HomeMy WebLinkAboutAkutan Feasibility Assessment 1989AKUTAN HYDROELECTRIC
FEASI Bl LITV STU DV
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
P.O. Box 190869
701 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Prepared by:
HDR/OTT Engineering, Inc.
4446 Business Park Boulevard
Building B
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dryden & LaRue, Inc.
6436 Homer Drive
P.O. Box 111008
Anchorage, Alaska 99511-1 008
December 1989
Final Revision -June 1990
/()
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND EXISTING FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. SITE LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. HISTORICAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
D. EXISTING FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
E. EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Ill. HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. SITE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. PRECIPITATION DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. STREAMFLOW DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
D. FLOW ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
E. PEAK DISCHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. MOBILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. DAM AND RESERVOIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. PENSTOCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D. POWER HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
E. TURBINE-GENERATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F. CONTROL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G. TRANSMISSION LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
V. PROJECT POWER PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VI. PROJECT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
VII. LOAD FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A. CITY OF AKUTAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. TRIDENT SEAFOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
VIII. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IX. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. REGULATORY PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. RIGHTS-OF-WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A1180:1:3:010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
X. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
APPENDICES
1. TRIP REPORT OF JULY 31 TO AUGUST 2, 1989
2. TRIP REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 6 TO 7, 1989
3. HARBOR DEPTH CHART READINGS
4. POWER EVALUATION RUNS
5. COST ESTIMATES
6. TRANSMISSION CABLE DATA
7. AKUTAN LOAD FORECAST BASE DATA
8. ESTIMATED DIESEL POWER GENERATION COSTS: TRIDENT SEAFOODS IN AKUTAN
9. COST ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS
10. CONTROL SCHEMATICS
11. AEA REVIEW OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
ii
A1180:1:3:D10
1'
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11'
12.
LIST OF FIGURES
FOLLOWING PAGE
VICINITY MAP ..................................................... .
PROJECT MAP ..................................................... .
FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR NORTH CREEK AT MOUTH AND AT DIVERSION .... .
FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR LOUD CREEK AT MOUTH AND AT DIVERSION ..... .
NORTH CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
LOUD CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE ...................................... .
NORTH CREEK DIVERSION AND POWER HOUSE ROUTE SITE PHOTOS ......... .
NORTH CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE AND TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE PHOTOS ... .
LOUD CREEK DIVERSION AND POWER HOUSE SITE PHOTOS ................ .
LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE AND TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE PHOTOS .... .
AKUTAN HYDRO SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . ................... .
PROJECTED COST OF POWER AT AKUTAN .............................. .
iii
6
6
14
14
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
34
A1180:1:3:010
LIST OF TABLES
111-1 PRECIPITATION DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
111-2 STREAMFLOW DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
111-3 RUNOFF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
111-4 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND ANNUAL FLOWS....................... . . . 13
111-5 PEAK DISCHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV-1 IMPOUND RESERVOIRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV-2 PIPE COST COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
IV-3 THERMAL EXPANSION OF PIPES ....................................... . 19
IV-4 POWER HOUSE FLOOR ELEVATION 20
V-1 ANNUAL PRECIPITATION . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................ . 28
V-2 HYDROPOWER EVALUATION .......................................... . 29
Vl-1 COST SUMMARY ....... . 30
Vll-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DIESEL ELECTRIC POWER PLANT COSTS FOR CITY OF
AKUTAN..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Vll-2 AKUTAN LOAD PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
iv
A1180:1:3:D10
SUMMARY
Two potential sites for hydroelectric production for the community of Akutan were evaluated. Power
availability, present load, and project costs led to the following conclusions.
1. The communitv of Akutan has two excellent sites for hydroelectric power generation.
2. The cost for construction of a hydroelectric project for the City of Akutan alone at either North or
Loud Creek is approximately $1,360,000.
3. The construction of a hydroelectric project for the community of Akutan alone is not economically
feasible at either North or Loud Creek sites. A large portion of the construction costs of a
hydroelectric project are independent of the size of the project and the community does not have
sufficient load to justify a project at the present time.
The community presently generates power with diesel generators at a wholesale cost of $0.33 per
kilowatt hour (/kWh). This is projected to increase to $0.42/kWh by the year 2001. A hydro project
constructed at either North or Loud Creek and designed to handle the needs of the community
would initially generate power at a wholesale cost of $0.49/kWh. This is predicted to decrease to
$0.27/kWh by the year 2001 as the community grows and the sale of energy increases. The time
when a project for the community alone may become feasible is predicted to be around the mid
1990's.
4. The inclusion of Trident Seafoods, owners of a large seafood processing facility in Akutan, in the
planning for power for the community of Akutan presents two further options for providing power
for the community. Trident Seafoods presently has five 1,100 kilowatt (kW) diesel generators, three
500 kW units, and likely produces power at a cost of $.101 to $.11/kWh.
The first option would be for the community to construct an intertie to Trident and purchase this
lower-cost power. This intertie would cost approximately $165,000 and could be the first step of
a future hydroelectric project. The wholesale cost of power from this arrangement would be
approximately $0.27/kWh in 1991 rising to $0.33/kWh in 2001. The assumptions involved in this
option are that the City would maintain its own generation system as a backup and that the City and
Trident were able to develop a cooperative agreement on fuel sales.
The second option would be for Trident to participate in a hydropower project as either a
construction partner or with an agreement to purchase excess hydropower from a community-
A1180:1:3:D10
constructed project. The community presently uses less than 100 kilowatt (kw). Either the North
Creek or Loud Creek sites have the potential to generate an average of approximately 200 kW. If
a project were constructed which used all the power available from one of these sites and the
excess power sold to Trident, the wholesale cost of power to the community would drop to about
$0.26/kWh when the project is constructed and down to about $.13/kWh in 2001.
