January/February 2001

ISSUE FOCUS: 

Industrial System 

Maintenance 

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA

ERICA

M

A BestPractices PUBLICATION ON IMPROVING INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL 

TECHNOLOGIES • 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

www.oit.doe.gov 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpratices

In 1996, U. S. Steel completed a project in which

the main compressed air

system at its Edgar Thomson

Plant in Braddock, Pennsylvania, was overhauled. A

key goal was reducing

maintenance on its air compressors. Not only was this

goal met, but the plant also

reduced energy use, and

reaped annual savings of $457,000.

U. S. Steel is part of USX Corporation,

which is headquartered in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania. The U. S. Steel subsidiary

manufactures a variety of steel mill products, coke, and taconite pellets. Its Edgar

Thomson Plant converts iron ore into steel

and makes steel slabs.

The main compressed air system is vital

to the plant’s production process because it

serves the Basic Oxygen Plant, two blast

furnaces, and the powerhouse. The main

uses of compressed air are for the pneumatic actuators and pistons that actuate

large cylinders. Prior to the system overhaul, the plant’s compressed air system was

served by six aging 400-hp air- and oilcooled, rotary screw compressors that were

spread out over the plant. These compressors leaked oil, broke down frequently, and

could no longer provide air at the pressure

level for which they were rated. 

Plant engineers reviewed the compressed air system and realized that simply

replacing the old compressors would not

solve the system’s problems. Based on experience, the engineers knew that a systemlevel strategy was necessary to address the

problem effectively. First, the engineers examined the six compressors, installed in the

Compressed Air System Upgrade Generates 

Significant Energy Savings at Steel Mill

New Steam System Scoping Tool, 

see page 7.

U. S. Steel replaced old, unreliable rotary screw compressors with 600-hp

centrifugal compressors, shown here, at its Edgar Thomson Plant in Braddock,

Pennsylvania.

IN THIS ISSUE

Compressed Air System Upgrade

Generates Significant Energy 

Savings at Steel Mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Guest Column: Computerized

Maintenance Management Systems—

Justifying the Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OIT Helps SMUD Provide a Full 

Range of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Performance Optimization Tips—

The Rules of the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ask the Clearinghouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

New Steam System Scoping Tool

Provides Assessment Information . . . . . 7

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Energy Matters Extra Highlights . . . . . . 7

Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

(continued on page 2) ©

PROJECT BENEFITS: 

■ $191,000 annual 

repair and maintenance

savings

■ $140,000 energy 

savings 

■ $126,000 compressor

lubricating oil savings

U. S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Plant.

INSERT:

Timely tips for reducing

natural gas bills
2 Energy Matters, January/February 2001

ENERGY MATTERS

is published bimonthly by the

U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE) Office of Industrial 

Technologies. 

Information contained in the

newsletter can be reproduced

without permission provided due

acknowledgement is given (the

U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Matters newsletter) and 

a copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor.

■

EDITORIAL BOARD

Rob Boteler, representing 

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

Lynda Butek, representing 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association

Don Casada, OIT BestPractices

Program

Keith Davidson, Onsite Sycom

Energy

Bob Gemmer, U.S. DOE,

Process Heating

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco

Fred Hart, U.S. DOE, Steam 

Chris Hunter, Johnson & Johnson

Aimee McKane, OIT

BestPractices Program

Rick Payton, Rockwell 

Automation/Reliance Electric

Bill Stafford, Technical 

Association of the Pulp and 

Paper Industry

Chuck Whelan, DuPont

■

COMMENTS? 

Contact: 

Michelle Mallory, 

Energy Matters Editor, at 

(303) 275-3627, or e-mail 

michelle_sosa-mallory@nrel.gov

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1713

Golden, CO 80401

For address/subscription changes,

please contact the editor.

early 1980s, and determined that they were

so worn that repairing them was not cost-effective. By 1996, they operated so poorly

that they could not produce the airflow and

pressures they were rated for, forcing the

plant to borrow compressed air from other

systems.

Moreover, the oil leakage caused many

problems. It imposed excessive maintenance and lubricant costs because the oil

had to be replaced frequently. The oil was

also carrying over into the end-use equipment, leading to unreliable product quality.

