Exhibit_8D_BPA_Glumac_Study_2002.pdf

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

GROUND LEVEL HVAC INTAKE RELOCATION

TECOM INC. & Bonneville Power Administration

320 SW Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

905 NE 11th St.

CONCEPT STUDY

GROUND LEVEL HVAC INTAKE RELOCATION

January 17, 2002

Job No. 201T1408A

Prepared for:

TECOM INC. & Bonneville Power Administration

Prepared by:

James Thomas P.E.

GLUMAC

320 SW Washington, Suite 200 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Portland, OR 97204

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

GROUND LEVEL HVAC INTAKE RELOCATION

GLUMAC

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

905 Bonneville Power Administration Building

CONCEPT STUDY ON BUILDING HVAC FRESH AIR INTAKES

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 2 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

APPENDIX A –GARAGE EXHAUST CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX B –COST OPINIONS

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 3 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

INTRODUCTION

Glumac International was engaged to prepare a review of existing HVAC intakes located at or just above grade level for the BPA Headquarters Building, 905 NE 11th. The owner wishes to investigate options for moving these outside air intakes to less vulnerable and more protectable locations.

BPA provided Glumac International a draft copy (Oct. 2001) of a US Army Corps of Engineers document “Protecting Buildings and their Occupants from Airborne Hazards” which was used as a guideline in our review.

Additional technical support was provided to Glumac International for structural and architectural issues by

Gaafar Gaafar P.E. at KPFF Engineers Hunter Williams at BOORA Architects.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 4 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following report identifies the grade level HVAC outside air intakes and provides a recommended approach for either relocating existing intakes or modifying the intakes to make them less vulnerable. Our recommendations and cost opinion summary are as follows:

Air Handlers 6, 7 and 8 (Serving the Level One Kitchen and Dining Room): Since this air intake is located at a comparatively protected area adjacent to the west entrance, Glumac International recommends elevating the existing intake to the parapet level of the dining hall.

This will place the intake approximately 16 feet above grade. The recommended work is largely structural and architectural. The estimated design and construction costs are based on building the new shaft extension and matching the existing marble cladding.

B-1 Air Handlers 1 through 5: Our analysis found that the existing outside air intakes for these air handlers are the most exposed of the grade level intakes. They occur along the entire south curving face of the building and are accessible from the public right-of-way. We found no straightforward way to redirect these intakes without obscuring the building’s existing face or fenestration or creating obtrusive freestanding intake shafts. While other means of increasing protection for the existing intakes could be used including security cameras, regular security patrols, or automated contaminant sensing and control, these measures fall short of removing the intakes from harms way.

If the BPA wishes to truly reduce the possibility of an intentional fresh air contamination, a more costly approach must be used. Glumac International recommends replacement of the existing air handlers with a new central air handling system that makes use of the existing NW building exhaust shaft converted to serve both exhaust and fresh air. This remodel would relocate the fresh air intakes to Level Three, over 40 feet above grade and would have several ancillary benefits in addition to the improved indoor air quality and reduced liability from intentional contamination. These benefits include:

Reduced B-1 HVAC Energy Consumption resulting from more efficient VAV control and use of variable frequency drives. We estimate an annual rough order of magnitude savings of $2,000 annually.

Reduced Garage Exhaust Energy Consumption resulting from downsizing of exhaust. We estimate the rough order of magnitude savings to be $2,700 annually.

Centralized maintenance.

Improved comfort control

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 5 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

B-1 SF-1 Air Handler and fresh air supply to B-1 Mechanical: This modification can be accomplished comparatively simply if the modifications to the NW shaft described above are implemented. A new outside air duct would route from the new fresh air intake shaft created for B-1 air handlers. If the modifications described for AHU-1 through 5 are not implemented, we estimate the cost for modifying this air intake would increase to by approximately $5,000 to add a louver dedicated to these outside air needs.

COST OPINION SUMMARY:

The following is a summary of the measures recommended by Glumac International

Construction Costs

Design Costs

Total Costs

Comments

Air Handlers 6, 7 and 8 $ 100,000 $ 12,000 $ 112,000 Based on Option 2: 5’ above parapet height

B-1 Air Handlers 1 through 5 $ 711,673 $ 70,000 $ 781,673 Option One:

New B-1 System

B-1 SF-1 Air Handler $ 10,000 $ 1,500 $ 11,500 Based on implementing the modification above.

TOTALS $ 779,928 $ 83,500 $ 863,428

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 6 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

REPORT

RELOCATING VULNERABLE FRESH AIR INTAKES:

The Army Corps of Engineering Report, “Protecting Buildings and their Occupants from Airborne Hazards” notes that the most effective approach to reducing airborne contamination is to locate facility outside air intakes out of harms way. The major concentration of this report is to evaluate options for relocating vulnerable existing air intakes to achieve this goal.