5. A hydroelectric project which involves Trident Seafoods is economically feasible. If a single
hydroelectric project is constructed, the recommended site is Loud Creek for reasons detailed in
the Recommendations section of this report.
6. Assuming a combined community and Trident load, construction at Loud Creek would cost
approximately $1.7 million by contract. The main features of this project are:
o a 1 0-foot timber dam at elevation 560 feet and a smaller dam at elevation 175 feet on the
west fork;
o a 3,200-foot, 16-inch, fiberglass, above-ground penstock and a 700-foot, 1 0-inch, fiberglass,
above-ground penstock;
o a 332 kW impulse turbine and generator and a 60 kW pump-induction generator;
o a 22 x 24-foot power house with a turbine elevation of 18 feet mean sea level (MSL);
o a 4,500-foot underwater transmission cable to Akutan; and
o a 2, 700-foot buried intertie cable from Akutan to Trident Seafoods.
There is a need for cooperation between the community and the seafood processor. Trident needs process
water from one or both of the creeks. The community desires to use this water for hydroelectric production.
The two uses are compatible as hydropower is non-consumptive and the water for consumptive use can
be taken after it leaves the power plant tailrace. Both groups could benefit from reduced power costs from
hydroelectric power development.
The time when a hydroelectric project will become feasible for the City of Akutan alone depends on future
growth and fuel costs. This time is predicted to be approximately 1995. A project involving Trident
Seafoods is economically feasible today.
It is recommended that the City of Akutan pursue the cooperation of Trident Seafoods in the construction
of a hydroelectric project at Loud Creek. The guarantee of construction assistance and power sales should
be negotiated with water rights and easement for Trident.
2
A1180:1:3:010
A second option for the City of Akutan is to construct an intertie to the Trident cannery and purchase their
lower-cost power.
If negotiations between the community and Trident Seafoods fails to produce an agreement which will allow
construction of a hydroelectric project or an intertie, then the City should re-evaluate this project when future
City growth or higher fuel costs make the project feasible.
In any case, abnormally high distribution losses which were found at Akutan should be investigated and
remedied. Correction of these losses would either improve revenue substantially or reduce generation
requirements or both.
3
A1180:1:3:D10
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The construction of a hydroelectric power system to provide for the needs of the City of Akutan has been
considered since before 1980. In 1980, a preliminary design report was completed for a hydroelectric facility
at a site one mile to the west of town (North Creek). The project was never constructed. In the ensuing
years, the project, with varied component options, new sites, and changes in social economic conditions,
was reconsidered.
The purpose of this report is to consolidate all previous studies and to gather any necessary data to
determine the feasibility of constructing a hydroelectric facility at Akutan. Two alternative sites are
considered: North Creek and Loud Creek. Development options and recommendations are presented for
each site.
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The AEA Project Managers were Roy Taylor
and Remy Williams. The study was authored by Bill Ryan and Bob Butera of HDR/OTT Engineering, Inc.
(HDR/OTT) and Bob Dryden of Dryden & LaRue, Inc. Surveying of Loud Creek basin was accomplished
by Todd Heyworth of HDR/OTT.
C. PREVIOUS STUDIES
A preliminary design report was prepared in 1980 by Ott Engineering, Inc. for the City of Akutan. This report
looked in detail at options and costs involved in the construction of a hydroelectric facility at a then
unnamed creek (North Creek) to the west of Akutan. There were no stream gage or precipitation records
at the time of that report; hydrology was based upon an estimate of precipitation and runoff.
In 1985, a second report was prepared by Polarconsult for the Alaska Power Authority (APA). The report
reviewed the original report and took a brief look at an alternative site across the bay south of Akutan (Loud
Creek). This report concluded that the project could be simplified and constructed at a price much lower
than the price estimated in the 1980 report, and also recommended that the alternative site be looked at in
more detail.
4
A1180:1:3:010
In 1986, the APA contracted the Water Resources Section (WRS) of the Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) to collect and summarize streamflow data for North Creek and Loud Creek.
This very limited data was collected from June 1986 to October 1988 and a report was published in October
1989.
D. SCOPE OF STUDY
AEA Contract Number APA-89-R-025 called for the following services to be performed:
1. Review all previous reports related to the Akutan Hydroelectric Project.
2. Evaluate water resource data collected by Alaska DGGS.
3. Make a site visit for orientation and to gather additional data.
4. Make comparative analysis of the two sites being considered and present development
alternatives for the site recommended.
5. Develop concept level cost estimates for the alternatives and provide economic analysis
using standard procedures and tests normally used on this type of project.
6. Design the selected alternative (Phase 2: to be performed if project is confirmed to be
feasible and authorization provided by AEA).
In addition to the above, the contract was amended to include an instrument survey of the Loud Creek
impoundment and power house areas to obtain cross-sections, and a closed traverse along the penstock
route.
5
A1180:1:3:010
II. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND EXISTING FACILITIES
A. SITE LOCATION
1. AKUTAN
The community of Akutan is located on Akutan Island about halfway out on the western end of the Aleutian
Chain in southwest Alaska. It is approximately 40 miles northeast of Dutch Harbor and 140 miles southwest
of Cold Bay (see Figure 1 ).
The community is located on the north side of Akutan Bay, a protected inlet about 7 -miles-wide by 3-miles-
long. The two creeks which are considered in this study also drain into Akutan Bay (see Figure 2).
Two seafood processors are based in Akutan Harbor: Trident Seafoods operates a shore plant; and Deep
Sea Fisheries operates floating processors. These facilities are located approximately one mile west of the
community center.
2. NORTH CREEK
North Creek was the initial site studied for a hydropower project in 1980. This creek has also been called
"North Site Creek" in other reports. The creek is located on the north side of Akutan Harbor 1.2 miles west
of Akutan and 0.9 miles west of Trident.