Oil had contaminated the air dryers and filters to the point that it severely obstructed

the airflow, which led to a severe pressure

drop across the system. Hence, although

the plant operated the compressors at discharge pressures of 90 pounds per square

inch gauged (psig) or more, the end-use applications were barely receiving air at their

minimum required pressure of 60 psig. 

Finally, the plant identified some large

leaks and inappropriate uses of compressed air that were contributing to excess

air demand and were wasting energy.

The plant took the rotary screw compressors offline and installed two 600-hp

centrifugal compressors in a central location that required minimal engineering and

equipment to connect the compressors. A

few of the rotary screw compressors were

kept for back-up use and for use during extreme hot or cold weather. Because of their

poor condition, these rotary screw compressors are seldom used due to the risk of

introducing oil and dirt into the system. 

Next, the plant installed two new dryers, one for each of the new compressors

and new filters in the air/lubricant separators. At the same time, the plant performed

a leak detection/repair campaign and eliminated some inappropriate uses, such as

blow-off and spot cooling applications. 

Once all of the equipment was in place

and the leak repair was complete, the

plant began operating the new compressors at a discharge pressure of 90 psig. The

plant engineers found that the end-use applications were receiving air at 80 psig.

Because the end-use applications could

operate at 60 psig, the engineers began to

gradually lower the compressor discharge

pressure to 70 psig. 

With the newly configured system, the

plant operates more effectively with less

total horsepower. Also, the reduction in lubricant carryover and associated compressor downtime has improved the reliability

of the plant and eliminated its dependence

on other systems. 

George Fignar, senior engineer, said,

“The reduced maintenance needs of the

new compressors released our staff from

the burden that the maintenance on the

old compressors represented. This allowed

us to deploy them in other areas of the

plant and increased their capacity to maintain other machines more effectively.”

U. S. Steel spent $521,000 to implement

this project, but it is saving $457,000 per

year, leading to a simple payback of 13.5

months. Of the total savings, $140,000 is

energy savings, $126,000 is compressor lubricating oil savings, and $191,000 is annual repair and maintenance savings. 

The energy savings represents about

18% of the plant’s annual compressed air

energy costs. Much of the energy savings

occurred because the compressors’ discharge pressure was lowered by 20 psig.

By using a systems approach towards

equipment replacement and adjusting the

pressure to the lowest level that served the

plant’s requirements, the Edgar Thomson

Plant increased the efficiency of its compressed air system. This has reduced energy use and saved nearly half a million

dollars per year.

Read the full case study on U. S. Steel’s

efforts to improve its compressed air system at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

explore_library. To read a similar article

about how a compressed air system upgrade reduced maintenance, downtime,

and energy costs at the Thomaston Textile

Mill, log on to Energy Matters Extra at

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/explore_

library/emextra. ●

Compressed Air System Upgrade

continued from page 1

Recently, U. S. Steel partnered with OIT to host

the Pittsburgh Regional Technology Showcase.

This public event highlighted the significant

savings the Edgar Thomson Plant has achieved

from energy efficiency and other measures to

improve productivity. Your plant could be a

Showcase Demonstration site, too. Learn how

by visiting www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

explore_library/showcase.shtml. 
Energy Matters, January/February 2001 3

Guest Column

Computerized Maintenance

Management Systems—

Justifying the Cost

By W.L. (Chris) Christy, Jr., P.E., 

The LawGibb Group, Atlanta, GA

Computerized maintenance management

systems (CMMS) are

effective tools in

managing operations

and maintenance

costs, but the initial

implementation costs

are typically high. The best way to justify

these costs is to quantify the benefits.

In 20-plus years of automating facility

management functions, I have worked with

hundreds of maintenance managers and

plant engineers to develop programs, 

secure funding, and implement and manage day-to-day operations. In my experience, the biggest obstacle is convincing

management to fund the project. The task

of quantifying the benefits on paper—and

in a language that a controller or CFO easily understands—is daunting, even for the

best technical managers.

This task can be a little less frustrating by

following a few simple guidelines and examples. First, identify all of the benefits, both

tangible and intangible, but stay focused on

the tangible. That’s where the savings are.

An example of an intangible benefit is faster

access to information. This expedites and

improves the accuracy of decisions, but is

very difficult to quantify. However, the tangible benefits are easier to quantify. We’ll discuss these below using examples of how to

generate reasonable figures that make sense

to financial people in the company. 

