Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTudor Engineering Company Consulting Engineers and Planners 1982-· - - ,..... . - - - - -- - - LOUIS W RIGGS ROIItRl N IANOPAUL PAllll POTTIR KEITH 0 BUll DOUGLAS I MANSFIILO ORAL I CONYERS . DAVID C WilLER MICHAIL 8 HARRINGTON THEODORI H PURCELL WAL TIR f ANTON ROIIf.RT W . MYROAL TEV IS T THOMPSON. IR ... Mr. Melvin Nichols DOWL Engineers -r~ ' -' •r""'\ ·~. •." ·. ) · ..... ;;_, TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 149 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 TELEPHONE (415) 982-11338 TWX 372 &063 CABLE "'TENCCO'' 4040 "B" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: lurtluk Pre-Reconnaissance Study Dear Mel: RALPH A. TUOOR (1902·1'11>1) AHflC/A TLD CON.~UL 1ANT SlANLH H FROIO STIVIN R. ALTERS JACK C. BIIOIRMAN HUGH M BROWN DONAlD I CROFT fRfO 8 fSTfP RICHARD W I VI Rl TT FRITS H. ffNG(R ROBIRT W . CANS! GERALD V GIBNIY ROBERTO l INIGUEZ GRANT A. LARSEN JAMIS W . MIYER THOMAS I O 'Nf Ill DONALD C ROSI RAINtR RUNGAlOIIR August 13, 1982 Attached you will find 15 copies of the recently completed pre- reconnaissance report for a potential hydroelectric project on the Kurtluk River near Togiak. The report is intended to amplify the brief information presented on this alternative site in the report entitled "Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project" dated August 1982. The information and analyses in the report are based on existing data gathered by DOWL, Tudor, and Dryden & La Rue during the preparation of the August 1982 report and no new field work was performed for the study. Two alternative projects (K-1 and K-2) were studied for t~is report. Both alternatives utilize a common dam site with differing heights on the Kurtluk River. Alternative K-1 would utilize a 40-foot high dam to divert ·. the Kurtluk flows to a different drainage basin via a 8400 foot penstock to a ·340 kW power plant located near a proposed new airport. Alternative K-2 would utilize a 55-foot high dam with a 132 kW power plant located immediately downstream on the Kurtluk River. The costs and benefits for the alternative projects were · assessed to provide a preliminary indication of their economic viability. Alternative K-1 would cost $5,810,000 and the 340 kW power plant would -generate 1.63 Ui kWh per year. Alternative K-2 would cost $4,940,000 .and the 135 kW power plant would gen~rate 0 .53UikWh per year. For the economic analysis, the base case data for Togiak formulated for the August 1982 study was utilized. This included consideration of the base c·ase alone, and also adjustments for waste heat recovery, wind energy credits and space heating credits. t Prt>i. ·C~e: qq D File .Code: _3_1.07. 03 ~-oate : ,a;{~--~ .·L TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY Mr. Mel Nichols August 13, 1982 Page 2 .'·~. The results of the economic analysis indicate that Alternative K-1 may be potentially feasible, but Alternative K-2, due to its small power output is not cost effective. The benefit/cost ratios (B/C) for Alternative K-1 are summarized below. All B/C ratios studied for Alternative K-2 were less than 1.00. Case 1 -Base Case Only 2 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery 3 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credits 4 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credits and Space Heating Credits B/C 1.30 1.18 1.13 1.25 The basic purpose of the pre-reconnaissance study was to investigate whether or not it was prudent to proceed with a more detailed, and more costly, feasibility study for the site. Based upon the results of this study it is recommended that a cautious but pas it ive approach be taken from this point. A summary of the report recommendations to implement this approach are as follows: 1. A preliminary evaluation of the environmental problems of the site implemented as soon as possible. associated should be 2. The streamflow gage currently installed at the Quigmy site should be moved to the Kurtluk site and monitoring of the flows should begin as soon as possible. 