology to further develop. Extending the use of the existing refrigeration systems for a while longer will allow newer ice system technology, such the use of CO2 refrigerant, to develop potentially allowing manufacturing costs to decrease, and service companies to gain more experience. Disadvantages:

Page 25 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• On-going and increasing maintenance and equipment costs. • Less dependable. • Risk of failure in system and losing the ice sheet, especially given the poor condition of the existing header system. Recommendation: The 23-year old refrigeration system is nearing its 25-year expected life. If the University continues to operate the existing system, we recommend the following minimum improvements and continuation of exploratory activities. Major improvements, as outlined in Option 2, will be required to the existing ice system to extend its safe and useful life. • Determine if the ammonia piping is stressed by the apparent settlement or movement of the equipment pad and/or floor. Shim and adjust equipment and piping as necessary. Monitor for additional settlement. • Continue the existing rigorous maintenance program that includes, but often not limited to; ▪ Compressor oil changes, clean crankcase, clean cuno filters. ▪ Perform lower end inspection on three compressors, inspect al internal components. Perform top end overhauls on these compressors. ▪ Clean and inspect water cooled heads on all three compressors. ▪ Return and tighten head bolts on compressors after one week of operation. ▪ Inspect belts and grease all compressor motors. ▪ Test the freeze point of cold floor brine system and treat as needed. ▪ Check and bleed air from both cold and warm brine systems. ▪ Drain oil from chillers as needed. ▪ Check ammonia level in system. ▪ Inspect and test all failure, safety and temperature controls. ▪ Inspect and tighten all electrical components. ▪ Start-up and test run system for a minimum of 1-hour after improvements have been completed. ▪ Check ammonia level control. • Test brine solutions for inhibitor level, sediment, pH, iron, etc. twice per year. • Test brine solution for potential corrosion in system with the use of a new coupon rack system. Install a coupon test rack. • Continue to filter brine solutions until sediment and iron is within acceptable levels. • Improve the existing life safety systems including: ▪ Install strobe and audible alarm inside the refrigeration room. ▪ Install energizer switch for emergency ventilation system directly outside interior door of refrigeration room. ▪ Install ammonia diffusion tank on pressure relief system. ▪ Verify gas monitoring system is monitored through the existing BMS. ▪ Improve emergency signage on exterior of refrigeration room doors. ▪ Replace pressure relief valves on system as required. ▪ Verify existing mechanical ventilation system provides occupancy and emergency level ventilation airflow. Verify mechanical system provides code compliant airflow. ▪ Caulk and seal joints in room as necessary to provide a completely sealed room. ▪ Add fire protection coating to all metal structures in the refrigeration room as required by code. ▪ Install new eyewash/shower station near interior door to refrigeration room. • Calibrate the existing gas monitoring system.

Page 26 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Continue to monitor for refrigerant leaks in the refrigeration. • Continue to monitor the condition of all systems for life and safety concerns. • Develop or update an Emergency Preparedness Plan for responding to ammonia alarms, leaks, etc. Coordinate with local first responders, fire departments, etc. • Develop a Risk Assessment Plan. Areas of concern are listed starting with the highest potential for failure. ▪ Ammonia leak. A leak in the ammonia system can develop in various locations within the refrigeration system. ▪ Failure of ammonia piping on the refrigeration system. This is a high-risk area caused by the apparent settlement or movement of the concrete equipment pad and/or floor. This area should be investigated and addressed immediately. The failure of these systems is a serious health and life safety risk. ▪ Failure of header piping systems. The existing steel header pipes for the rink floor and subfloor heating system are known to be corroding and have leaked in the recent past. The level of corrosion will determine how and if the pipes can be repaired. o Estimated time frame for repair: Depends on level of corrosion and location. Given the location of the header pipes, it would not be unlikely for repairs to take over 12 hours. Twelve hours is the general time it takes before the ice sheet begins to melt or the bond breaks between ice and concrete. o Estimated cost: varies ▪ Failure of clamped connections in subfloor piping system. Clamped connections in the subfloor floor piping system will eventually fail due to the expansion and contraction of different pipe materials (e.g. poly pipe and steel return bends, etc). Using brine in the subfloor increases the risk of failure at clamped piping connections. Typically, a failure in the subfloor heating piping system is not repairable. The result would be limiting the ice system to 6-8 months of operation to avoid damage to the building’s structural components, walls, footings, the ice rink floor, etc. caused by permafrost buildup beneath the ice rink floor. Frost can be very expensive to remove. o Estimated time frame for repair: Repairs are not possible in most cases. o Estimated cost: Not applicable. ▪ Failure of clamped connections in rink floor piping system. A failure in these connections is general repairable and have been repaired in at least one occasion for this rink floor. See photographs on page 18 of this report. o Estimated time frame for repair: 6-12 hours. o Estimated cost: $3,000 to $10,000. ▪ As additional vulnerable areas of the system are identified, they should be added to this list.

3.3.3 Option 2: Make improvements to the existing system Refrigeration System Improvements: The refrigeration equipment is industrial-grade quality and, under normal conditions and maintenance, should operate well beyond 25 years especially with the equipment upgrades that have been completed so far. To extend its life of the refrigeration system for another 5 plus years, the following minimum improvements will likely be required and/or desired. • All items in Option 1. • Replace the Motor Control Panel on the refrigeration package.

Page 27 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Replace existing open tanks with expansion tanks and site glasses to monitor brine levels. This will help reduce the amount of air that enters the brine system reducing the potential for corrosion inside the piping systems and equipment. • Replace the original ice rink pump. • Replace original desuperheater type heat exchanger for the snow melt system. • Replace the snow melt pit pump at same time. • Change subfloor heating and snow melt system from brine to glycol. • See Section 3.3.11 for additional uses for waste heat. • Replace snow melt coil with new stainless-steel coil. • Replace the steel brine piping on the refrigeration package. • Replace the ice rink floor – See Option 6. • Recommendation: Making these improvements could extend the life of the system for another 5 plus years.