Demonstrate the Tangible Benefits 

Let’s look at the big picture areas where

a sound CMMS program can result in operational cost savings. Numbers like the ones

used in these examples are generally available somewhere in the organization, but

typically not in one place. Be prepared to

do some work gathering them. Keep in

mind, however, this is what you’ll need to

show senior management before convincing them to foot the bill for a CMMS. 

Downtime Reductions

In process control, materials handling,

and manufacturing environments, downtime is often the single biggest issue that

impacts the bottom line. Within the 

production group, the amount, frequency,

and cost of downtime is typically a wellknown figure. Maintenance managers and

plant engineers should also be familiar

with these numbers.

Good preventive maintenance can

often reduce the amount of downtime. If,

for example, a round-the-clock plant experiences 1 hour of unscheduled downtime

per week, and the cost of downtime is

$5,000 per hour, that is $5,000 per week

of lost production. If improved maintenance can reduce downtime to 15 minutes, the annual savings would be $195,000

based on this simple calculation:

Savings = (1 hr – .25 hr) x $5,000 loss/hr 

= 0.75 hr x $5,000 

= $3,750/wk

$3,750/wk x 52 wks/yr 

= $195,000/yr

A well-implemented CMMS helps ensure scheduled and timely maintenance. It

will alert managers to problems that often

go unnoticed or equipment that continues

to fail and is repaired repeatedly. 

Reduced Product Loss (Improved QC)

Quality is often compromised when

equipment fails to perform as intended,

and product loss can be directly or indirectly attributed to equipment failure. As

with reduced downtime, a CMMS applied

here would ensure timely and scheduled

maintenance and could reduce losses.

In this example, assume a situation

where equipment problems are causing

$5,000 per week of product loss or damage. If a CMMS could reduce this to

$1,000 per week, the annual savings

would be as follows: 

Savings = ($5,000 loss/wk – $1,000 

loss/wk) 

= $4,000 x 52 weeks 

= $208,000/yr

Energy Reductions

It’s important to consider the potential

energy savings related to plant maintenance because these savings can add up

quickly. For example, a distribution facility

of approximately 750,000 square feet has a

medium-size conveying system. The system uses 200 single-phase drive motors totaling 4000 hp rated at 80% efficiency.

Let’s assume less than ideal maintenance

practices have caused a loss of 3%. Regaining the 3% through improved maintenance will result in these savings:

4000 hp x 2544 Btu/hp ÷ 3413 Btu/kW 

= 2981 kW

Present power requirement = 2981 kW ÷

77% = 3871 kW

Improved power requirement = 2981 kW ÷

80% = 3726 kW

Savings = (3871 kW – 3726 kW) x 

2000 hrs/yr x $ 0.05/kWh 

= $14,500/yr

The CMMS generates scheduled work

orders that contain, at a minimum, the

manufacturer’s recommended procedures

to keep the equipment in top operating

condition—or peak efficiency. 

Optimized Staffing and Improved

Productivity

A key consideration for managers is optimizing staff to meet workflow requirements. Without a CMMS, calculating labor

costs and potential savings is time consuming. However, a fully implemented CMMS

will contain information, such as base

rates, loaded rates, and company fringe

rates, to help streamline this analysis—

which otherwise may not be done.

In addition to helping managers optimize staff numbers, a CMMS can help improve the staff’s productivity. For example,

a plant’s maintenance staff of 50 has an average labor rate of $30 per hour. If implementing the system increases each

employee’s productivity by 5 minutes per

hour, the annual savings would be

$260,000 as follows:

(continued on page 6) ©

ESTIMATE THE COST TO IMPLEMENT A CMMS 

Generally, implementation costs for a CMMS are driven by the cost of software

and the cost of data collection. Likewise, the cost of data collection depends 

on the number of equipment items to be inventoried and the number of system

features that will be utilized day-to-day. As the level of sophistication increases,

so does the cost of implementation. Plan your implementation budget using an

estimate of $25 to $50 per equipment item, plus the cost of the software.
California’s Sacramento Municipal Utility

District (SMUD) offers its customers a variety of assistance and tools to help them improve the efficiency of their motor, pump,

and other process systems. To this end,

SMUD has taken advantage of OIT resources to help educate customers and

SMUD staff.