3. The project should be reevaluated in approximately one year when the additional environmental and flow data are available and a more definitive· decision made at that time. TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY Mr. Mel Nichols August 13, 1982 Page 3 If you desire amplification of any parts of the report or if you have any questions, please call. GEL:813. 2 Attachment Very truly yours, TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY ~Lt.~ Gordon E. Little Project Manager TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT KURTLUK RIVER ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS PRE-RECON REPORT A. INTRODUCTION 1. Background '-' , :;1 :~ . I ' c The draft Togiak Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study (Reconnaissance Study) concluded that the Quimby River project site was economically marginal and could not be recommended for development. During the draft review the APA decided that alternative sites, previously rejected due to its small power output, should be reviewed and that a pre-reconnaissance report be prepared utilizing available information. 2. Location The village of Togiak is located on Bristol Bay approxi- mately 70 miles west of Dillingham and 400 miles southwest of Anchorage. The village itself is located on a marshy flat 10 to 30 feet above sealevel. The Kurtluk River flows across an elevated bedrock bench 4 miles west of the village. The upper part of the Kurtluk River Basin contains two potential hydro- electric projects which share a common diversion dam site. Their location is shown on Plate I. These projects were briefly described in the March 1982 draft of the Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project as Alternative Projects No. 10 and No. 11. In the following report these projects are referred to as Alternatives K-1 and K-2, respec- tively. Project No. 11 (Alternative K-2) was designated in the Draft Report as the alternate to the selected Quimby River project. NBISF-313-9527-KA 1 3. Scope The following report is intended to provide a brief . r analysis of the Kurtluk alternative projects for the purpose of judging whether one of these projects would prove to be physi- cally and economically acceptable ·under a detailed feasibility study. Methods, assumptions, and costs used in preparing this report, although more general, are consistent with those used in the previously submitted Reconnaissance Study. Only pre- viously existing information was used. This included a topo- graphic survey and stream flow measurements of Alternative No. 11 made during the September 1981 field reconnaissance. Information on the Kurtluk projects was included in the draft report under Chapter V, Alternative Sites Considered; and Appendices: B -Hydrology, C -Geology and Geotechnical, and D -Environmental Report. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Alternatives Studied Two alternative projects were studied for this report and are presented on Plate I at the end of this report. Both alternatives utilize a common dam site with differing heights on the Kurtluk River. Alternative K-1 would divert the Kurtluk flows to a different drainage basin via a 8400 foot penstock to a 340 kW power plant located near the proposed new airport. Alterntive K-2 would utilize a dam with a 132 kW power plant located immediately downstream on the Kurtluk River. The proposed dam site for both alternatives is located in the mouth of a narrow 42-foot deep canyon immediately down- stream of the confluence of the Kurtluk with a major tributary. Other than the size of the stream the site is very similar to the Quigmy River Project site in topography and geology. NBISF-313-9527-KA 2 2. Alternative Project K-1 This alternative would utilize a 40-foot hig~ concrete faced rockfill dam to divert the project flows out of the Kurtluk basin and over an intervening ridge to the power plant. The diversion would utilize a 36 inch diameter penstock 8400 feet in length. The powerhouse would be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 30 feet and would be located a mile beyond the proposed air strip near a large pond ( 100 acre surface area) that drains south into the bay. An impulse type turbine would utilize 160 feet