3. LOUD CREEK
Loud Creek, so named because it can be heard at the cannery across the Bay, is located on the south side
of Akutan Bay 0. 75 miles south-southeast of the community.
B. HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Akutan was originally settled in the late 1800s because of its sheltered harbor. Now the harbor, being
located near the center of commercial fishing grounds, serves as a hub of Bering Sea and North Pacific
fishing activity.
6
A1180:1:3:010
Shemya
~., .
•
Nome
0
\
Barrow
\
0'Kodlak
#<1
AKUTAN] ""'
Dutch Harbor 7 ~~ t:;z::::J"
. !rf..r 6 0~
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
\
\
VICINITY MAP
0
Figure
1
NORTH CREEK BASIN
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
NORTH
PROJECT MAP
\
' "
0
Figure
2
In 1987, 22 million pounds of crab and 26 million pounds of bottomfish and other species were processed
in Akutan. Fifty-five million pounds were processed in 1988 by Trident, and it is estimated they will process
90 millions pounds in 1990. Trident currently processes crab, pollock, salmon, and scallops.
Both Trident and Deep Sea are expanding. Trident is building a plant capable of producing surimi and fish
meal, as well as cod and pollock fillets, salmon, crab, and halibut. A large cold storage area is also being
built, as well as a bulk storage facility (for case-lot storage), and one million gallons in additional fuel storage
capacity. Future plans may include a grocery store. Trident will employ 500 people when the expansion
is completed and may house employees in the community rather than the processing plant site, as at
present. The Deep Sea expansion consists of adding a barge facility.
The community population is approximately 85 people, primarily Aleuts. Including the Trident Seafoods plant
and the Deep Sea floating processor (considered a shore-based facility), the population is 274 people.
When six-month and three-month seasonal workers are also included, the total population approaches 500
people.
There are approximately 27 homes in the community. The average age of the community population is fairly
young, with most residents in their twenties or thirties. Over one-third of the residents are children eighth-
grade age or younger.
It is estimated that the total labor force in the community is approximately 50 people. The total number of
jobs available in the community exceed the potential labor force because several individuals work in several
positions. Few local residents seek employment on the seafood processing lines at the plants. Most men
work as crew members on area fishing vessels, while the women are employed in the government and office
jobs available in the community.
A 36-inch pelton wheel was installed on a nearby stream in 1927 and provided a small amount of direct
current power to the City for many years. Prior to 1982, this along with small, private diesel generators
provided all electric power to the City.
Prior to 1980, studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Robert A. Retherford Associates identified
a potential hydroelectric site on a stream presently named "North Creek.· In 1980, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development provided funds for Ott Engineering, Inc. to develop a preliminary design
for a hydro project on North Creek. The cost of the project at that time was estimated at about $1 million.
The City attempted to implement the project using State loan funds and proceeded to the point of acquiring
a 200 kW Chinese turbine and soliciting construction bids. However, the project was discontinued due
apparently to a combination of financial and seismic concerns. The Energy Authority ended up in
possession of the turbine, which is presently stored in Seattle.
7
A1180:1:3:010
In 1982, the City completed construction of a new diesel plant facility including fuel storage for 12,000
gallons. Annual fuel usage of the generating plant is currently around 36,000 gallons. Sometime after 1982,
the City also installed a bulk fuel storage facility of about 60,000 gallons.
In 1985, the Energy Authority directed Polarconsult to review the options for Akutan hydro development.
They concluded that the North Creek project could be built for a much lower price, and also that a potential
site across the bay (Loud Creek) deserved further investigation.
The Authority contracted for collection of streamflow data for both North Creek and Loud Creek from 1986-
1988 and then entered into this present contract with HDR/OTI to reassess the hydro alternatives.
C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Akutan Island is of volcanic origin and is steep and rugged with numerous bedrock outcrops and cliffs.
There are no trees. A thick mat of tundra covers the volcanic ash soils which overlie the bedrock. The mat
is up to three-feet thick at the lower elevations, thinning to barren soils in the windswept higher elevations.
D. EXISTING FACILITIES
1. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
Electricity is provided to city residents by the city-operated diesel plant. Trident Seafoods has its own diesel-
fueled generator system. A small, direct-current hydropower system serving the community was
discontinued approximately ten years ago.
The existing community power plant consists of three diesel engine-generators: two 90 kW 3304 Caterpillar
units and one John Deere 60 kW unit. Generation and distribution voltage for the community is 480 volts.
It was not determined if this is delta or wye, although panels all indicated line to line voltages. The existing
switchgear appears to be in good condition with full kWh metering, synchronous and parallel capability, and
over junder voltage and frequency protection. The generator circuit breakers are molded case manual
operator type.
The two 90 kW units are located inside a "Conex'' shipping container which was probably prefabricated
elsewhere and set in place. The 60 kW unit is in a lean-to type structure on the end of the Conex. The
power plant is very clean and appears to be well maintained. Operating reports from the AEA show that
the plant has averaged 7.91 kWh per gallon over the last 3 years. This is typical for a small plant with a low
load factor. Near the plant are three 4,000-gallon underground fuel storage tanks and the city has
approximately 60,000 gallons of #2 diesel storage near the float plane dock. The fuel is pumped from the
large storage tanks through a small pipe to the plant tanks.
8
A1180:1:3:010
Distribution losses averaged 27 percent between 1987 and 1989. This is a very high loss for a small
compact system like Akutan's. Typical losses would be 5 to 10 percent. Probable causes are unmetered
loads such as public buildings, poor metering practices, bad meters, and power theft. Oversized, inefficient
transformers could also account for a substantial portion of this loss.
It was not possible to examine the power plant at Trident because maintenance work was underway.