To educate customers and raise awareness of motor system efficiency opportunities, SMUD, in conjunction with OIT, has

offered the following OIT workshops:

■ Motor Systems Management, with MotorMaster+ software training

■ Compressed Air System Efficiency

■ Adjustable Speed Drives, with ASDMaster software training

■ Pumping System Assessment Tool

(PSAT) training

■ Advanced Management of Compressed

Air Systems

“We hosted a PSAT seminar for the benefit of our customers, but we benefited as

well... It has been very valuable having

OIT resources to draw from...” said Doug

Norwood of SMUD.

SMUD utilizes OIT resources to promote

and support a systems approach to motor

and compressed air system efficiency. Harlan Coomes, senior demand-side specialist

for SMUD’s Energy Services Department,

said recently that the workshops “led directly to project implementation and added

significant value to our program.”

The utility district has found that it is in

the customer’s best interest to take a

whole-systems approach. Hence, it provides a continuum of services—financial

incentives, energy assessments, motor or

pump testing, compressed air system audits, diagnostic inspections, and education

or analysis tools. These services can be accessed through SMUD’s Energy Services

Department. 

One of SMUD’s programs—the Commercial and Industrial (C/I) Retrofit Program—assists customers in learning about,

purchasing, and installing energy-efficient

technologies and measures. Following are

summaries of some of the customer support

services SMUD offers through this program.

Motor System Efficiency Initiative

The SMUD Motor System Efficiency Initiative provides efficiency information via

motor testing and reports, MotorMaster+

software, OIT workshops, and technical

field staff. These tools, combined with incentives and financing to help initiate projects, form the core of the initiative’s

activities. The benefits are optimized motor

life, reduced maintenance costs, minimized unscheduled downtime, improved

energy efficiency, and improved motor

quality assurance.

Recent diagnostic testing at a GeorgiaPacific Resin plant uncovered motor and

wiring defects and prevented a $60,000

product loss. Similarly, Citizen Utilities

Water District saved $12,000 in motor

rewind costs because of SMUD’s diagnostic testing.

Diagnostic Services

Diagnostic services offered by SMUD’s

Retrofit Program include:

■ Pump testing

■ Ultrasonic leak detection

■ Infrared imaging

■ Equipment calibration and repair

Pump Testing

SMUD staff conducts about 400 pump

tests per year, free of charge, on pump systems with a wide range of discharge capacities. Pump testing characterizes the

operational efficiency and capacity of

pumps and wells by identifying standing

water levels, drawdown levels, pumping capacity, yields, and kilowatt input to motors.

Pump testing results at Sacramento’s

Sutter General Hospital have convinced

management to replace its water pump system, which should net annual cost savings

of $6,505. 

Energy Auditing and Tracking

SMUD energy specialists conduct 

on-site inspections, free of charge, and produce tailored reports identifying improvement strategies, estimated costs, and

projected savings. These services have also

helped customers improve energy management and maintenance practices.

In 1999, SMUD staff attended the Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems

training offered through the Compressed

Air Challenge Program and sponsored by

OIT and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Staff applied this knowledge

during assessments at the 7-UP and Pepsi

bottling plants in Sacramento. Two projects

were identified to help improve efficiency

and productivity. Together, the projects

saved 351.6 kW; 1,093,565 kWh; and

$106,415.

Project Completion Incentives

Customers can also access financial 

incentives to help improve their energy 

efficiency. SMUD provides performancebased and prescriptive incentives for motors projects. Projects are also eligible for

low-interest SMUD financing. 

SMUD’s collaboration with OIT is just

one example in which an energy services

organization has combined its resources

with OIT’s to benefit both customer and

service provider. Your company, too, may

be better able to help customers save energy and money. To learn more about the

OIT resources available to you, visit OIT’s

BestPractices Web Site at www.oit.doe.

gov/bestpractices, or call the OIT Clearinghouse at 800-862-2086. ●

4 Energy Matters, January/February 2001

OIT Helps SMUD Provide a Full Range of Services 

SMUD technical staff tests customers’

motors as part of its Motor System Efficiency

Initiative.
Energy Matters, January/February 2001 5

Performance

Optimization Tips

The Rules of the Game

By Don Casada, 

OIT BestPractices Program

A common impediment to making 

energy cost-saving

changes to systems—

even when the

change makes sense

economically—is securing capital funding approval. In some cases, projects with

simple payback periods of less than a year

go unfunded because of cash flow constraints, bureaucratic hurdles, competing

demands for human and financial resources,

and a plethora of other reasons. 