of head and a maximum flow of 36 cfs to develop 340 kW. 3. Alternative Project K-2 Project K-2 would be contained within the Kurtluk River canyon and would obtain its head principally by constructing a concrete faced rockfill dam to a 55 foot height. This would require that dikes be extended back from the inner rim of the canyon in order to contain the reservoir. The broad west abut- ment, 50 feet above the streambed, would serve as the emergency spillway for the dam. An additional 7 feet of head for a total of 57 feet can be developed by extending the penstock 250 feet beyond the dam to a more accessable powerhouse site. A tube type turbine would utilize a maximum design flow of 36 cfs and the 57 feet of head to develop a maximum ouput of 132 kW. 4. Site Access and Transmission Line Site access would be the same for both alternatives. An existing road leads from the village across a marshy area to a gravel pit and the site of a new airstrip proposed by the Alaskan Department of Transportation. An access road would follow the high ground beyond the air strip to the K-1 power- house site and then climbs approximately 160 feet along the K-1 NBISF-313-9527-KA 3 penstock route through a broad gentle saddle to the dam site on the Kurtluk River. The power line would generally follow the same route and would be mostly above ground on single poles as for the Quigmy River site. The line would be buried across and in the vicinity of the proposed new air strip. 5. Hydrology The flows at the Kurtluk project sites were developed using methods similar to those utilized for the Quigmy project. The much smaller Kurtluk basin reaches only to the 1300 foot eleva- tion compared to the 2500 foot elevation for the Quigmy basin. This reduces the orographic effect of the moisture inflow and resulting precipitation. The following table contrasts the hydrologic estimates for the two basins. Hydrologic Comparison Basin Kurtluk Drainage Area (sq. mi.) Annual Precipitation (inches) Specific Yield (cfs/sq. mi.) Average Annual Flow (cfs) Spot Flow Measurement (cfs) September 15, 1981 October 9-10, 1981 Channel Geometry Estimate (cfs) 13.1 37 1.6 21 48 17 19 Quigmy 100 50 2.2 220 301 131 270 An average annual flow of 21 cfs was adopted as the initial estimate for the Kurtluk projects. For purposes of this pre- recon report, the flow duration curve and annual bydrograph of the Kurtluk River may therefore be assumed to equal approxi- mately 10 percent of those estimated for the Quigmy project. These flows are shown on Figures 1 and 2. NBISF-313-9527-KA 4 6. Power and Energy Production A turbine design flow of 36 cfs, equal to approximately 15 percent exceedance on the flow duration curve, was s~~ected for both projects. Project K-1 utilizing an impulse type turbine would operate efficiently down to 10 percent of its design capacity (3.6 cfs) and to nearly 100 percent of the flow dura- tion. Project K-2 would utilize a tube type turbine which has a low flow range limited to about 30 percent of its design capacity ( 11 cfs) and would 1 imi t its operation to about 70 percent of the duration. The following table compares the two projects. Power and Energy Development Item Design Flow (cfs) Gross Head (ft) Dam Height (ft) Penstock Length (ft) Net Head (ft) Power (kW) Average Annual Energy (MkWh) C. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS K-1 Project 36 157 40 8400 132 340 1.63 K-2 - 36 57 55 500 53 136 0.53 The costs and benefits associated with the Kurtluk Alternative Projects were assessed to provide a preliminary indication of the feasibility of the proposed alternatives. The results of this analysis indicate that the Kurtluk Alternative K-1 is potentially an economically viable project, NBISF-313-9527-KA 5 but Project K-2, due to its small power output, is not cost effective. . c 1. Economic Criteria The Kurtluk Alternatives K-1 and K-2 were assessed using the criteria and methodology presented in Section IX of the Reconnaissance Study. These criteria are based on the APA standard criteria for economic analysis. 