However, the head of maintenance and manager were interviewed.
Trident presently operates five Caterpillar 3512 high speed 1 ,800 RPM units with generators rated at 1,100
kW. They also have three older units (D379s rated at 500 kW, or about 7,000 kW total). It is assumed that
most of the energy is being generated by the 3512 machines and that this will be the type of machine used
in the expansion of the plant.
Presently, Trident's peak is 2,500 kW and they expect to add 3,000 kW when they complete the new surimi
and fish meal plant in early 1990.
The plant currently uses 1. 7 million gallons of fuel at $0.75 per gallon and could be expected to double that
use with the new plant in place.
2. TRANSPORTATION
There is no runway serving the community. A seaplane ramp on Salt House Cove allows Peninsula Airway's
Goose to dock on its scheduled runs three times a week. Markair has recently added service to the area.
Freight service is provided by Western Pioneer and Coastal Transportation barges (each with scheduled runs
approximately once a week). Delta Western operates barges from Dutch Harbor and provides fuel oil and
gasoline.
The existing city dock (known as the old Seawest dock) is in disrepair. It is now only used to offload fuel
in good weather. It was also used to offload freight for community residents. Trident has a dock and does
allow freight for the community to be offloaded there. A new City dock is to be constructed in 1990.
There are no roads in either the community or at Trident; however, there is an extensive city-maintained
system of boardwalks within the community and to the seaplane ramp. Trident recently improved the trail
between the community and their fish processing plant. The City plans to further improve the trail and
extend a new boardwalk toward Trident.
E. EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND USE
Presently, there are no holders of water rights to either North Creek or Loud Creek. The 1980 Ott
Engineering, Inc. report indicated that an application had been filed for water rights on North Creek but no
9
A 1180:1 :3:010
record of this exists in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) files. The community has water
rights at three small supply creeks behind the community. Trident has water rights on a stream
approximately halfway between the cannery and North Creek.
Trident is taking water from North Creek via a six-inch polyethylene line but does so without water rights.
Gary Prokosch of ADNR had informed Trident of this by certified letter in October 1989. Trident will need
a right-of-way from the owners of the land around the creek before they will receive water rights at either
North or Loud Creek sites.
Planned expansions at the Trident plant are expected to require up to five cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) of
water on a year-round basis.
10
A1180:1:3:010
Ill. HYDROLOGY
A. SITE DATA
North Creek is located on the north side of Akutan Harbor 1.2 miles west of Akutan and 0.9 miles west of
Trident. North Creek has two forks which joint at elevation 390 feet. The proposed intake site on the
western fork is at elevation 516 feet and the proposed intake site on the eastern fork is at elevation 548 feet.
These combined drainages have an area of 0.57 square miles above the diversion. This drainage area is
south facing, roughly circular in plan, and heads at an elevation of 1 ,600 to 1 ,800 feet. The stream flows
through a bedrock channel 3-to 10-feet wide and 0.5-to 1.0-feet deep.
Loud Creek is located on the south side of Akutan Bay o. 75 miles south-southeast of the community. Loud
Creek also has two forks. The eastern fork rises steeply to a bench at elevation 550 feet where the main
intake is proposed. The drainage area above this point is 0. 70 square miles. This upper portion of the Loud
Creek basin maintains a gentle slope above the intake point and then rises steeply to a ridge at 1 ,500 to
1 ,800 feet. The western fork has a drainage area of 0.25 square miles, but the potential for power generation
is decreased due to lack of elevation.
B. PRECIPITATION DATA
Precipitation (and temperature) were measured daily at the Trident dock at Akutan from 1986 through 1988.
Long-term precipitation data was recorded at
Cold Bay 140 miles to the northeast and
Dutch Harbor 40 miles to the southwest (see
Table 111-1).
Cold Bay is a first-order weather station and
provides continuous record from 1950 to the
present. Dutch Harbor records began in
1922 but are intermittent and were not
reported for 1987 or 1988.
A1 180:1:3:010
Akutan at Trident
Cold Bay
Dutch Harbor
11
TABLE 111-1
PRECIPITATION DATA
1986-1988
1950-Present
1922 to 1954 and 1982 to 1988
C. STREAMFLOW DATA
There are no long-term stream flow records for Akutan Island. The nearest long-term records are from
Amchitka Island far to the west and Kodiak Island in
the Gulf of Alaska.
TABLE 111-2
STREAMFLOW DATA
Site
North Creek at Mouth
Loud Creek at Mouth
East Fork Loud Creek
Period of Record
07/15/80 to 08/11/80,
C:S/C:S/80 to 08/14/87
06/03/80 to 08/14/87
C:S/11 /80 to 11/27/80,
02/24/87 to 08/14/87,
C:S/10/87 to 07/30/88
Recognizing this lack of applicable data, AEA
contracted the WAS of DGGS to collect stream flow
data. Both North and Loud Creeks were gaged for
varying periods between 1986 and 1988 (see Table 111-
2). Both creeks were gaged at their mouths and a
third station was later added on the east fork of Loud
Creek at elevation 170 feet. The conversion of
recorded stage data to flow was based upon rating
curves developed from five to seven discharge
measurements at each site which provided a
relationship between stage and flow only in the range between two to seven cubic feet per second (cfs).
Even within this range, the quality of some of the data was marginal due to instrument calibration errors and
the inherent problems involved in establishing a reasonable stage discharge relationship on a steep, small
stream.