But it is an interesting fact that when a

piece of equipment breaks and takes a

process down, repair funds are almost always available. After all, what’s a $20,000

repair when it’s costing $10,000 an hour in

downtime? Plant operating practices may

vary widely, but the availability of maintenance funds in a crisis is a standard. It is,

in essence, a rule of the game. 

Maintenance: A Defensive Strategy

In football, the general goal of the defense is to stop the other team’s offense as

quickly and with as little damage as possible, and get their own team’s offense back

on the field to try to score points. A critical

element of defense is becoming very familiar with the opponent’s offense. When the

defense recognizes weaknesses and tendencies in the offense, they can employ

defensive schemes that are likely to create

turnovers, thereby establishing good field

position for their offense, and occasionally

scoring themselves. 

Maintenance work is like playing defense—repair the problem as quickly as

possible and get production (the offense)

back on line to make money (score

points). But if weaknesses in the offense

(production) are recognized ahead of time 

preparations can be made. Then when the

defense (maintenance) is called in to play,

they can not only get the offense back on

the field, but might also score points (reduce operational costs) themselves. Let’s

call it a maintenance contingency modification (MC mod) scheme.

Strategy in Action

Let’s assume we have a 100-hp vertical

turbine pump with six stages. Our review

of the application indicates that the pump

develops 40% more head than is currently

required. The excess capability is due, in

part, to an overly conservative original design, but is also the result of process requirements that have changed with time.

This 40% excess head directly translates

into 40% excess energy cost.

We find a pump that is better suited to

the current needs. Estimating purchase and

installation costs to be $20,000, a 2-year

payback period is calculated (8000 hrs/yr

operation at $.04/kWh). Although this

meets the general criterion for energy-reduction funding at our plant, a cash flow

crunch has halted funding of projects such

as this one. 

But 2 months later, the pump shaft

seizes, requiring pump removal to make

the repair. One of the pump mechanics recalls the suggested change discussions,

and makes an alternate proposal. He suggests removal of two stages (providing a

33% reduction in head and energy) during

the repair, noting that the additional time

required to make the modification will be,

at most, a couple of hours, at an additional

repair cost of about $200. (The entire repair

cost is $3,000.) 

Analysis of the Strategy 

In a situation like the one above, the

additional cost and risk are so small that

even in a cash flow crunch, the decision

wouldn’t be difficult. But there are other

points that are important to draw.

1. Removing two stages doesn’t achieve

all the potential savings that would

come from an entirely new pump. An

additional 7% reduction in energy

would still be possible. But more than

80% (33/40) of the potential savings are

achieved, and at a trivial cost. 

2. The return on investment will frequently

be greater (the payback period reduced)

in MC mods than in the “ideal” fix (in

this case, a different pump). In this 

example, the $200 incremental cost is

recovered in 8 days through energy 

savings.

3. If the failure were severe enough to require pump replacement instead of a repair, a more optimal design might cost

less than an in-kind replacement. Even

if the new pump costs more, the payback period for energy savings is no

longer calculated on the total purchase

and installation cost of the optimal

pump—it is now the differential cost

between the optimal and an in-kind replacement. What was a 10-year payback period might now be 3 months.

4. It is important to include maintenance

personnel in discussions of energy-saving opportunities for a variety of reasons. First of all, equipment that

frequently requires maintenance has,

generally speaking, a higher probability

of being an energy waster than equipment that seldom requires repair. Second, if maintenance is aware of a

potential energy-saving opportunity,

they may come up with a creative alternative, as in this example.

Develop a Maintenance Game Plan 

The maintenance organization can be

viewed as a preserver of the status quo,

charged with playing defense only. But

just as the rules allow defense to score in

football, maintenance staff can not only

keep production on line, they can also

score points during production in industrial settings. 

If the game plan includes preparation

for contingencies, a maintenance problem

can be—as when a football team’s offense

is forced to punt and the kick coverage

forces a fumble—a blessing in disguise. ●

E-mail Don Casada at doncasada@icx.net.
6 Energy Matters, January/February 2001

Ask the

Clearinghouse

This column regularly highlights key questions from industrial customers. The questions are

answered by the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Clearinghouse. Through the

OIT Clearinghouse, you can access the full

portfolio of OIT resources to help make

your industry more energy efficient, productive, and competitive. The Clearinghouse can help you find resources, such as

publications and software, or information

about working with OIT and cost-sharing

opportunities. You can call the Clearinghouse for technical advice on a variety of

topics, such as motor, steam, compressed

air, and process heating systems. 