3.3.5 Option 3: New indirect, industrial grade, ammonia-based system Description: Replace existing refrigeration system with a new industrial grade, ammonia-based system. Advantages: • Best available proven technology for this application. • Proven performance and dependability. Ammonia-based refrigeration systems have been used since the late 1800’s. Synthetics (like R-134a, R-507, R-22, etc.) became popular in the late 60’s to early 70’s. • Maximum operational efficiency. Similar to existing system with efficiency improvements made in the design phase of the new system. • Sustainability. Ammonia and CO2 are the only naturally occurring refrigerants used in ice rink applications. Both ammonia and CO2 are pure refrigerants. Most synthetic refrigerants, including R-134a, are blends of 2 or more refrigerants. Some blends can cause operational concerns in the future as the system ages. • Longevity of equipment and refrigerant (30+ years). • Lower cost refrigerant. Ammonia is approximately $2 per pound vs. most synthetics are $15- $35 per pound. • Availability of equipment and parts. • Availability of skilled ammonia contractors. Verify local contractors. Disadvantages: • Potentially greater health/safety hazards over synthetic refrigerants. Therefore, the refrigeration system will be designed with additional safety systems. However, ammonia is a self-detecting gas and, therefore, a leak will be recognized immediately unlike synthetic refrigerants which are odorless and just as dangerous to humans. All refrigerants should be treated with equal care and safety precautions. • Insurance carrier may require safety systems above and beyond code requirements. However, the existing refrigeration system is ammonia. • May require additional fire proofing of refrigeration room. • Greater ventilation requirements in refrigeration room. The existing system is an ammonia system so the venting system should be similar to existing. If the University is concerned with a release of ammonia through the ventilation system and its impact on adjacent facilities or users, an air dispersion model could be developed. This modeling has been

Page 28 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

performed on two of Stevens forty plus ammonia projects nationwide. Additional scrubbing systems are available to further reduce the concentration of ammonia as it is vented from the room. These systems are not required by code regulations. • Vestibule. A vestibule can be added to the existing interior door if added safety or separation is desired. This is not required by code since the second exist is directly to the exterior of the building. • Higher capital costs. • Availability of skilled ammonia contractors. Recommendations: Since the University is very familiar with ammonia refrigeration systems, we recommend the University strongly consider this as the replacement system. However, the University should be mindful of the greater health hazard over synthetic or HFC refrigerants such as R-507 or R-134a. During the design phase, along with various equipment options that will be discussed during the design phase for the new equipment, we recommend specifically evaluating the different compressor options for potentially lowering maintenance costs and the options for lowering the ammonia charge in the system.

3.3.6 Options 4 and 5: New indirect or direct carbon dioxide (CO2)-based system Description: This option includes replacing the existing refrigeration system with a CO2-based refrigeration package system. This option does not have the potential to reuse any of the existing equipment. The use of CO2 refrigerant may likely be the next substantial “innovation” in the ice rink industry. Stevens designed the first CO2-based ice system in the United States four years ago and has completed a total of six CO2 projects since that time. There are currently 8 CO2-based ice rink systems in the United States, approximately 25-30 in Canada and 30 plus in Europe.

Advantages: • Higher efficiency with direct CO2 than any indirect system. A direct CO2 system is approximately 10%-15% more efficient than the existing ammonia indirect system. An indirect CO2 system is estimated to be equal to or slightly less efficient than the existing system. • Potentially higher heat recovery temperatures. • Potentially less space required than an industrial grade system. Disadvantages: • Higher equipment costs due to limited availability. • Higher rink floor costs for direct system. • Fewer contractors that are familiar with technology. • Potential patent conflicts on direct technology. • Proprietary control systems used with this technology. • Code regulated maximum quantity of CO2 allowed in arena space. The Whittemore Center has a large arena volume and will likely meet this code requirement. • A drop off of operating efficiency in warmer temperatures (above 87F). Address with larger gas cooler. Gas coolers may take up more space than existing condenser. • The lead time ordering equipment is typically longer than conventional equipment. Ordering equipment and fabrication can range from 18-24 weeks. Recommendations: It is recommended that a CO2 refrigerant-based ice system be evaluated and considered. If the University is interested in pursuing the use of CO2 refrigerant, we encourage a site visit to at least one facility that is currently using this type of system along with

Page 29 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY in-depth discussion with the facility’s management and operation personnel and manufacturer’s representatives. Possible locations include: • Quebec and Montreal Canada – CO2 based ice systems • Sweden – direct Ammonia/CO2 ice systems and CO2 equipment manufacturers. • Anchorage, AK – Currently there are four direct CO2 systems in operation since 2014. • Wasilla, AK – Construction of new CO2 ice system in 2018. • St. Michael, MN – Construction of new CO2 ice system in 2018.

It is also recommended that a more in-depth study of CO2 system options (e.g. common vs. single systems, single circuit vs. multi-circuit systems, direct vs. indirect systems, control systems, etc.) and code requirements be performed during the preliminary design phase of the project to determine the feasibility of a CO2 ice system in this facility.

Pictures (from left to right) Option 3 – Example of an industrial grade “skid package” refrigeration system. Option 3 – Example of an industrial grade “stick built” refrigeration system. Options 4 and 5 – Example of a CO2-based refrigeration package system.

3.3.7 Option 6: Ice Rink Floor Recommendations Description: Replace the existing ice rink floor with a new 6” concrete ice rink floor, floor insulation, subfloor heating system, new header system, and subsoil drainage system. Since it is not recommended to simply replace the header piping systems, the rink floor is reaching is expected life, leaks are occurring in the rink floor, and additional cracking started, we recommend the existing rink floor be replaced. Because there is fixed seating around the entire ice rink floor, the existing 100-foot width (which is Olympic sized) would likely need to be maintained unless modifications to the seating were performed. This option assumes the ice rink floor dimensions of 200 feet long by 100 feet wide by 28-foot radius is maintained. Option 7 addresses reducing the rink floor size to the NCAA standard.