The most significant air handling systems for the 905 Building are the central systems located in the 8th floor mechanical penthouse. Outside air intakes for these systems are approximately 115 feet above grade. As such, they are highly resistant to accidental or intentional discharge of environmental contaminants. In contrast, the air handling systems whose fresh air intakes are located easily accessible from grade are described in the following matrix and illustrated in the photographs and plan view that follow.

Figure One: Air Handling Systems with Accessible Fresh Air Intakes

Air Handler Name

Size(CFM) & Service Location OSA Intake Location

AHU-1 12,925 cfm/B-1 B-1 Level ceiling SE grade level soffit AHU-2 6,000 cfm/ B-1 Same as AHU-1 Same grade level soffit AHU-3 15,000 cfm/B-1 Same as AHU-1 Same grade level soffit AHU-4 15,000 cfm/B-1 Same as AHU-1 Same grade level soffit AHU-5 3,100 cfm/B-1 Same as AHU-1 Same grade level soffit SF-1 300 cfm/B-1 Telephone

Switch Rm.

B-1 Switch Rm. Intake well in landscape planter at NW corner VF-1/VF-2 2560 cfm each/B-1

Mechanical Rm.

Prop fan in shaft wall in B-1 Mech.

Rm.

Same as SF-1

AHU-6 4,200 cfm/B-1 Telephone Equip. Rm. B-172

B-1 NW, Ceiling of Room B172.

Courtyard intake well Adjacent to West entry

AHU-7 19,000 cfm/Dining Hall B-1 SE Same as AHU-6 AHU-8 5,700 cfm/Kitchen Level 1 mech room Same as AHU-6

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 7 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Building South face.

Fresh Air intakes at planter level typical of AHU-1 through 5.

Small Fresh air intake serving B-1 mechanical and air handler SF-1.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 8 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Fresh Air Intake at West Entry serving B-1 AHU-6, Kitchen (AHU-7) and Dining Room (AHU-8).

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 9 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 10 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

DISCUSSION:

illustrated by the photographs, plan, and matrix above, the vulnerable outside air intakes for this building fall into three locations:

The multiple air handlers that serve the B-1 level (AHU-1 through 5) and draw fresh air from the soffit at five locations along the south curving facing of the building, The two air handlers that serve the food service (AHU-7 and 8) and draw air from the grade level intake in the west courtyard area at the west entrance.

The small grade level intake located in the planter at the building northwest corner and providing the B-1 Mechanical Rm. fresh air and minimum outside air for the telephone room air handler AHU-6.

Based on our review of these existing systems and their fresh air intakes we have the following observations:

B-1 AIR HANDLERS (AHU-1 through 5)

1. Elevating the Existing Intakes: We do not believe it is practical to elevate the fresh air intakes in their current locations without significantly altering the appearance of the building and blocking windows which are above intakes.

Because of this we have not evaluated this option further for cost.

2. Relocating and Consolidating the Fresh Air Intakes: As a baseline we assumed that it would not be permissible to build a freestanding outside air intake tower of 20’-30’ height. For that reason the two alternatives we evaluated are located within the existing building confines. These are:

A new shaft running from the B-1 level to the 3rd floor terrace on the roof of the 2nd level Data Center. This would require a 10’ x 5’ shaft penetrating through 1st and 2nd floors including through the agency data center.

A new fresh air source making use of the existing 13.5’ x 12’ NW garage exhaust shaft which terminates at the building 2nd floor roof terrace. This option requires redirecting garage exhaust currently discharged through the shaft to a 11’ x 11’ louver on the West face of the shaft, 8’ above grade. The upper portion of the shaft will then be physically separated from the lower portion with a barrier and used to bring fresh air into the building from the terrace level. New ductwork installed at the ceiling level of level one will direct fresh air to the B-1 level. Note that Appendix A describes our analysis of the existing enclosed parking garage exhaust.

GLUMAC RECOMMENDATION:

Glumac International recommends the second approach described above, that is, the modification of the existing garage exhaust shaft. This method has several advantages:

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 11 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Operation of the existing garage exhaust at a lower exhaust air quantity will reduce energy during operating periods.

No intrusion or disturbance in the Agency computer center will be necessary.

No penetrations of post tension slabs will be necessary.