Clearinghouse engineers and technical

staff expertly answer a wide range of industrial efficiency questions, 11 hours a

day, Monday-Friday. The Clearinghouse

also has access to industry experts around

the country. Call the OIT Clearinghouse at

800-862-2086, or go to www.oit.doe.gov/

clearinghouse/ for additional information.

Q: I’ve heard that steam usually costs

about $3 per thousand pounds. Is

this rule-of-thumb still true?

A: It’s important to understand what is

specifically meant by “the cost of

steam.” The total cost of steam production

includes costs for fuel, operating personnel,

maintenance, water treatment, insurance,

equipment replacement, and payments on

power plant debt service. The effective cost

of steam is the cost of steam delivered to a

process. The total cost of steam is increased

due to consideration of losses between the

powerhouse and the point of use. The fuelrelated cost of producing steam considers

fuel purchases divided by the quantity of

steam produced. This is most likely the cost

referenced in the rule-of-thumb you mentioned, and so only this cost component

will be considered in this response.

Rules-of-thumb are often long remembered, but we should not trust them during

times of price volatility. Prices for all fuels

vary. An examination of price trends from

Natural Gas Week indicates that prices for 

natural gas delivered to utilities for most

parts of the country were between $7.50

and $9 per MMBtu (million Btu) as of midDecember. The exceptions are New England/New York (more than $11/MMBtu)

and west coast states (about $30/MMBtu),

which doubled in just one week. Delivered-to-utility natural gas prices are close

to those available to large industries with

short-term contracts; those with long-term

contracts could be less. 

The fuel cost of steam generation (in

$/1000 lbs of steam) is dependent upon

fuel type and composition, unit fuel cost,

boiler efficiency, feedwater temperature,

and steam pressure. The ASME Steam Tables indicate that 1078 Btu are required to

produce 1 pound of 150 psig saturated

steam—given the availability of 150°F

feedwater. Assuming a natural gas price of

$8/MMBtu and a boiler efficiency of 81%,

the cost of raising steam is:

Steam Cost = $8/MMBtu x 1000 lbs x 

1078 Btu/lb x 100/81 

= $10.64/1000 lbs

The bad news is that the fuel component

of the total steam production cost has dramatically increased. The good news is that

many steam system conservation measures

are now cost-effective. Steam plant performance tests and energy audits conducted

under the Enbridge Consumers Gas Company’s “Steam Saver” Program show that

fuel bills can be reduced by more than 14%

at the average boiler plant, providing an average payback of 2.4 years for dollars spent

on conservation improvements. This report

was previously featured on Energy Matters

Extra. Access the report at: www.oit.doe.

gov/bestpractices/explore_library/

emextra/pdfs/enbridge.pdf. 

Initiate your steam system improvement

program by visiting OIT’s BestPractices

Steam page at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

steam. From this Web page, you can download steam tip sheets, case studies, technical

references, and financial tools. Take a look

at the steam tip sheet Benchmark the Cost

of Steam Generation for more on calculating steam costs. It is available on the Web

page or from the OIT Clearinghouse. ●

5 min/hr x 8 hrs/day ÷ 60 min/hr 

= 0.67 hr/day

0.67 hr/day x 260 working days/yr 

= 174 hrs/yr

174 hrs/yr x $30/hr/employee x 

50 employees 

= $261,000/yr 

Long Equipment Life

Effective maintenance programs are key

to maximizing the useful life of significant

equipment assets. A CMMS is ideal for

helping achieve this result.

Consider a facility that has a 5-year-old

centrifugal chiller with an original 20-year

expected useful life. Poor maintenance reduces this to only 15 years. With improved

maintenance, the chiller’s expected useful

life can be extended to 18 years. The longterm savings would be more than $120,000

using this calculation: 

Annual inflation rate (estimated) = 2%

Internal cost of capital = 8.5%

Replacement value today = $500,000

Replacement value in 10 years = $609,500

Replacement value in 13 years = $646,800

Increase over 3 years = $37,300

Future value of $609,500 after 3 years 

= $767,800

Savings from delaying the purchase by 

3 years 

= $767,800 – $609,500 – $37,300

= $121,000

The CMMS will direct equipment maintenance activities along the manufacturer’s

recommended guidelines. In combination,

these are all designed to extend the life of

the equipment.