Recommendation: We recommend fully vetting Option 7 before proceeding with this Option. The Olympic sized ice rink floor was popular in the 1990’s but many ice rinks are downsizing to the NHL and NCAA standard size of 200 feet by 85 feet.

We do not recommend simply replacing the header system for the following reasons: • The tight location. Seating would need to be removed, etc. Future repairs to the system would be difficult. The water table may continue to be an issue with an open trench. • An exposed header system allows for more heat gain into the piping system lowering the efficiency of the system. Page 30 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• The reported brittleness of the existing polyethylene rink piping. A new header system would have approximately 342 connections to the existing polyethylene rink piping. • The existing polyethylene rink floor piping will limit the header design to another clamped type system vs a more seamless, longer lasting welded type system with either steel or poly pipe.

3.3.8 Option 7: Reduce Size of Ice Rink Floor to Standard NCAA Size Description: This option is provided in this study to provide the University with a rough order of magnitude of scope and cost. It will require a much more involved study of sight lines, seating modifications, ADA, egress, soils, ground water, etc. to determine if reducing the size of the rink floor by 8 to 15 feet in width is feasible. Stevens completed a very preliminary study for the University of Minnesota- Mariucci Arena to reduce its Olympic sized ice rink floor to 92 feet wide. It was determined that this was the narrowest the ice rink floor could be to maintain acceptable site lines. This study concluded the following work was required: modifications to the seating and footings systems, lowering the rink floor approximately 16 inches to maintain site lines, adding 200 seats, adding ADA ramps, etc. A 90-foot width of the rink floor has been an alternative selection to the traditional 85-foot width for some Division 1 college coaches and Universities. Recommendation: We recommend proceeding with this option if a more detailed study shows its feasible. A NHL and NCAA standard size rink floor will be less surface area and take less energy to maintain. The cost information from that study was used as a rough order of magnitude for this Option and was not specifically revised for this facility.

3.3.8 Option 8: Refrigeration Room Recommendations Description: The existing refrigeration room is adequate in size. Some improvements to the room are recommended as outlined below. Recommendations: We recommend the following improvements to the existing refrigeration room. • Consider installing a vestibule at the interior door to provide greater separation or isolation between the ammonia room and the arena space. • Make life safety and refrigeration room improvements outlined in Option 1.

3.3.9 Option 9: New Refrigeration Room Description: Convert part of the existing storage room to a new refrigeration room as shown in Figure 1 at the end of this report. This area has access to the back corridor for egress and maintenance access. This new room would be a little less accessible for equipment replacement etc. A new room would potentially lessen the downtime when replacing the ice system.

Page 31 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

Pictures (clockwise starting top left): The first three photographs show an existing storage room in the facility that could potentially be used for a new ammonia-refrigeration room. The last photograph (lower right) is the existing corridor behind the storage room and refrigeration room.

3.3.10 Option 10: Dasher Board System Recommendations Description: The existing dasher board system is 10-years old and in good shape. The life expectancy of this system is approximately 25 years. However, player safety is becoming a greater concern. Recommendations: The following are few changes that will make the existing dasher board system more flexible and may assist in reducing injuries: • Install a flexible glass system. These systems allow the glass to flex and is especially effective at the ends and radii of the system. • Install flexible framing systems. These systems allow the frame to flex at the base and is especially effective at the ends and radii of the system. These systems require increased maintenance to keep the system plum and all part operating properly. • Replace supported and supportless tempered glass shielding with acrylic shielding. The new acrylic shielding systems have been designed to better resist scratching and discoloring and provide the greatest flexibility of all the shielding systems. Acrylic shielding is mandated in NHL game and practice facilities and is being installed in some newer and renovated Division 1 college facilities. • Change from rigid aluminum shielding supports to a flexible shielding support system. These systems allow the acrylic shielding to flex and are typically clear to provide better

Page 32 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

spectator viewing. This option is only available with acrylic shielding and is a proprietary system. • Install curved acrylic shielding safety corners. These systems replace the square corners at the boxes to improve safety. • Replace hard polyethylene caprail with soft caprail. This is a fairly new product that is marketed to reduce head injuries. The product has a life span of approximately 5 years. • Replace hard polyethylene kick plate with flush mounted kick plate. This system takes the place of the traditional kick plate that protrudes out ½ inch from the face of the dasher panel. This is not a safety enhancement but is a trend in the industry and was designed to improve the playability of the puck. The University expressed interested in accommodations for sled hockey. Because there is fixed seating on both sides of the existing players boxes, separate sled hockey boxes could not be installed without removing sections of the existing seating. However, the existing players boxes, gates and thresholds can be modified to be removeable to accommodate sled hockey. Clear facing would also be installed on the front of the players boxes.

3.3.11 Resurfacer Water Treatment System – Recommendations Water Quality. Water quality has a direct relationship with energy use, performance and aesthetics. Purer water takes less energy to freeze, is denser and therefore, provides greater structural integrity up to a certain point. The denser the ice, the faster it plays. The players want to be on the surface and not in the ice so ice density is very important. It’s possible to lessen the thickness of the ice by a quarter inch or more with using clean water. This in turn saves energy. The Department of Energy found that for every 1-inch of ice thickness required, the refrigeration system demand increases by 8 to 15 percent. Typical ice thickness is 1.25 to 1.50 inches.