D. FLOW ANALYSIS
A rainfall-runoff relationship was established for each of the three basins over the period of time from 1986
to 1988 when local precipitation and streamflow
data was concurrently recorded. The average
TABLE 111-3
RUNOFF DATA
Average
Runoff Ratios Drainage
(cfs/mi4 Area (mi4
North Creek at Mouth
Loud Creek at Mouth
Loud Creek at East Fork
8.1
9.8
4.1
0.72
1.1
0.76
runoff per square mile at Loud Creek at its mouth
and North Creek at its mouth were very similar,
but the stream flow data for the East Fork of Loud
Creek showed a much lower runoff ratio (see
Table 111-3). Conversations with local observers
and DGGS stream gaging personnel gave no
indication that rainfall should vary from basin to
basin. These ratios support the data for both
Loud and North Creeks at their mouths and
indicates that the data from East Fork Loud Creek
may be inaccurate. Therefore, the data from East Fork Loud Creek was not used. Flows at the diversion
sites for both Loud Creek and North Creek were based on the ratio of the drainage area to the flows
measured at the mouth.
12
A1180:1:3:010
Flow duration data for North Creek (Figure 3) shows that the median flow at the diversion site is 4.2 cfs.
The stream flows from 3 to 7 cfs 50 percent of the time and exceeds 0.8 cfs 95 percent of the time. At Loud
Creek, Figure 2, the median flow at the diversion site is 5.4 cfs, the stream flows from 4 to 12 cfs 50 percent
of the time and exceeds 1.6 cfs 95 percent of the time (see Figure 4). The 95 percent exceedence level of
Loud Creek Is almost double that of North Creek. This is not due solely to the increased drainage area.
The North Creek basin is roughly circular with two steep channels providing a direct route for water out of
the basin. Loud Creek has a comparatively longer, low gradient, single channel. Loud Creek also appears
to have deeper sediments in its upper basin. These two factors give the Loud Creek basin a greater natural
storage capacity to even out both low and high flows.
Both creeks flow year-round at their mouths. Peak flows occur from June through August, and in December
and January. Low flows occur from February through April. Average monthly flows for each site at their
mouths and at the diversion(s) are shown in Table 111-4. It is unknown what proportion of the winter flow
may originate from the upper versus the lower portions of either basin. The lower elevation of the west fork
of Loud Creek may be the most consistent producer of water during cold periods.
TABLE 111-4
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND ANNUAL FLOWS
Drainage Average
Area Average Monthly Flows (cfs) Annual
(mi 2 ) J F M A M J J A s 0 N D Flow
North Creek at Mouth 1 0.72 6.0 4.6 2.2 3.0 5.5 9.9 10.9 11.8 5.0 5.4 4.1 8.1 6.6
North Creek at Diversion2 0.57 4.7 3.6 1.7 2.4 4.3 7.8 8.6 9.3 4.0 4.2 3.2 6.4 5.2
loud Creek at Mouth 1 1 • 1 12.7 6.1 8.3 5.9 11.0 16. 1 8.2 6.9 8.6 14 8.8 22.4 10.8
Loud Creek at Diversion2 0.70 8.1 3.9 5.3 3.8 7.0 10.3 5.2 4.4 5.5 9.0 5.6 14.3 6.9
West Fork Loud Creek 2 0.31 3.6 1.7 2.3 1.7 3.1 4.5 2.3 1.9 2.4 3.9 2.5 6.3 3.0
1. Flows at mouth based on flow measurements 1986 · 1988.
2. Flows at diversion and at west fork Loud Creek based on drainage area ratio of the flows measured at the mouth.
13
A1180:1:3:010
E. PEAK DISCHARGES
Estimates of the 2-year, and 1 00-year peak flows for Loud and North Creeks were based upon regression
equations developed by the U.S. Forest Service for ungaged steams in maritime regions of Alaska (U.S.
Forest Service, 1979, see Table 111-7). These equations are based upon data from Kodiak and southern
coastal Alaska.
A1180:1:3:010
TABLE 111-5
PEAK DISCHARGES
2-Year Peak Flow
Q2 .0806 p1.55
a2 Loud Creek =
Q2 North Creek =
A.a75
50 cfs
40 cfs
100-Year Peak Flow
a,oo = .892 p1.21 A.999
Q 100 Loud Creek = 120 cfs
C100 North Creek = 100 cfs
P Mean, annual prec1p1tation = 77 inches
A Drainage area = 0.70 mi 2 at Loud Creek, 0.57 mi 2 at North Creek
14
14
12
10
®
North @ Diversion
Ci3 8
u.
()
50%• 5.2 cfs
;:
0
u. 6
4
so%=4.2 cfs 95% = 1.0 cfs
2
0
0 25 50 75 100
% of Time Flows Equaled or Exceeded
(D Flows at mouth based upon flow measurements 1986-1988
® Flows at diversion based upon drainage area ratio to the flows measured at the mouth
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
FLOW DURATION CURVE
NORTH CREEK SITE
Figure
3
14
12
10
- 8 Cf)
u..
(.)
so%l=a.4 cfs
l
CD
---LOUD CREEK @ MOUTH ;:
0
u.. 6
4
2
0
i
95%1= 2.8 cfs
I I ® [;
LOUD CREEK@ DIVERSION~
I
95%= 1.6 cfs
0 25 50 75 100
% of Time F'ows Equaled or Exceeded
G) Flows at mouth based upon flow measurements 1986-1988
@ Flows at diversion based upon drainage area ratio to the flows measured at the mouth
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
FLOW DURATION CURVE
LOUD CREEK SITE
Figure
4
IV. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
There were six alternative projects evaluated for this study. Four of these involved construction of a
hydroelectric facility:
1. North Creek with an Akutan community load;
2. Loud Creek with an Akutan community load;
3. North Creek with infinite load of seafood processor; and
4. Loud Creek with infinite load of seafood processor.
Two other alternatives were evaluated which did not involve hydroelectric construction:
5. Construct an intertie between Trident and Akutan and the community purchases power from
Trident. This alternative provides the ground work for future hydroelectric construction.