Numbers Win with the CFO

These are very powerful and conservative examples of the possibilities. Use

these numbers to demonstrate that implementing a CMMS is not simply an expenditure, but an investment with significant

returns. These are the numbers that win

with the CFO. ●

Chris Christy is the senior mechanical consultant with LawGibb Asset Reliability

Management Services, in Atlanta, GA. He

focuses on developing and applying information technology solutions to facility engineering management functions. Contact

him by phone at 770-360-0591 or e-mail:

CCHRISTY@kennesaw.Lawco.com. 

Guest Column

continued from page 3
Energy Matters, January/February 2001 7

Letters to the Editor 

Energy Matters welcomes

your typewritten letters and

e-mails. Please include your

full name, address, organization, and

phone number, and limit comments to 200

words. Address correspondence to:

Michelle Mallory, Letters to the Editor

NREL, MS 1713

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

E-mail: michelle_sosa-mallory@nrel.gov

We publish letters of interest to our

readers on related topics, comments, or

criticisms/corrections of a technical nature.

Preference is given to letters relating to articles that appeared in the previous two issues. Letters may be edited for clarity,

length, and style. ●

For more on the maintenance-related topics featured in this issue, visit Energy Matters Extra. Read about Thomaston Textile

Mill’s implementation of compressed air

system improvements that have reduced

compressor downtime, lowered maintenance costs, saved more than $100,000 in

energy costs, and improved product quality. Also find articles on the role of predictive maintenance and the ABCs of

maintenance budgets. 

On the topic of computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS),

we’ve included a feature to help you with

decision-making about installing such a

system. (Be sure to read this issue’s Guest

Column on page 3, which focuses on

CMMS.)

Get information on OIT solicitations in

the areas of Aluminum and Metalcasting—

these could be cost-shared R&D opportunities for your company. See what’s new

on the BestPractices Web site, and check

out upcoming BestPractices training and

workshops.

All this is available online at Energy Matters Extra: www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

explore_library/emextra. ●

EXTRA 

A Steam System Scoping Tool is now available, free of charge, for use by steam system energy managers and operations

personnel. The purpose of the Scoping

Tool—developed by OIT’s BestPractices

program and the BestPractices Steam Technical Subcommittee—is to assist industrial

steam users to:

■ Evaluate their steam system operations

against identified best practices

■ Develop a greater awareness of opportunities available for improving steam system energy efficiency and productivity

■ Compare their Scoping Tool self-evaluation results with those obtained by 

others

Assess Your Steam System

This version of the Steam System Scoping Tool, version 1.0c, is in a Microsoft

Excel spreadsheet format and includes

seven worksheets:

1. Introduction

2. Steam System Basic Data

3. Steam System Profiling

4. Steam System Operating Practices—

Total Steam System

5. Steam System Operating Practices—

Boiler Plant

6. Steam System Operating Practices—

Distribution, End Use, Recovery

7. Summary Results

The Scoping Tool can be completed by

answering the questions in Worksheets 2

through 6. When you complete Worksheet

2, you provide profiling information for

your steam system. Answering the questions in Worksheets 3 through 6 permits

you to perform the self-evaluation of your

steam system. When you have completed

all of the questions in Worksheets 3

through 6, you can see a summary of your

Scoping Tool results in Worksheet 7.

Submit Results to BestPractices 

In addition to using Scoping Tool results

to identify opportunities to improve steam

system operations, steam users are encouraged to provide their Scoping Tool results

to BestPractices Steam. A database of

steam user responses to the Scoping Tool

questions, and summary information from

this database will be made available on the

BestPractices Steam Web page or directly

to anyone who requests it. All Scoping Tool

results collected from steam users will be

held in strict confidence.

Six of OIT’s Industrial Assessment Centers are helping to evaluate the Scoping

Tool. These university-based centers enlist

engineering students and faculty to conduct energy audits or industrial assessments and provide recommendations to

small and medium-size manufacturers. The

six universities participating in this project

will each be performing three 1-day steam

system assessments at industrial plants;

they will utilize and test the Scoping Tool

as part of their assessment efforts.