Water Temperature. There is a general rule of thumb that states for every 1-degree F rise in ice surface temperature, there is an energy savings of 4 to 6 percent on the refrigeration system. Ice temperatures can typically be raised by 2 to 4 degrees F higher using treated water over untreated water for a total over all energy savings of 8 to 12 percent depending on programming, weather, length of season, etc. The traditional standard temperature for flood water is 120-165 degrees F. However, some facilities use temperatures as low as 80-90 degrees F. Keep in mind, one reason for using warmer resurfacer water is to reduce the amount of air in the water. Air can reduce the strength of the ice surface.

Water Treatment Option 11: The facility’s current water treatment system hasn’t been used. A common resurfacer water treatment system that is used in ice arena facilities today (mainly collegiate and NHL facilities) is based on a reverse osmosis (RO) process. Typical water hardness readings between 50-80 ppm (3 to 5 grains) are desired. For water with readings higher than this, treatment is recommended. We did not confirm the water quality for the source water at this facility.

Recommendation: Evaluate the existing water supply and benefits of treatment.

Page 33 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

3.3.12 Other Energy Saving Recommendations Since the University if very conscious of energy consumption, some additional energy savings ideas are presented below. Cost estimates have not been provided for these items. • Refrigerants. The existing refrigeration system uses ammonia as the primary refrigerant and brine as the secondary refrigerant. This is one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly combinations of refrigerants that can be used in the ice rink industry. We do not recommend refrigerant changes unless the University is interested in CO2 refrigerant. • Refrigeration Equipment. The industrial grade refrigeration equipment used at the facility operates at a higher efficiency than commercial grade equipment or packaged refrigeration systems. • Heat Recovery. The facility is currently recovering heat from the refrigeration system for heating the soils under the ice rink floor as a frost prevention system and the snow melt pit system. The next most efficient use of the waste heat is to preheat the water used for resurfacing. • Arena Temperature and Humidity. The air temperature and humidity inside the ice arena was not measured or noted. Air temperature and relative humidity for an arena of this size is typically 55-60 degrees F and 40-55%, respectively. Temperatures and humidity levels higher than this will place unnecessary added load on the refrigeration system. The University is currently in the design phase for a new desiccant dehumidification system which will greatly improve the air quality. • Low Emissivity Ceiling. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) states that up to 28% of the heat load on an ice sheet is caused by heat, from the surrounding building, radiating on to the ice sheet. The installation of a low emissivity ceiling (a foil faced radiant barrier) may greatly reduce the radiation from the ceiling where the majority of the radiation is generated. Other advantages include: ▪ Reduces lighting requirements due to reflective properties of the foil material. ▪ Helps to prevent ceiling condensation and dripping. ▪ Reduces ceiling maintenance costs Costs for low emissivity ceiling systems vary greatly from $60,000 to $125,000 or more per ice sheet. The simple payback on these systems ranges from 5 to 7 years for a rink that operates year-round. The cost estimate presented in this study is based on a ceiling material called Astro-Rink manufactured by Energie Innovation that the Stevens’ team has had great success with and recommends for this application. If the University is interested in this option, a more detailed study should be performed. • Screw Compressors vs Reciprocating Compressors. Consider changing from the existing direct drive reciprocating compressors to a screw type compressor. The energy savings may not be substantial but the maintenance costs will be reduced significantly. • Variable Frequency Drives. The use of variable frequency drives on pumps and fans can be beneficial not only for energy savings but control of ice temperatures as well. • Alternative Energy Sources. The current facility is served by electricity, natural gas, and steam. As energy costs rise, alternative sources of energy such as geothermal, natural gas, or co-generation, may look more attractive. Electricity remains the most practical energy source for these types of systems although the current rates are $0.13 to $0.14 per kW. Stevens has designed several geothermal systems, hybrid (electrical and natural gas) systems, and analyzed co-generation and can provide information on these systems if desired. Solar power also appears to be making inroads into ice arena facilities.

Page 34 of 35

Whittemore Center – University of New Hampshire ICE SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY

• Ice thickness. The ice thickness was not verified. Maintaining a uniform ice thickness between 1.25 and 1.5 inches will lead to fewer operating hours on compressor packages, thus saving energy and maintenance. It also will provide better surface, faster freezing time, which leads to more control. • Rebates. Stevens can assist in identifying potential rebates from the local utility companies during the design phase of the project.

3.4 Cost Estimates – Ice System

The opinion of probable costs of the recommended improvements are summarized in the table below and are total project costs for 2019 construction. Table 2 includes cost estimates for Options 1 through 11. Each cost estimate includes the estimated total project cost including; contingencies, overhead, engineering and design, etc. A more detailed description of the cost estimate is located in Appendix C. The costs shown in the table are independent costs and should be selected as follows: • Choose one from Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for improvements to the refrigeration system. • Choose one from Options 6 and 7 for improvements to the ice rink floor. • Choose one from Options 8 and 9 for improvements to the refrigeration room. • Options 10 and 11 are independent.

Table 2. Ice System Improvements/Replacement Options Cost Estimate Summary Item Cost

Page 35 of 35

HEADER TRENCH EXISTING

FIGURE 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN WHITTMORE CENTER 4/13/18

Appendix A Investigation Methods, Documentation, Codes and References

Investigation Methods and Documents

Various methods were used to evaluate the existing facility including:

Visual Observations: A site visit were conducted on March 1, 2018, to observe the operation of the facility and its ice systems.

Interviews: During the on-site visits, in-depth discussions were conducted with the facility’s management and operational staff to document existing issues with the facility and discuss historical problems with its systems.

Research: Where applicable, additional research was conducted to provide accurate and detailed information regarding improvements or systems recommendations.

Documents: The following documents were received and reviewed for the evaluation:

Existing Drawings: • 1994 Construction Drawings • 1994 As-Built Set • 1995 Rothmar Manufacturing Chiller Drawings • May 1, 2015 Proposal from American Refrigeration Company for the Chiller Replacement

Reports, Studies, Memos: • None

Other: • None

Codes, Standards, and Guidelines Applicable to the Project

The following Codes generally apply to projects of this scope and may or may not be enforced by the University or the City of Marquette.