6. Do nothing. The community of Akutan continues to generate power as it presently does.
If this option were considered, improvement of the existing distribution system should be
looked at to attempt to reduce the present 27 percent loss.
Each of the components (mobilization, dams, penstocks, etc.) for the first four alternatives were analyzed
in detail, and all options considered, including those rejected, are presented.
A. MOBILIZATION
Options Considered
Akutan's location far out on the Aleutian Chain complicates travel and transport logistics. On one hand,
rates for barge service from Seattle are only slightly above that for Anchorage; yet air transportation to and
from Akutan is expensive and often delayed. Equipment and supplies are not locally available, and weather
can often delay or hinder supply deliveries and work for days at a time. Mobilization for either project will
consume a significant portion of the total project costs. Mobilization costs could vary significantly
depending on local support. For instance, if Trident Seafoods were involved in the project, their helicopter
could be used for equipment and logistical support and materials could be "backhauled" from Seattle on
Trident barges.
15
A1180:1:3:010
Options Selected
Far this analysis, it was assumed that all materials and equipment would need to be brought in by a
contractor. All material and equipment would be barged directly from Seattle to Dutch Harbor and then
offloaded to a smaller barge far transport to Akutan. This smaller barge would be used as a staging area
far the duration of the project, as there is little staging room at either site. A helicopter with 900-pound lift
capacity would be flown from Anchorage and would remain on-site for most of the work. Workers would
be brought in and would be accommodated in Akutan.
Further Study
Cooperative involvement of Trident Seafoods could greatly reduce mobilization costs; this merits further
consideration.
B. DAM AND RESERVOIR
Options Consk:lered
At both creeks, the dam sites are similar (see Figures 7 and 9). Bedrock is expected to be within a few feet
of the surface and the creek sideslopes are fairly steep: around 2:1, for the first 8 to 10 feet of the dam
height and flattening after that. The cost of a dam would increase dramatically over 10 feet in overall height
(8 feet at spillway crest). Loud Creek has substantially more pondage (reservoir storage) than North Creek,
but neither site would be capable of providing long-term regulating storage with a dam that impounds less
than 8 feet of water (see Table IV-1 ).
The greater storage area at Loud Creek
will allow for an efficient turbine control
system and may allow for a short-term
peaking capacity of three to four hours.
As in the 1980 report, five types of dams
were considered: concrete, earthfill,
rockfill, steel, and timber. Logistical
challenge at both sites favor a type of
dam constructable without the use of
heavy equipment. Concrete, earthfifl, and
rockfill dams all involve the transportation
of large quantities of materials. Both
timber and steel dams could be
constructed with less heavy equipment.
A 1180:1:3:010
TABLE IV-1
IMPOUND RESERVOIRS
Volume
Site Depth Cubic f~Acre/ft
Loud 1 10 feet 135,000 3.1
8 feet 72,000 1.6
6 feet 31,000 0.7
North 2 8 feet 2,000 0.1
1. Based upon instrument survey of 9-89.
2. Polarconsult report.
16
Options Selected
Timber was selected over steel because it could be built and maintained without the highly skilled labor
necessary for a steel dam and because its lighter weight would simplify handling. A pressure-treated timber
dam impounding 8 feet of water was the preferred design for both sites. The features of this dam include:
o concrete pier foundations set in bedrock for all posts;
o the face of the dam constructed of 3 x decking surfaced with a PVC liner and covered by
3/4-inch sheathing;
o the base of the dam backfilled with a geotextile contained bentonite/soil seepage seal;
o the downstream side of the dam faced with 2 x decking; and
o the downstream base of the dam covered with 9-inch-thick x 6-foot-wide gabioned rock
revetment.
Further Study
Depth to bedrock at the dam site should be determined before final design. This can be accomplished by
a geological crew with hand driven probes.
C. PENSTOCK
Options Considered
The logistics of the remote Akutan sites required the assessment of numerous types of penstock design.
Cost, weight, construction approach, and mobilization all affected each choice of pipe in different ways. The
1980 Ott Engineering, Inc. report had recommended above-ground, butt-fused, 12-inch HOPE combined with
ductile iron in the higher pressures sections. The 1985 Polarconsult report had recommended above-
ground, 12-inch, fiberglass-reinforced, PVC lined pipe.
Analysis of new stream flow data in this report showed the need for a 16-inch penstock on both North Creek
and Loud Creek for maximum power production.
A buried pipeline was considered briefly. The logistics of attempting to trench along these steep basins, the
damage caused to the tundra, and the presence of shallow bedrock made above-ground pipe the obvious
choice.
17
A1180:1:3:010
The 1980 Ott Engineering, Inc. report on North Creek chose a routing that brought additional water from
the east fork directly to the main diversion site on the west fork (see Figure 5). From there, the penstock
ran west of the creek to the power house (see Figure 8). The Polarconsult report added a loop to the west
to avoid two side stream crossings at the 300 foot level. These side streams were instead crossed at their
heads at the 500 foot level, necessitating hanging the pipe from a steep slope.
The proposed North Creek route was walked by a civil engineer and a geologist. Their field reports are
included in Appendices 1 and 2. Their recommended routing runs the east and west diversions along a
bench between the east and west forks and joins them at the nose of the bench just before crossing the
west fork. The line then proceeds down along the original 1980 route to the power house.
This route eliminates the looped feature of the east fork penstock which had the potential for freeze up in
a winter shutdown. It also eliminates placing the initial 350 feet of line from the west fork through the bottom
of the channel. This route will involve three stream crossings, one of approximately 50 feet in length and
the other two about 25 feet each.