The following sketches illustrate the ductwork and shaft modifications:

Figure Four: LEVEL ONE PARTIAL PLAN:

Note the existing garage exhaust shaft modified to use the upper half for

B-1 outside air supply. Existing garage exhaust is shown discharged to the west.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 12 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Figure Five: Section through Existing Garage Exhaust Shaft Note modifications to use the upper portion of the shaft for OSA and to redirect exhaust air west.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 13 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Estimated Cost: $140,000

Estimated Savings (From reduced garage fan operating cost):

3. Making use of a New Outside Air Intake: In order to make use of the fresh air ducted from a new location (See 2 above) it will be necessary to remodel or replace existing air handlers. We initially reviewed two alternative approaches.

a. OPTION ONE – RENOVATE: Install a new central B-1 variable air volume supply air handler in a mechanical room created over the entry ramp to the B- 2 level. Duct supply air from this air handler to existing low pressure ductwork systems. Install a new central return fan in a new B-1 mechanical room. This fan will draw plenum air from B-1 level as a whole, relieve economizer exhaust to the existing air intakes and relief outlets, and duct return air back to connection with the central supply air handler. Demolish existing supply and return air handlers. This approach has the following benefits:

It provides a phased approach to solving the cross-zoning issues with existing tenant spaces and air handlers.

It provides improved comfort control using central preheat and cooling.

It will reduce energy consumption through the use of more efficient central fans and advanced DDC control sequences.

Central maintenance will be improved both from the reduction of equipment and the improvement in access to equipment.

Improved indoor air quality from the elimination of air intakes at grade level and the use of high efficiency filtration in a central unit.

The biggest challenge with the design will be the phasing of the renovation to minimize impact on B-1 tenant spaces and parking garage. Since it will be necessary to remove the ceiling, and demolish existing air handlers there would be impact on business activities.

The following Figure illustrates the new HVAC equipment and general layout.

Estimates of project cost are in included in Appendix B.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 14 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 15 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

b. OPTION TWO-REMODEL: Glumac International reviewed this option as a potential way to reduce the cost of relocating outside air intakes by retaining a portion of the existing systems. The option would reduce the cost of complete replacement of the existing air handlers by adding new outside air ductwork to the existing air handlers and a dedicated outside air fan sized for the total air quantity of the B-1 air handlers (53,000 cfm). The new outside air fan would be located in a mechanical room created, as in Option One, over the ramp to the B-2 level. While benefits from this option are limited to improvement of indoor air quality, we see several significant operational issues with this option:

1) Our site review of existing ceiling spaces indicates that numerous ductwork and piping interferences make this option impractical without dropping the existing 10’0” ceilings to provide a clear path for outside air ductwork. In some areas high bay storage makes this difficult or impossible to achieve.

2) Operating cost and maintenance costs will increase since an additional fan is added.

3) Serving multiple air handlers mixed between constant volume and variable volume type from a common outside air fan will require comparatively sophisticated pressure controls, adding to the cost and complexity of the existing systems and increasing the maintenance and troubleshooting burden. Energy consumption will increase for outside air conditioning.

4) Existing capacity and cross zoning problems with conditioning on the B-1 level will not be addressed by this option. Moreover, future flexibility for revised tenant occupancy will be reduced.

GLUMAC RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that Option Two be dismissed as having high relative cost compared to the significant disadvantages of the option.

Cost Opinion: See Apprendix B.

AHU-7 AND 8 KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM AIR HANDLERS AND AHU-6 FOR B-1

GLUMAC RECOMMENDATION:

We believe the simplest and most cost effective approach to the grade level AHU-6, 7 and 8 intake is to elevate the intake opening to the roof level of the dining facility. This will require extending a new CMU shaft with marble cladding from the existing intake at grade. We see two alternatives for terminating the shaft. It could be terminated at the roof line with steel grating similar to the existing shaft intake or the shaft could extend upward high enough to place a sidewall louver on the east face of the shaft. The second approach would make the intake somewhat more resistant to attack . The following three pages show the existing elevation and the two alternatives. See Appendix B for cost opinions.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 16 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Figure Four: Existing West Elevation showing location of the existing Fresh Air Intake for AHU-7 and 8 adjacent to the cafeteria.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 17 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Figure Five: Existing West Elevation showing location of the existing Fresh Air Intake for AHU-7 and 8 extended to parapet height.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 18 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Figure Six: Existing West Elevation showing location of the existing Fresh Air Intake for AHU-7 and 8 extended to 5’-0” above parapet height.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 19 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

B-1 MECHANICAL & SF-1 SHAFT:

GLUMAC RECOMMENDATION:

We recommend capping the existing shaft intake. The new outside air path would be created by ducting a 22” round duct from the old intake shaft through the adjacent garage exhaust shaft to penetration into the new fresh air intake shaft above. This method could be used even if the outside air shaft is not created as part of the B-1 outside air work, however, it would be necessary to install a new fresh air louver in the side of the existing garage exhaust shaft.