2. Cost Estimate The cost estimates for the Kurtluk sites were based on the information prepared for. the feasibility studies for King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay and the reconnaissance study for Togiak. Quantity estimates were prepared for each alternative studied and unit prices derived from the above referenced reports were then applied. These unit prices were judgement- ally modified as necessary to suit this particular application. Detailed estimates are presented in Table I (Alternative K-1) and Table II (Alternative K-2) included at the end of this report. Summaries of these estimates are presented below: Cost Estimate Item Project Direct Construction Contingencies Contract Cost Engineering and Administration Total Project Cost Power (kW) Cost per kW NBISF-313-9527-KA 6 Amount K-1 $4,165,000 765,000 4,930,000 880,000 $5,810,000 $ 340 17' 100 K-2 $3,567,000 623,000 4,190,000 750,000 $4,940,000 $ 135 36,600 As the cost ef feet i veness of Project K-1 based on power output is twice as great as Project K-2, subsequent economic analysis was limited to Project K-1. For comparison the total project cost per kilowatt of the 432 kW Quigmy projett includ- ing 11.6 miles of road was $18,900. 3. Project Energy Planning The average monthly energy generation that could be realized from the Kurtluk Alternative K-1 was compared to the monthly direct electrical and space heating demands from the Togiak report in order to determine the amount of hydroelectric energy that could be used to meet these demands, and the required amount of supplemental diesel generation that would be necessary if the hydroelectric project is built. A detailed explanation of the methodology used for this energy accounting is included in Chapter VII of the Reconnaissance Report. This accounting was performed for 1985, 1990, 2000, and 2001. The results of the accounting are presented below. The monthly relationships between energy demand, generation, and usage are shown graphically on Figure 3. Energy Demand, Generation, and Usage Required Supplemental Hydro Used Direct Direct Demand Diesel for Space Demand Met by Hydro Generation Heating Year (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) 1985 892 856 36 774 1990 1025 949 76 681 2000 1286 1118 168 512 2001 1314 1134 180 496 4. Benefit/Cost Analysis The annual costs associated with the hydroelectric project were estimated using the energy values presented above. These NBISF-313-9527-KA 7 costs include the cost of supplemental diesel generation and were developed in a manner consistent with the methodology advanced in Chapter IX of the Togiak Report. discounted to January 1982 at three percent The . ~osts were interest. The present worth of the space heating credit associated with the Kurtluk Alternative K-1 was determined in a similar manner. The present worth of the base case, the waste heat recovery credit, and the wind energy credit were taken directly from the Togiak Report. The present worth of the cost of the hydro- electric project was considered as a cost. The costs of the base case, waste beat recovery credit, and wind energy credit were considered to be benefits. The space heating credit was considered to be a reduction to the benefit. This methodology is in accordance to the methodology requested by APA. A summary of present wortbs is presented below: Present Worth Summary Present Worth of Benefits Present Worth Base Case Only Present Worth Waste Heat Recovery Credit Subtotal Present Worth Wind Energy Credit Subtotal Present Worth Space Heating Credit Total Present Worth of Costs Present Worth Cost of Hydro Project (Includes Present Worth Cost of Supplemental Diesel) $11,027,600 999,400 $10,028,200 504,700 $ 9,523,500 1,051,800 $10,575,300 $ 8,464,500 The present wortbs presented above were used to determine benefit/cost ratios for the various levels of project develop- ment. The benefit/cost ratios for the project are as follows: NBISF-313-9527-KA 8 (\ Base Case Only B/C 11,027,600 = = 8,464,500 . f 1.30 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery B/C 10,028,200 = = 8,464,500 1.18 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credits B/C = 9,523,500 = 8,464,500 1.13 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy, and Space Heating Credits B/C = 10,575,300 = 8,464,500 1.25 The benefit I cost ratios presented above indicate that the project is feasible for any of the configurations considered. 