Loud Creek was also walked by a civil engineer and a geologist and was later surveyed and field staked
(field reports are included in Appendices 1 and 2; and survey data is available through HDR/OTT
Engineering, Inc.). All three field parties concluded that Loud Creek has a very favorable penstock route
(see Figures 6 and 10). Starting at the dam site at elevation 560 feet, the penstock would run down the
broad plain between the east and west forks. It would make its only stream crossing at the east fork at
elevation 175 feet and then continue down to the power house site. From the dam site to the stream
crossing, this penstock route has no major horizontal or vertical bends. Two slight changes in direction are
necessary to cross the east fork at a right angle and there is a major break in slope just above the power
house. These are the only areas where substantial thrust blocks will be required.
Three types of penstock materials were considered. Polyethylene (PE), Ductile Iron (DI), and Fiberglass
(FG). Dl pipe's main drawback was its weight. At 3 to 4 times the average weight of PE or FG pipe, Dl was
considered to be too unwieldy to use in an area where helicopter and manpower is the means of placement.
PE pipe is typically joined by butt-fusion and then pulled into position. Due to the steepness of the basin,
lack of suitable work areas for the fusion process, problems of moving a long piece of 16-inch pipe, and
logistics of bringing in a fusion machine and operator, it was felt that butt-fusion was an inappropriate
method of construction for both sites.
PE pipe is also available with factory-fused flange ends. The use of flanged ends was considered desirable
not only for constructability but for future line maintenance. Factory-fused flange ends double the cost of
PE pipe. Flanged PE pipe will cost more than FG pipe at either site (see Table IV-2).
18
A1180:1:3:010
Site and Pipe Type
LCU> CREEK
16-inch PE (3,167 1 )
16-inch FG
16-inch Dl
NORTH CREEK
16-inch PE (2,320')
16-inch FG
16-inch 01
TABLE IV-2
PIPE COST COMPARISON
Pipe Cost Flange Cost
s 63,000 s 74,000
117,000 N/A
67,000 N/A
s 46,000 s 55,000
87,000 N/A
49,000 N/A
Total
(FOB Seattle)
s 137,000
117,000
67,000
s 101,000
87,000
49,000
PE pipe has a coefficient of thermal expansion 120 times greater than FG pipe (see Table IV-3). In an
unburied pipeline, the range of air temperature will cause substantial changes in length for the PE pipe,
particularity if the line is not flowing.
Material
Ductile I ron
Fiberglass
Polyethylene
TABLE IV-3
THERMAL EXPANSION OF PIPES
60" T~.
Thermal Exesnsion ~r 100 ft. ~r 500 ft.
6 x 10~ in/in/"F .45 in. 2.2 in.
1 X 10~ 0.07 in. 0.36 in.
1.2 X 10~ 8.64 in. 43 in.
Difference
~r 1,000 ft.
4.5 in.
0.72 in.
86 in.
The support spacing of a pipeline is an important consideration especially on North Creek with its three
aerial stream crossings. The support spacing of 16-inch PE pipe flowing full is 8 feet. The support spacing
for comparable FG pipe is 20 to 30 feet depending on whether the span is single or continuous.
Should water inside the PE pipe freeze, the pipe does not burst and will resume its function upon thawing.
The FG pipe will typically burst if allowed to freeze when full.
Option Selected
Either fiberglass or polyethylene pipe could be used for this project. Fiberglass appears to be the better
option due to its low coefficient of thermal expansion, its lower overall cost, and simpler construction due
to its light weight and greater support spacing, but the comparison of these two pipes should be further
evaluated during design. The pipeline would be lain directly on the ground. As was pointed out in the 1985
19
A1180:1:3:010
Polarconsult report, there would be many advantages to running the pipe directly on the ground. The tundra
will provide continuous support for the pipe and should provide significant friction to help restrain pipe
movement caused by temperature variation. On the ground, the pipe will also be insulated in winter by the
snow pack. To prevent the possibility of freezing the water in the pipe line, the needle valve should be
prevented from closing fully. As an additional safety factor, a electrically actuated drain valve would be
located at the power house.
Bedrock was found less than 2 feet from the surface in the lower reaches of North Creek and all along Loud
Creek. It should be relatively easy to use rock bolts to hold the pipe at anchor points. Where rock is not
present, pickets or screws may be used. These are described in Appendix 2.
The main penstock at Loud Creek is slightly longer than that at North Creek (3, 167 feet versus 2,320 feet)
for nearly equal head differences. This results in less material cost at North Creek but overall penstock costs
will be nearly equal at both sites due to the easier working conditions, reduced stream crossings, and
simplified anchoring due to the lower gradients of Loud Creek.
For either site pipe can be barged from Seattle, helicoptered directly from the barge to presurveyed
positions and then joined by a small crew working from bottom to top.
Further Study
North Creek will need an instrument survey, similar to that accomplished on Loud Creek, before design can
proceed. This will be necessary for dam design, stream crossings, and for power house cross sections.
It will also be useful to look further upstream on the west fork of North Site Creek for a higher diversion site
since no significant tributaries contribute to flow between 520 feet and 600 feet.
D. POWER HOUSE
At either Loud Creek or North Creek, the power house
needs to be located with a minimum floor elevation of
+ 15 feet MSL in order to avoid flooding (see Table IV-
4). Both sites have a narrow natural bench that exists
at an elevation of + 6 feet MSL with the terrain rising
steeply behind this bench (see Figures 7 and 9).
Building at + 15 feet would require excavation of
approximately 500 cubic yards (CY) of soil and 300
CY of rock. Concrete footings and a steel grid floor
system would support the perimeter of the building
20
A1180:1:3:010
TABLE IV-4
POWER HOUSE FLOOR ELEVATION
Item
Floor to Tailrace Invert
Slope to Discharge
Wave Aunup and Surge
Highest Tide
Mean Sea Level
TOTAL FLOOR ELEVATION
Required
Height
3ft.
1 ft.
5 ft.
6ft.
0 ft.