• International Building Code (IBC) • International Mechanical Code (incl. ASHRAE 15 & IIAR2) • Plumbing Code • NRFA 70 – National Electric Code, 2014 Edition • NFPA Life Safety Code, as amended, 2015 • NFPA 72 2016 – National Fire Alarm Code • 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design as Required to Comply with Section 504 of US Rehabilitation Act of 1973 title II of Americas with Disability Act of 1990, Updated September 15, 2010 • ASHRAE 90.1 – 2013 Energy Standard • ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013 • ANSI/IIAR 2-2014 • The City’s CODE OF ORDINANCES was not reviewed or referenced for this evaluation.

A-2

Abbreviations ADA: American with Disabilities Act COP: Coefficient of Performance oF: Degrees Fahrenheit HVAC: Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning IDLH: Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health. The level that a worker can be exposed for 30 minutes without suffering irreversible health effects. LCC: Life Cycle Costing LF: Lineal Feet mpy: milligrams per year. NFPA: National Fire Protection Association. PSI: Pounds per Square Inch SF: Square Feet VE: Value Engineering

Definitions

ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org

Azeotrope: Blends comprising multiple components of different volatilities that, when used in refrigeration cycles, do not change volumetric composition or saturation temperatures as they evaporate (boil) or condense at constant pressure.

Brine: Used to refer to the secondary refrigerant in a refrigeration system. Typical Secondary refrigerants are ethylene glycol or calcium chloride and water solutions.

Building Envelope: Exterior portion of the building including walls, windows, doors and roof structure.

Coefficient of Performance (COP): The instantaneous performance of any refrigerating/heating system expressed as a dimensionless quantity. The COP is a way of measuring and relating equipment performances.

Direct System: A direct refrigeration system circulates the primary refrigerant (e.g. R-22) directly through the ice rink floor. There is no secondary solution or refrigerant.

HCFC: Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (e.g. R-22, etc.)

HFC: Hyrdrofluorocarbon (e.g. R134a, R404A, R407C, R410, R507, etc.)

Ice System: A term that collectively refers to the refrigeration system, ice rink floor system, waste heat recovery systems and dasher board systems.

A-3 synthetic refrigerants like R-22 due to environmental concerns with the large quantities of refrigerant required to operate these systems and the high replacement costs of the refrigerant.

Indirect System: An indirect refrigeration system uses two refrigerants. A primary refrigerant (e.g. R-22) which is stays confined in the refrigeration room and a secondary refrigerant (e.g. glycol or calcium chloride) that is circulated in the rink floor. The heat exchange between the primary and secondary refrigerants takes place in the refrigeration room.

Life Cycle Costing (LCC): Comparing the cumulative total of implementation, operating and maintenance costs. The total costs are discounted over the life of the system or over the loan repayment period. The costs and investments are both discounted and displayed as a total combined life-cycle cost at the end of the analysis period. The options are compared to determine which has the lowest total cost over the anticipated project life. Chapter 26- 2003 ASHRAE Handbook.

Natural Refrigerants: Natural occurring refrigerants such as ammonia (R717), carbon dioxide (CO2, R744) and hydrocarbons.

Refrigerant: The fluid used for heat transfer in a refrigerating system; the refrigerant absorbs heat and transfers it at a higher temperature and pressure, usually with a phase change.

Synthetic Refrigerants: Artificial refrigerants such as HCFC and HFC type refrigerants.

Ton: One ton of refrigeration is equal to the daily delivery of one ton (2000 lbs) of ice. Or, in more scientific terms, one ton of refrigeration is equal to the power required to cool 1oF for every 10 minutes or the power required to melt one short ton (2000 lbs) of ice at 0oC in 24 hours. One ton equals 12,000 BTU/h = approximately 3517 W.

Useful Life: The period of time over which an investment is considered to meet its original objective. ASTM E833-91a, Standard Terminology of Building Economics, May 1991.

Value Engineering: A creative, function oriented, multi-disciplined, team approach whose objective is to optimize the life cycle costs and performance of a facility. Alphonse J. Dell’Isola, Value Engineering in the Construction Industry, 3rd ed. New York: Van Reinhold, 1982.

A-4

Appendix B The Future of Refrigerants

The Future of Refrigerants

B.1 Definitions

Included in this section are definitions for the basic terminology used throughout this report.

Ice System: A term that collectively refers to the refrigeration system, ice rink floor system, waste heat recovery systems and dasher board systems.

Direct System: A direct refrigeration system circulates the primary refrigerant (e.g. R-22) directly through the ice rink floor. There is no secondary solution or refrigerant. These types of systems were very common in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Today, these systems are no longer recommended with synthetic refrigerants like R-22 due to environmental concerns with the large quantities of refrigerant required to operate these systems and the high replacement costs of the refrigerant.

Indirect-type System: In an indirect system, the primary refrigerant (e.g. R-22) stays in the refrigeration room. Heat is removed from the ice rink floor through a secondary refrigerant (e.g. glycol or calcium chloride solution) that is circulated in the floor.

HCFC: Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (e.g. R-22, etc.) – synthetic refrigerants are less ozone depleting than CFCs (e.g. R-12, etc.) but are still high enough to significantly deplete natural resources and contribute to global warming. These are phased out by the Montreal Protocol.

HFC: Hydrofluorocarbon (e.g. R404A, R407C, R-507, etc.) – synthetic refrigerants that have lower ozone depleting potential (ODP) than HCFC but a high enough global warming potential to deplete natural resources and contribute to global warming. The phase-out of these refrigerants has begun. u-HFC: Unsaturated Hydrofluorocarbons – synthetic refrigerants lower in GWP than HFCs but produce dangerous hydrogen fluoride when they burn and transform to trifluoro-acetic acid in the atmosphere. These are generally patented and much costlier.