5. Project Timing The annual unit cost of energy was calculated for the project configurations being considered. analysis are shown on Figure 4. The results of this The optimum timing for project development would occur when the unit cost of the existing system exceeds the unit cost of the proposed hydroelectric project. Because actual costs are important for this comparison, the waste heat recovery and wind NBISF-313-9527-KA 9 energy credits were associated with the base case and con- sidered as reductions in cost, while the space heating credits were considered as a reduction in the cost of the hydroelectric project. A detailed explanation of the discontfJui ties on Figure 4 is included in Section IX-F of the Togiak Report. Inspection of Figure 4 indicates that the hydroelectric project, after adjustment for the space heating credit, would have a lower unit cost than the base case adjusted for waste heat recovery by the time the hydroelectric project goes on- line in 1985, and that this project would have the lowest unit cost of all alternatives considered by the end of 1986. The project appears to be viable for immediate development. D. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW The principal potential impact of the Kurtluk projects is on fisheries. Both projects require high dams which may render a fish ladder installation marginal in value. However, the isolation of spawning habitat in the upper most reaches of the Kurtluk River may not prove to be of major significance on a regional basis. More significant is the transbasin diversion proposed for Project K-1. This would result in a major reduction in stream flow in the approximate mile and a quarter long reach that lies between the dam and the next major tributary downstream. Fishery releases and normal spills from the dam would mitigate· in part the impact on this reach. In contrast, flows below the power plant located on the Togiak flats will be significantly increased. The large pond on which the pow~rhouse is located will provide an excellent afterbay acting to smooth the diurnal and weekly fluctuations in power flows. The existing outflow channel which flows in a relatively direct route southward to Togiak Bay should handle the increased flow averaging 18 cfs or less without major problems although some scour is anticipated. The selection of this pondside powerhouse site mitigates poten- tially major flooding problems created by the original site. That site was located 800 feet to north and drained northeast- ward towards the village through a series of sloughs~! E. CONCLUSIONS 1. A 340 kW hydroelectric project producing approximately 1. 6 MkWh of annual energy is potentially developable on the Kurtluk River. This project would divert water from the Kurtluk River basin and return it to a different drainage basin near Togiak. 2. The preliminary estimate of project construction cost is approximately $5,400,000. 3. The preliminary estimate of the project benefit cost ratio is 1.30 based on APA methodology. 4. An alternate project that would return the power diversions to the Kurtluk a short distance below the dam is not cost effective. 5. Potentially significant environmental impacts created by transbasin diversion of Kurtluk flows may effect the ultimate acceptability of the proposed project. F. RECOMMENDATONS 1. The Alaskan Power Authority should consider proceeding cautiously and on a long term basis with a more detailed study of the Togiak/Kurtluk River Project. 2. Preliminary environmental evaluation of the proposed transbasin diversion should begin immediately. Early findings could have substantial effect of the direc- tion of the feasibility study. ---... -._ n ... I"J ru::. t">'7 -· Tl A 3. Continuous flow measurements of the Kurtluk River and uninterrupted daily precipitation measurements at Togiak should begin as soon as possible. ·oue to the lack of other records in the region these measurements are critical to reliable evaluation of environmental and power development problems. Due to its easier access and smaller stream, a Kurtluk stream gage could be maintained more economically than the recently installed Quimgy River gage and it is recommended that the Quigmy gage be moved to the Kurtluk site as soon as it can be practically accomplished. 