A School Heated By Troubled Waters

Discrepancies and conflicting information

I’ve conducted further investigation of the problems with the heating system at Nottingham School. There are some interesting findings to report.

The school’s website has posted a Facility Maintenance Plan by Scott Brown, Facility & Maintenance Director, revised June 8, 2023, and previously updated November 1, 2021, April 27, 2020, and September 24, 2019. The original was prepared February 14, 2013. The plan lists this inspection schedule.

There are several issues to take note of here.

The inspection schedule for the glycol in the heating system says that it is to be inspected by Palmer and Sicard, that the glycol was replaced in February 2023, that the inspection is semi-annual, and as of June 2023 the next inspection was October 2025.

• There appears to be confusion about “semi-annual.” That’s two times a year. That would mean the next inspection date should be October 2024, not 2025.

• In the presentation given by Mike Davey of Energy Efficient Investments (EEI), replacing the glycol is a three-week process that cannot be done in winter. How did the glycol get replaced in February 2023?

The document has not been updated since June 2023. Did all of those inspections it lists for later in 2023 and in 2024 happen?

There’s a line about annual testing of Nitrite in the water that says the next inspection is 3Q2020 - that’s three years prior to the publication of this report. According to this report, the school missed Nitrite inspections for years and may still be missing them.

There’s a line about annual health inspections. It says the most recent one was in October 2019 and that the next one would be in October 2024. Were these inspections missed in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023?

Palmer & Sicard Presentation at the November 20 Meeting

I’ve reviewed the draft minutes from the School Board’s November 20 meeting, which contain a presentation from Marc Dion of Palmer & Sicard. Here are key issues from that presentation.

Who Tests the Water?

There appears to be confusion about who is responsible for testing the water in the heating system. From the minutes:

Mr. Dion stated that Palmer and Sicard was in the building addressing a glycol issue earlier this month. He stated that the water and glycol in the system must be monitored by a chemical company that comes in periodically and this is outside the scope of HVAC services provided by Palmer and Sicard. At this point, it should be monitored monthly; chemicals will need to be added. It is not likely that the glycol can be returned to a proper state so ultimately it will need to be replaced.

The Board asked why the water becomes acidic. Mr. Dion said it is the result of oxidation and corrosion in the pipes. Water acidity can be prevented if there is a treatment system and it is used. Glycol can last many years if it is treated. Mr. Dion said he can provide the names of companies that can come in and test the glycol and provide the treatment service; they will recommend the correct additives to address the issue. He said that if we looked at the glycol right now it would look like chocolate and it should be pinkish in color. He recommends treating the water/glycol in the pipes and then replacing the glycol in the warmer weather when it is possible to flush the system with cold water. The chemical company can provide guidance about how best to improve the glycol quality in the system.

…Ms. Levenson moved that the district hire and fund a chemical company to test and treat the water/glycol in the system and to monitor the results of the filtration system. Second by Ms. Roy Motion carried 5-0.

Mr. Dion’s statement appears to contradict the Maintenance Plan. Exactly who is responsible for this water testing? The plan says Palmer & Sicard. Palmer & Sicard say it is outside the scope of their services.

Implications of Acid in the Water

From the minutes:

He [Dion] said the leaks from 2022 were not on the mechanical fittings but in the center of the pipe and had to be clamped to stop the leaks. His opinion is that until the acidity in the system is corrected issues can occur and no one can foresee when. He believes the odor that occurs is the result of acidic water and not the glycol.

If the leaks were in the center of the pipe, doesn’t that mean the acid is so bad that it’s eating all the way through the pipes? If this has happened in one section of pipe, isn’t it likely that other sections of pipe are going to develop leaks soon?

Metal In the Water

EEI said that the water was full of metal and that a magnetic filter was urgently needed to be installed. EEI predicted that it would need to be cleaned every day because of the high concentration of metal in the water. This contradicts what Palmer & Sicard said.

From the minutes:

He [Dion] recalled that there was a magnetic filter installed but it is no longer in place.

…He recommends a sock filter be installed to filter out some of the sludge in the system and it will take some time to clear up the glycol.

…Mr. Dion is of the opinion that there is no metal in the pipes because he had a glycol sample for over three months in his office and he did not see any metal settling in the sample.

Superintendent HasBrouck has informed me that the board has approved the installation of a magnetic filter based on EEI’s recommendation. This decision was not recorded on the video of the board meeting, due to a problem with the recording equipment. I have no details about when the filter will be installed or who will be responsible for installing it.

The school’s former boilers were equipped with a magnetic filter, why wasn’t this done with the new boilers?

What’s This About a Subsystem?

From the minutes:

Mr. Dion noted that the water circulating in the system was acidic and there was a subsystem on our system that could be used to manage the acidity of the water and that he recommended in the past that subsystem be used. He said that another company would need to come in to do the work. However, when the new boilers were installed, the subsystem was removed. He said he participated in the RFP process in 2022. He said he helped to write the RFP and borrowed one from Northwood to use; it was at that time that he recommended the filtration subsystem be used.

…Ms. Levenson stated that she recalled the last meeting that Mr. Dion attended and his statements about the subsystem. It was her understanding that it was agreed that the subsystem would be utilized. She also recalled that the board accepted the recommendation to flush and replace the glycol which was done over vacation weeks and more than once.

The school’s former boilers were equipped with a subsystem for managing the acidity in the water. Why wasn’t this done with the new boilers?

Other Heating News

Superintendent HasBrouck has informed me that in addition to the magnetic filter the board decided to act on another of EEI’s recommendations, to install a remote monitoring system on the boilers.

Conclusion

Readers are likely to find themselves confused by this information. The situation is confusing. The School Board’s specialty isn’t HVAC; it’s education. The school’s Facility Manager’s specialty isn’t HVAC either. His role is like that of a car owner. He needs to be able to run the heating system, follow the maintenance schedule, and know when to call in a technician. The school must rely on outside experts for the HVAC system, and, as detailed above, they’re getting conflicting opinions from the outside experts.

I’ll be reviewing more of the documentation looking for worthwhile things to report in the Nottingham Blog. Questions I find interesting are associated with the recommendations and decisions about the new boilers. Why no magnetic filter? Why no subsystem? Why no smart controls? What glycol was used? What contract was there for water testing? Was there a proper flush of the system?