Natural Refrigerants: Naturally occurring refrigerants such as ammonia (R-717), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrocarbons. These generally have zero ODP and zero GWP.

B.2 The Future of Refrigerants

When discussing ice system options, it is necessary to understand how refrigerants impact these options. For example, R-22 refrigerant (Ammonia is currently used in the existing refrigeration system) has been the most popular refrigerant used in ice rink applications since the 1970’s. However, with the signing of the Montreal Protocol, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the final rule of Section 604 of the Clean Air Act in July 1992, limiting the production and consumption of a set of chemicals known to deplete the stratospheric ozone

B-2 2

layer as measured by their ozone depleting potential (ODP). R-22, which also has a high global warming potential (GWP), is one of these targeted chemicals.

Regulations on R-22 started taking effect in 2010 and will continue to significantly reduce the allowances to produce and import R-22 through 2020 when production and importation in the U.S. will be halted all together. The U.S. EPA has significantly reduced allowances by 11-17% per year. However, R-22 can be used in systems until supply runs out which will likely be beyond the 2020 production limit.

In addition to the current regulations on refrigerants that affect the ozone, there are now regulations that target refrigerants that contribute to global warming through a high global warming potential (GWP) which is generally over 1200. This affects mainly synthetic refrigerants like HFCs. Volume 80 of the Federal Register, enacted on July 20, 2015, list refrigerants that are no longer acceptable for use in retail food refrigeration and in vending machines. Even though current regulations do not appear to apply to ice skating rinks, some of the refrigerants on the list are currently used in ice skating facilities such as: R-134A R-404A, R- 407B, R-407C, and R-507A. Restrictions on their use started as early as 2016.

On March 29, 2016, with the new Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) program rule proposal, the US EPA is aiming to expand the list of acceptable alternatives and ban the use of certain refrigerants. New acceptable refrigerants now include R290 in commercial equipment and very low temperature refrigeration equipment. Unacceptable substances include R-404A, R-410A, R-134a, R407C and other F-gases in certain uses such as centrifugal chillers (2024), cold storage warehouses (2023), retail food and household appliances (2021).

Europe has mandated stricter measures than the United States to limit the amount of greenhouse gases released. Europe is well ahead of the United States on the phase-out of R-22 and other HCFC refrigerants and have already imposed strict regulations and quotas for all HFC’s on the market. Regulations in Europe became effective on January 1, 2015 that aim to cut greenhouse gases from HFC’s to two-thirds of todays’ levels by 2030 by providing containment, maintenance, recovery, and limit sales of HFC’s. A yearly limit on the climate impact of HFC was also established, and will be reduced from 2015-2030.

The intent of all these phase-out programs and incentives is to move industries from very harmful ozone depleting substances and into naturally occurring refrigerants like carbon dioxide, propane, and ammonia in a type of leapfrog scheme to give industries the chance to catch up to technology. The industry started with very harmful CFC’s such as R-12 that have been phased out, then moved to the less harmful HCFC’s like R-22 which are currently being phased out. The remaining synthetic refrigerants can be split into high GWP (like HFCs) and low GWP (like u-HFCs), of which the high GWP are beginning to fall under increased scrutiny and may become obsolete and the low GWP refrigerants may be under increased scrutiny in the future.

Currently, the ice rink industry is caught in a transition period for refrigerants as new environmental regulations are implemented. Careful consideration and evaluation of the current refrigerant options should be made. The replacement refrigerants for HCFC refrigerants

B-3 3

(i.e. R-22, etc.) are fairly new with a limited history and performance data in this application. The almost certain future regulations of HFC refrigerants (i.e. R-507, R407C, etc.), which are used in many of the R-22 replacement refrigerants, should be considered.

Large global companies, such as Coca Cola, are leading the charge to ban HFCs and use natural refrigerants such as CO2, hydrocarbons and ammonia. Between 2004 and 2012, twenty-four ice skating facilities in Europe have switched over to using CO2 as the secondary refrigerant with ammonia as the primary. The first CO2-based ice system in North America, and the first direct CO2-based system in the world, opened in 2011 in Quebec, Canada with a second rink opening in Montreal in 2012. Four CO2 direct rinks are now open in Anchorage, Alaska with two others under construction in 2018 in Wassilla, AK and St. Michael, MN.

B-4 4

Appendix C Cost Estimates

Estimated Project Costs

The proposed cost estimates presented throughout this report were developed by estimating the probable construction costs based on similar types of construction projects and work performed and bid in 2010-2017 and updated for 2019 costs unless otherwise noted. The estimated costs include all materials and labor for a complete installation unless otherwise noted. Costs will vary depending on the time of year the projects are bid, the current economic climate and the size of project.

The costs are based on a standard project and construction schedule. If a reduced construction schedule is desired, additional costs for overtime pay, etc. should be applied to the specific project.

The cost estimates also account for, or are based on, the following references: • Prevailing Wage requirements that may be required by the State of Vermont. • Engineering New Report Cost Index

In addition to the probable construction costs of the proposed work, other associated project costs are included to provide a total estimate cost for the project. The Estimate, Design and Construction Contingency line item in each cost table is included during the preliminary phase of design projects because the exact scope of the project has not yet been determined. This percentage is typically reduced from 20% to 8% during the final design phase of the project.

The Engineering, Legal, Financial and Administrative line item in each cost table is provided to cover all work performed by the design team, geotechnical services and other material testing services, and all legal, financial and administrative responsibilities required by the University for projects of this type. These costs will vary based on project scope. A proposal will be provided to the University for all architectural and engineering services.

Escalation Factor and Method of Application

Where costs are projected beyond the current year (2019 for this study), an escalation factor of 4% is applied. The escalation factor is based on current economic conditions and location, and is applied to midpoint of construction which is estimated to be July 1st of the applicable year.