Estimated Cost: See Appendix B.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO RELOCATION OF INTAKES

The Army Corps of Engineering Report, “Protecting Buildings and their Occupants from Airborne Hazards” notes that the most effective approach is to design the facility with outside air intakes located out of harms way. However, the report also describes other methods of protecting existing intakes at grade level. We note these techniques below with our comments:

1. LIMITING PUBLIC ACCESS TO INTAKES: Provide enclosures or fencing to prevent the close approach of the public to outside air intakes. Since the outside air intakes on the curved south face of the building are distributed over the entire length of the building, it would be necessary to build a barrier along the entire face of the building (250 feet long) high enough and far enough back from the building to prevent the public from approaching. Because of the proximity of the street and sidewalk this could require elimination of the public sidewalk. Unfortunately, even with such a barrier, little could be done to prevent the throwing of a smoke or fume generating device over the wall into the enclosure.

2. SURVEILLANCE: Install security cameras and monitor the vulnerable outside air intakes. This approach would require continuous 24/7 security vigilance, and as such a continuous ongoing cost for such surveillance.

3. CONTAMINANT MONITORING AND CONTROL: Install contaminant sensors at all outside air intakes and automatically close fresh air intakes in the event of sensed contamination. Volatile organic compound sensors exist and a federal task force is developing sensors for poisonous gas, however, no sensors are available for biological contaminants and even the best conventional outside air dampers are not leakproof.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 20 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

APPENDIX A

PARKING GARAGE EXHAUST CALCULATIONS

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 21 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

Project: BPA B-1 OSA INTAKE ANALYSIS Job Number: 201T1408A Designer: J.THOMAS Date: 12/7/01 Note: Calculation of one floor (B-3 level) typical.

This spreadsheet calculates parking garage exhaust based upon 1999 ASHRAE Applications 12.8 Guidelines.

Area (sq.ft.) 78,328 Ceiling Height (ft) 8.5 Volume (cu.ft.) 665,788

Travel Distance (ft.) 250 Travel Speed (miles/hour) 5

CO design (ppm) 25 Predicted Cold Emission for Summer (gram/m) 3.66 Predicted Cold Emission for Winter (gram/m) 18.96 CFM/sq.ft. for CO maximum 1.63E-04

Number of Parking Spaces 252 Percentage of Cars in Operation During Peak Use 20%

Air Flow Rate Safety Factor 1.1

Number of cars in operation 50.4 Average emmission per typical car (gram/hr) 678.6 Average Travel Time (s) 34 Peak generation rate (grams/h-sq.ft.) 0.44 Normalized value of generation rate 17.61

Airflow Rate Required (CFM/sq.ft.) 0.11

Air Changes/Hour 0.76 Total Required Exhaust Airflow (cfm): 8,430

Notes

1) Parking Garage exhaust calculations are based upon 1999 ASHRAE Applications 12.8 Guidelines.

2) Normalized generation rate is based upon actual enclosed parking facility per 1999 ASHRAE

Applications 12.8 Guidelines.

3) CFM for CO maximum is 2.370 x 10-4 for CO maximum = 15 ppm

4) CFM for CO maximum is 1.363 x 10-4 for CO maximum = 25 ppm

5) CFM for CO maximum is 0.468 x 10-4 for CO maximum = 35 ppm

6) 1999 ASHRAE Applications 12.8 Guidelines recommends 35 ppm for one hour exposure.

7) 1999 ASHRAE Applications 12.8 Guidelines recommends 25 ppm for eight hour exposure.

ASHRAE Parking Garage Exhaust Calculation

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 22 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

APPENDIX B

COST OPINIONS

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 23 November 6, 2001 C:\Users\ShawnPDuffee\Desktop\905 BPA\BPA HQ intake study 1.2002.docx

SUMMARY OF COST OPINIONS:

(Supporting information provided as noted)

Construction Costs

Design Costs

Total Costs

Comments

AHU 6, 7 and 8 OPTION ONE: Extension to parapet

$ 77,000 $ 9,200 $ 86,200 See Boora Architects estimate and sketches

AHU 6, 7 and 8 OPTION TWO: Extension to 5’-0” above parapet

$ 100,000 $ 12,000 $ 112,000 Based on proration of Boora estimate.

B-1 Air Handlers 1 through OPTION ONE: Replacement Of B-1 Air Handlers

$ 711,673 $ 70,000 $ 781,673 See Glumac Cost Opinion Form.

B-1 Air Handlers 1 through OPTION TWO: Remodel Existing B-1 Air Handlers

$ 651,491 $ 70,000 $ 721,491

B-1 SF-1 Air Handler OPTION ONE: Assuming creation of new B-1 fresh air intake shaft.

$ 10,000 $ 1,500 $ 11,500 .Based on 22” round outside air duct.

B-1 SF-1 Air Handler OPTION TWO: Assuming new fresh air intake louver is necessary..

$ 15,000 $ 2,500 $ 17,500 .Based on 22” round duct to new louver.

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 24 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 25 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 26 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 27 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 28 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 29 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 30 November 6, 2001

GLUMAC INTERNATIONAL Page 31 November 6, 2001