4o When additionaL flow and environmental information is available in mid-1983, the project should be reevalu- ated and a decision made whether or not to proceed with a more detailed feasibility study. NBISF-313-9527-KA 12 TARLE I J<URTLUK ALTERNATIVE. PROJECT J<-1 340 kW CO~STRUCTION COSTS . f Item Ouantity Unit Unit Price Amount Mobilization LS 450,000 Access Road 3.2 ML 130,000 416,000 Dam (4()' hi~h) Cofferdam 1,000 CY 50 50,000 :Rypass Line, 48" 300 LF 450 135,000 Foundation Treatment 430 SY 75 32,2'50 Trim (rock) 325 CY 30 9,750 Cone. Membrane & Toe 150 CY 1,200 180,000 Reinforcing Steel 17,000 LR 1. 73 29,410 Rock Fill 4,300 CY 50 215,000 651,410 Intake Slide Gate, 36" 1 EA 32,000 32,000 Slide Gate, 4811 1 EA 40,000 40,000 Trashracks 2 EA 5,000 10,000 Concrete 10 CY 1,400 14,000 96,000 Penstock Steel, 36" 300 LF 175 52,500 Fiberglass, 3611 8,100 LF 120 972,000 Excavation 5,800 CY 17 98,600 Backfill 5,300 CY 9 47,700 1,170,800 Powerhouse Prefab Building LS 47,000 Turbine & Generator LS 510,000 Auxiliary System LS 120,000 Concrete 110 CY 1,200 132,000 Reinforcing Steel 12,000 LB 1. 73 20,760 829,760 SFNBI-313-9527-T-I Item Spillway Excavation Rock Concrete Reinforcing Steel Transmission Line Contingencies Contract Cost TABLE I (Concluded) KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-1 340 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS . t guantitx Unit Unit Price 4,300 cr 30 30 CY 1,200 3,400 LB 1. 73 2.7 MI 141,000 SUBTOTAL (rounded) Engineering & Administration TOTAL PROJECT COST SFNBI-313-9527-T-I Amount 129,000 36,000 5,882 170,882 380 '700 4,165,000 765,000 4,930,000 880,000 5,810,000 TABLE II KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-2 135 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS . r Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Mobi liz at ion LS 400,000 Access Road 3.2 Ml 130,000 416,000 Dam (55' high) Cofferdam 1,000 CY 40 40,000 Bypass Line, 48" 300 LF 450 135 ,000 Foundation Treatment 2,200 SY 50 11,000 Trim (rock) 325 CY 18 5,850 Cone. Membrane & Toe 400 CY ' 1, 200 480,000 Reinforcing Steel 46,000 LB 1. 73 79,580 Rock Fill 11,800 CY 40 472,000 1,223,430 Intake Slide Gate, 36" 1 EA 32,000 32,000 Slide Gate, 48" 1 EA 40,000 40,000 Trashracks 2 EA 5,000 10,000 Concrete 10 CY 1,400 14,000 96,000 Penstock Steel, 36" 400 LF 175 70,000 Excavation, Rock 200 CY 30 6,000 Concrete 10 1,400 14,000 90,000 Powerhouse Prefab Building LS 47,000 Turbine & Generator LS 250,000 Auxiliary Systems LS 120,000 Concrete 110 CY 1,200 132,000 Reinforcing Steel 12,000 LB 1. 73 20,760 569,760 SFNBI-313-9527-T-11 Item Spillway Excavation Rock Concrete Reinforcing Steel Transmission Line Contingencies Contract Cost TABLE II (Concluded) KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-2 135 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS Quantity Unit Unit Price 12,800 30 3,400 4.2 CY CY LB MI 18 1,200 1. 73 119,000 SUBTOTAL (rounded) Engineering & Admin. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS SFNBI-313-9527-T-11 . c Amount 230,400 36,000 5,882 272,282 499,800 3,567,000 623,000 4,190,000 750,000 4,940,000 120 110 100 90 80 "; 70 ..... u - 3t 60 0 ...J La.. 50 40 30 20 10 I l ' - I I \ \ ' f \ I ! I I l I I \ \ ~ ""~ MEAP ANN ~AL F LOW 21 cfs ""'-. """"' ~ ~ ........___...._ -r---... ~ 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT (0/o) OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED KURTLUK RIVER DAM SITE FLOW DURATION CURVE FIGURE I 70 60 50 -40 Cf) -u - ~ 0 i 30 10 ,........., ' ' ESTIMATED RANGE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10 YEARS I 0~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~----~--~~ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH -0 0 0 .. -JC .c • .. -> ~ I.&J z I.&J 0 ,,.