Estimated Energy Savings

Estimated savings presented in this report are computed from the equipment and manufacturer’s information provided to us and on Stevens experience with similar systems. The actual energy savings will depend on many factors including: conservation measures implemented, seasonal weather variations, energy price increases, and energy use practices of the facility’s staff and users.

A detailed cost estimate is provided on the following page for the replacement options discussed in this report.

Life Cycle

A comprehensive life cycle cost analysis was not included in the scope of this study. However, an overview the how life cycle costs apply to ice systems will be beneficial when evaluating ice system

C-2 replacement options. The definition of life cycle can be found in ASHRAE Handbook – HVAC Applications 2011, Chapter 37, Owning and Operating Costs.

Life-Cycle Costs (LCC). The cumulative total of implementation, operating, and maintenance costs over the life of the equipment. The total costs are discounted over the life of the system or over the loan repayment period. The costs and investments are both discounted and displayed as the total combined life-cycle cost at the end of the analysis period. The options are compared to determine which has the lowest total cost over the anticipated project life. As defined in the ASHRAE handbook, HVAC Applications 2011 Chapter 37.

In general, life cycles for ice systems are estimated at:

• Ammonia industrial grade refrigeration system – 30 years

• CO2 refrigeration system – 25 years

• HFC industrial grade refrigeration system – 25 years

• HFC commercial grade refrigeration system – 20 years

• Concrete ice rink floor with fusion welded high-density polyethylene tubing – 40 years

• Concrete ice rink floor with schedule 40 steel pipe – 30 years

• Sand ice floor with fusion welded high-density polyethylene tubing – 35 years

• Sand ice rink floor with schedule 40 steel pipe – 25 years

Ammonia refrigeration system. Ammonia refrigeration systems are referred to as “industrial grade” since they have a very long history of use in this industry and based on the type of equipment and materials that are used. These systems use highly efficient, open type compressors that are easy to maintain, therefore, extending their life. Welded steel pipe is used for the refrigerant piping and often used for the secondary brine piping. The 30-year life cycle stated above is often exceeded. It is not uncommon to see systems that have been operating 40 years plus.

CO2 refrigeration system. CO2 systems use semi hermetic compressors that cannot typically be rebuilt so they are replaced when they fail. The quality of the solder joints used on the CO2 piping and refrigeration system components is similar to that of ammonia-based systems. In addition, CO2 systems often use brazed plate heat exchangers, welded shell and plate exchangers, air coils with stainless steel pipes for heat recovery, and welded stainless steel piping. However, CO2 systems are now starting to use schedule 80 carbon steel piping systems.

HFC commercial grade refrigeration systems. These types of systems are commonly used in supermarket applications and have been used in the ice rink industry because of their lower capital costs. These systems are inferior to the other types of systems in part due to the use of less efficient equipment such as semi hermetic compressors and lower quality materials such as solder copper piping, direct expansion heat exchangers, and PVC brine piping.

END

C-3 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Date: 4.16.18 Project: University of New Hampshire - Whittemore Center Ice System Evlauation

Table C-1. Option 1 - Maintain Existing System As-is Item Cost1 Structural evaluation of concrete and building structure Not incl Continue rigorous maintenance program (Annual Cost range $25K to $33K $33,000 Check inhibitor level in brine solution and test for corrosion twice per year $500 Install coupon test rack and monitor for corrosion $2,500 Continue to filter sediment from brine solution Typical Maint. Improve existing life safety devices in refrigeration room $75,000 Calibrate gas monitoring system $500 Continue to monitor for refrigerant leaks (part of daily and annual maint.) Incl above Continue to monitor for safety concerns (part of daily and annual maint.) Incl above Develop or update an Emergency Preparedness Plan $15,000 Develop and maintain a Risk Assessment Plan $15,000

Subtotal of estimated construction costs $141,500 Cost adjustment for location (15%) $21,225 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $162,725 1 Estimate, design and constr. Contingency (20%) $32,545 Total estimated construction costs $195,270 1 Engineering, legal, financial and administrative (20%) $39,054 Total estimated project costs $234,324 Adjusted Costs for 20202 $243,697 Adjusted Costs for 20212 $253,445 Adjusted Costs for 20222 $263,583

Table C-2. Option 2 - Make Improvements to Existing System Item Cost1 Include all items in Option 1 Add Table C-1 Replace Motor Control Center on the refrigeration package $50,000 Replace existing open tanks with expansion tanks and site glasses (3 total) $5,000 Replace the original existing ice rink pump $18,000 Replace existing original desuperheater heat exchanger for snow melt pit $10,000 Replace existing snow melt pit pump $7,000 Change subfloor heating and snowmelt pit systems from brine glycol (fluid) $25,000 Replace snow melt coil with stainless steel coil $15,000 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $130,000 Cost adjustment for location (15%) $19,500 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $149,500 1 Estimate, design and constr. Contingency (20%) $29,900 Total estimated construction costs $179,400 1 Engineering, legal, financial and administrative (20%) $35,880 Total estimated project costs $215,280 Adjusted Costs for 20202 $223,891 Adjusted Costs for 20212 $232,847 Adjusted Costs for 20222 $242,161 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Date: 4.16.18 Project: University of New Hampshire - Whittemore Center Ice System Evaluation