Order the Scoping Tool

You can obtain version 1.0c of the

Steam System Scoping Tool by contacting

the OIT Clearinghouse by phone at 800-

862-2086 or e-mail: steamline@energy.

wsu.edu. Or contact: 

Dr. Anthony Wright 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

National Transportation Research Center

2360 Cherahala Boulevard, Room K01

Knoxville, TN 37932

E-mail: wrightal@ornl.gov 

Phone: 865-946-1353 ●

New Steam System Scoping Tool Provides 

Assessment Information

WE STAND CORRECTED

Energy Matters has learned of two misprints in the November/December issue,

and we sincerely apologize for the errors. 

In the page 2 feature about AMCAST’s successful plant-wide assessment, the University

of Dayton and Ohio’s State Energy Office

should have been identified as two separate

entities. The Ohio Department of Development’s Office of Energy Efficiency, in Columbus, Ohio, is the “State Energy Office” that

helped facilitate the AMCAST project.

On page 4, in Emissivity: the Unknown

Factor, the denominator in the second

equation was printed incorrectly. Limited

space prevents us from reprinting the

equation here; however, the corrected 

version of the article is available online at

Energy Matters Extra: www.oit.doe.gov/

bestpractices/explore_library/emextra.
INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSE

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient process

and utility systems in your industrial 

facility? Call the OIT Information Clearinghouse for answers, Monday through

Friday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST).

Fax: 360-586-8303, or access our 

homepage at www.oit.doe.gov/

clearinghouse.

HOTLINE: 800-862-2086

DOE Regional Support Office 

Representatives

■ Tim Eastling, Atlanta, GA, 

404-347-7141

■ Scott Hutchins, Boston, MA, 

617-565-9765

■ Brian Olsen, Chicago, IL, 

312-886-8579

■ Gibson Asuquo, Denver, CO, 

303-275-4841

■ Julia Oliver, Seattle, WA, 

510-637-1952

■ Maryanne Daniel, Philadelphia, PA, 

215-656-6964

This document was produced for the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE

national laboratory.

DOE/GO-102000-1183 • January/February 2001

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper

containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

20% postconsumer waste

OIT EXPO 4—GLOBAL COMPETITION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

OIT’s 4th Industrial Energy Efficiency Symposium and Exposition, “Global Competition:

Challenges and Solutions,” is February 19-22, 2001, in Washington, DC. Plan to attend this

national conference to find out what challenges face the most energy-intensive industries

and to learn about new technological and marketing opportunities to address these challenges. To find out more about the conference, visit the the Web site at www.oitexpo4.com,

or call 877-648-7967. 

IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH BESTPRACTICES

■ March 28, 2001, in Atlantic City, NJ

For more information please call Spirax Sarco, Inc. at 800-251-7676.

■ April 2001 (date TBD), in Washington, DC

For more information, please call the Alliance to Save Energy at 202-530-2225.

2001 GLOBALCON ENERGY AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT AND EXPO

■ March 29-30, 2001, in Atlantic City, NJ

For more information, please call the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) at 770-279-4390.

2001 INDUSTRIAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

■ May 1-3, 2001 Houston, TX 

For more information, please call Texas A&M University at 409-845-1508.

ACEEE SUMMER STUDY ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRY

■ July 24-27, 2001, in Tarrytown, NY

For more information, please call the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

(ACEEE) at 202-429-8873.

CAPTURING THE VALUE OF STEAM EFFICIENCY

Dates TBD for workshops in: 

■ Reading, PA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Mobile, AL ■ Los Angeles, CA

For information, please call the OIT Clearinghouse at 800-862-2086. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401-3393

Bulk Rate

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 258

Golden, Colorado

BestPractices

The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT)

BestPractices initiative and its Energy Matters newsletter introduces industrial end

users to emerging technologies and wellproven, cost-saving opportunities in motor,

steam, compressed air, and other plantwide systems. For overview information

and to keep current on what is happening

office wide, check out the newsletter—The

OIT Times—at www.oit.doe.gov/oit-times.

Coming Events

To keep up-to-date on OIT training and other events, check the calendar regularly on

Energy Matters Extra at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/explore_library/emextra.