-.....,. I NERATION 2001 ' ! ~~' ' i i i I ; I i l I : ! l i r > r I I J F M A M ~ ~ A S 0 N D MONTH D~TAIL DATA I t ! ' ' l I . .. ............................................................ .. TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED MONTHLY ENERGY GENERATION. DEMAND, AND USAGE FIGURE 3 .,I lOTI I n,r AI TI='D~ATIV&:' -.t::. ~ .. ' en ..J _. -:1 - t-en 0 0 >-C) 0: ..... 600 soo 400 300 !"""·, KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE WITH SPACE HEATING CREDIT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON-L!~~ E r-'\ .iT) ALTERNATIVE A W!TH II.(; M!:...E ROAiJ I Y -AND NO SPACE HEATING CREOii I \ . I \ . ,., x2 ALTERNATIVE' A WiTH 4.6 ~q-~ RC•t:..:' I ' AND N~"', SPA~"'r: n"~ 11 T 1N•r CRr::r·•T I \ \,1 \,1'--~ I ~ ---' l ' I ' ' 0 EXP"~'r-, t:'l !r;:'' • y' r . ~~-.v ' v ..... - 1-'\. ' ' r '~ r STCRt:.GE (l) : ' ' ', : ~~· ~ . ·. y' ' I }',· lllllliriio'··--~·_.._.. ......... ' ~' '\.., i ' =. ' : ~ © ~-~ ' ' '" €) ~---J..-- ', ' I 'j3)'' . ' ' BASE CASE ~ 200 ® t-W! T H WASTE HEAT @) ALTERNATIVE A . WITH 4.6 M :...E ROAD ANt S~ACE HEATING CREDIT z RECOVERY CREDIT ::) _. <( ::) z z (j) BASE CASE WITH Wt..S TE HEAT · RECOVERY AND . WINO CREDITS_-,. <( 100 1980 YEAR 1990 @ KURTLUK ALTERATIVE WITHOUT SPACE HEATING CREDIT 2000 2010 ··------------------------------------------------------------------- TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED UNIT ENERGY COSTS ---........ ... .. ~ .............. & ..... FIGURE 4 / I 6'-" I 1 \ I --l8 240 160 I ) 120 :; ., :IE z 80 0 ;::: ;; .... _, 40 .... 24 :; ., :IE -z 110 0 fi > ... _, 120 .., / I ( l bJ r I PLAN 3000 4000 5000 6000 36 DIAMETER PENSTOCK POWERHOUSE POND SURFACE EL 38 8400 PROFLE ALT PROJECT K-1 !VERSION DAI:l ~ FT HIGH DIAMETER PENSTOCK PROFILE ALT PROJECT 1<-2 ~/.,.... .... ~ .' 1 l~ r-, J "' / '-"" ~ ,..~ .... / AIRSTRIP 15 {} PROJECT K-1 TYPICAL IMPLUSE TURBINE POWE~HOUSE .Jill_ PROJECT K-r TYPICAL REACTION TURBIIIE POWERHOUSE .Jill_ :v r .. " .J ROPOSED OWE2 -f. :,.. / ( ·t:POSED LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE ASSUMMED LOCAi10N QJ' PROPOSED AIRSTRI~~ __r-: XISTING ROAO #TOGIAK '"""\ ACCESS ROAD ~ \~ TOGIAK B A Y VICINITY MAP STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE ALASKA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IWRTLUK RIVER ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS OCWL EMGWEERS AP..CHORAGE IU.ASKA Fl.ATE I ,. I ,_,., r;, ()~. Mr. Melvin R. R1cho1s Project Manager OOWL Eng1Mers 4040 •a• Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mel: t'·.-('~'~/ April 9 I 1982 We have COMpleted our review of the five volume feasfbflity study report for hydroelectric projects at Kfng Cove, Old P.arttor, larsen Bay, and reconnaissance study of hydroelectric potential at Togiak. tn general, we wen! quite pleased with the reports, but do ha'ltt a ~ .. of com~ents to offer. General comBtnts relating to all four studies art as follows: a. The results of the analysis of the base case plan suppl.-ented with wind should be folded into each volume at appraor1ate locations. P.esults of the eeo~c analysis of thfs plan should be incorporated tnto tables similar to those used for other plans. -- b. Prov1s10fts should be incorporated hato project conceptual designs to offer protection against vanda11s.. c. An analysts aust be conducted for each one of the pr"Ojects to ct.tenaine opt1Nl t111rlng as latd out tn ttt. ~e~erandua recently sent to you. d. Letters of concurrence to pPOceed with final project design and construction should be obtained fro. each of the resource manage.ent age"cie! reviewing the feasibility studies. Also. the poss1b11fty of utilizing the abandoned cannf!ry at Lirsen Bay in plac• of 1 separate construction ea., should be addressed. Significant savings may be rea11zed by using this fae111ty. Other comments .-have to offer have been annotated in red fn the attached reports. . . . , Mr. Melvin R. tchols April 8, 1982 Page 2 I ,._-;. Please address all of our eoanents, 1nc:luding those discussed at the April 9th JRet1ng, 1n the final M!port which is scheduled to be coapleted by April 21, 1982. Should you have any questions. please let N know. • FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR · DWB:sh