Table C-3. Options 3-5 Refrigeration System Replacement Cost Estimate1 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Item New New New Ammonia CO2 CO2 direct Refrigerant type indirect Grade of system Industrial Industrial Industrial Demolition of existing refrigeration system $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Demolition of existing conc. rink floor (NHL + 6" thick) See Table C-4 See Table C-4 See Table C-4 Remove and replace two walls to install skid package NA $30,000 $30,000 Dewatering allowance NA NA NA New refrigeration system or equipment $900,000 $925,000 $1,050,000 New concrete rink floor w/poly pipe +subfloor (NHL +6" thick) See Table C-4 See Table C-4 See Table C-4 Basic waste heat recovery system (subfloor and snowmelt pit only) $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Enhanced waste heat recovery system (preheat Zamboni water $0 $0 $0 New life safety systems Incl above Incl above Incl above New dasher board system (NHL size) NA NA NA Ventilation system improvements or replacement in room $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 One new eye wash/shower stations with water heaters $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Miscellaneous plumbing improvements in ice equip room $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Electric service upgrade, if required $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Lighting modifications and misc. electrical $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 New interior vestibule and doors, new masonry wall See Table 2 See Table 2 See Table 2 Develop or update an Emergency Preparedness Plan $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Develop and maintain a Risk Assessment Plan $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,120,000 $1,175,000 $1,300,000 Cost adjustment for location (15%) $168,000 $176,250 $195,000 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,288,000 $1,351,250 $1,495,000 1 Estimate, design and constr. Contingency (20%) $257,600 $270,250 $299,000 Total estimated construction costs $1,545,600 $1,621,500 $1,794,000 1 Engineering, legal, financial, testing, and administrative(20%) $309,120 $324,300 $358,800 Total estimated project costs $1,854,720 $1,945,800 $2,152,800 Expected useful life - refrigeration system (yrs) 25-30 20-25 20-25

Adjusted Costs for 20202 $1,928,909 $2,023,632 $2,238,912 Adjusted Costs for 20212 $2,006,065 $2,104,577 $2,328,468 Adjusted Costs for 20222 $2,086,308 $2,188,760 $2,421,607 Footnotes: 1. See cost estimate narrative in report. 2. Applied escalation costs of 4% per year.

1 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Date: 4.16.18 Project: University of New Hampshire - Whittemore Center Ice System Evaluation

Table C-4. Option 6 - Replace Ice Rink Floor Item Cost1 Remove and reinstall existing dasher board system $50,000 Demolition of existing 5" thick concrete rink floor, 4" insulation and subgrade $85,000 New 6" concrete rink floor (200x100x28), 4" insul, subfloor heating $720,000 Perimeter concrete replacement for mains $25,000 Additional transmission mains $40,000 Fill in existing header trench $15,000 Allowance for removing and reinstall sections of seating on west end of rink $40,000 Frost removal not incl. Dewatering $50,000 Extra cleaning of seating areas, etc. $20,000 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,045,000 Cost adjustment for location (15%) $156,750 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,201,750 1 Estimate, design and constr. Contingency (20%) $240,350 Total estimated construction costs $1,442,100 1 Engineering, legal, financial and administrative (20%) $288,420 Total estimated project costs $1,730,520 Adjusted Costs for 20202 $1,799,741 Adjusted Costs for 20212 $1,871,730 Adjusted Costs for 20222 $1,946,600

Table C-5. Option 7 - Reduce Size of Floor to 90' (Rough Order of Magnitude Only) Item Cost1 Remove and reinstall existing dasher board system $50,000 Modify existing dasher boards for smaller rink floor $20,000 Demolition of existing 5" thick concrete rink floor, 4" insulation and subgrade $85,000 New 6" concrete rink floor (200x90x28), 4" insul, subfloor heating $660,000 Perimeter concrete replacement for mains $25,000 Additional transmission mains $40,000 Fill in existing header trench $15,000 Allowance for removing and reinstall sections of seating on west end of rink $40,000 Frost removal not incl. Dewatering $80,000 Extra cleaning of seating areas, etc. $20,000 Remove 16" of soil, new footing around perimeter, demo of ex. footings, poured concrete stadia, concrete aprons/ramps, 200 new seats $450,000 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,485,000 Cost adjustment for location (15%) $222,750 Subtotal of estimated construction costs $1,707,750 1 Estimate, design and constr. Contingency (20%) $341,550 Total estimated construction costs $2,049,300 1 Engineering, legal, financial and administrative (20%) $409,860 Total estimated project costs $2,459,160 Adjusted Costs for 20202 $2,557,526 Adjusted Costs for 20212 $2,659,827 Adjusted Costs for 20222 $2,766,221

Appendix D Project Schedule PROJECT SCHEDULE

General

The improvements should be planned well in advance of the desired construction time so equipment and materials can be ordered and delivered to the site. Minimizing disruption to the facility’s busy event schedule and user groups will be a key element to the success of this project.

We understand the University will use the information in this study to determine the scope of the project(s). Once the project scope and funding sources have been identified, a detailed schedule can be developed. In the meantime, a preliminary schedule is provided to assist in planning for construction.

Preliminary Project Schedule Below is an estimated general design and construction schedule for typical ice system replacement project for your review and use in planning the design and construction of the recommended improvements.

Design Schedule Design April – October one year ahead of construction.

Construction Schedule – Ice Rink Floor Replacement Award construction contract November Shopdrawing submission, review and re-submission February – April 1. Deadline to order long lead equipment (6-8 weeks) March 15 Start of construction April 15 Demolition April 15 – May 7 Start new construction May 7 Rink floor construction (with prefab headers) May 7 – June 18 (5 weeks) Installation of ice equipment (in ex. room) May 7 – August 15 (13 weeks) End of 28-day cure on rink floor August 17 Dasher board installation August 17 – August 31 (2 weeks) Controls and prestart-up checks August 17 – August 31 Life safety system testing/Final Code Inspections August 17 – August 31 Testing/balancing/commissioning August 17 – August 31 Substantial Completion – start freezing floor August 31 Make and paint ice (by University) September 1 – September 10 TOTAL SCHEDULE 20 weeks

The replacement of the ice rink floor as a separate project is 15-18 weeks in duration.

All construction activities not specifically mentioned above will be completed within the stated timeframe.

D-2