15ft.
and the turbine/generator unit. The turbine/generator would be bolted directly to bedrock. The proposed
size of the power house is 22 x 24 feet.
The entire power house with turbine, generator, and controls should be constructed at the factory, tested,
and then disassembled and shipped to its site.
E. TURBINE-GENERATOR
CHINESE TURBINE-GENERATOR (Alternative 1 and 2)
For the Akutan hydroelectric project proposed in 1980, a Pelton type turbine-generator of Chinese
manufacture was purchased. This equipment is presently stored in Seattle. This equipment was inspected
in May of 1989 and was found to be in excellent condition. The unit has a manually operated inlet valve
which would need to be upgraded to allow remote control.
The unit has a "ffyball" type mechanical governor which could be removed if the electrical shunt type
governor is used as recommended. The mechanical deflector could be connected to an actuator as an
emergency shutdown device.
The generator is listed as 2400 volts and it is assumed that it is a six lead machine and can be operated in
a grounded wye 2.4/4.16 kV configuration.
The electrical control and shutdown equipment is Chinese and it Is doubtful that it should be used because
of interface problems with the new control equipment and availability of spare parts. There could also be
code problems with installation of this equipment.
A cost of $50,000 to retrofit this turbine and generator for this application has been assumed.
With a 16-inch fiberglass penstock this turbine-generator will produce a maximum of 197 kW at North Creek
and 209 kW at Loud Creek. If the community of Akutan represents the only load, this would be quite
adequate, with less than peak loads being supplied using existing diesel-powered generators.
NEW TURBINE GENERATOR (Alternative 2 and 3)
If Trident and the City of Akutan combined their loads, then there is a market for the maximum energy the
water available could produce. In this case, the Chinese turbine, which cannot harness all the flow in either
creek, would be economically limiting.
At North Creek, with a 16-inch fiberglass penstock, a design flow of 1.6 to 10 cfs would be optimal, providing
a peak capacity of 332 kW. A new turbine-generator would need to be purchased to provide this maximum
21
A1180:1:3:010
rating at a 0.8 power factor. Generation voltage would probably be 2n /400 volts 3 phase to simplify and
reduce the cost of switchgear and the electrical shunt load governor connection. A step-up transformer
would be required at the site to provide the 7.2/12.5 kV transmission voltage.
At Loud Creek the primary turbine generator concept would be the same as outlined above with the unit
providing 352 kW at maximum flow.
Loud Creek has a second tributary (west fork) with considerable flow but only 175 feet of head. This
tributary will also flow during colder weather because the drainage is at a lower elevation. It is suggested
that a second diversion dam be built, a second penstock installed, and a very simple pump-induction
generator be installed. The prime mover would be a standard turbine or split case pump operated as a
power turbine. It would not be equipped with a speed control. This type of generator is a standard
induction motor driven over synchronous speed, requiring external excitation and frequency control. This
second turbine generator would require inlet valve control and a water level sensor at the dam but very little
additional control. The basic pump, motor, and motor starter sells for about $10,000 FOB Seattle.
F. CONTROL SYSTEM
Both Loud Creek and North Creek have minimal storage of water behind the dam. At full output Loud Creek
may have four hours and North Creek one-hour storage. This is much better than a simple "run of the river"
type project but not sufficient to average daily load variation.
The water height behind the dam must be maintained at a level sufficient to prevent air from being drawn
into the penstock inlet. Although the hydropower unit could provide peak loads up to the maximum rating
of the machine for short periods, the average output over several hours cannot exceed the water flowing
into the reservoir.
The best way to explain the hydropower control operation is to go through an operating sequence. Control
system schematic diagrams for the alternatives considered are included in Appendix 1 0.
A simple single-board-type computer /controller would be located in the hydropower generator building (see
Figure 11). It would be equipped with Analog-Digital Cards to read critical parameters such as frequency,
voltage, current, dam water level, real and reactive power. Communications would be by modem to a
remote control panel located at the Akutan power plant or the Trident power plant, or both. These remote
terminals can interrogate the control computer for any of the critical parameters and also start, stop, and
adjust frequency and voltage. The synchronizing and breaker closure functions would be handled by
automatic equipment in the switchgear.
A start sequence would be initiated from the Akutan diesel power plant remote panel and recognized by the
computer at the hydropower unit.
22
A1180:1:3:010
The computer would check for adequate water behind the dam and check to see that there are no alarms.
The computer would then begin to open the turbine inlet valve slowly, bringing the machine up to speed.
At about 50 cycles per second the exciter system would be energized bringing up full voltage.
As the machine speed approaches 60 cycles the synchronizing control (Woodward SPM or equal) would
activate and work with the computer to synchronize and then close the hydropower generator circuit
breaker. The voltage regulator would automatically adjust the reactive component of current after the
breaker closure.
The needle valve is intended to be a very slow operating device and works primarily to control the maximum
output of the machine, thus controlling the water level behind the dam. This is inadequate to control the
speed/frequency of the system under normal load change.
A system which works very well in small hydropower units is a shunt-load deflector system. This device
senses the frequency or speed of the machine and if the frequency exceeds the setpoint, electrical load is
introduced to hold the speed constant. This device must be rated to dissipate the entire maximum output
of the generator in the case that there is no load. The electrical load can be a "dummy load" which rejects
the heat into a wasted water coolant or the load might be electric supplemental boilers within the community
which would help heat public buildings or homes. Complete speed controljenergy management systems
of this type are built by Thompson and Howe, a Canadian Company.
There are actually several different cases to consider in bringing the generator on line:
Cold Load Pickup. Citv Alone
The needle valve would be opened to maximum and the frequency held by the electrical load
deflector system. Sufficient time would be allowed for the computer to judge the water level and
flow behind the dam and determine the actual maximum flow allowable. When the system had
stabilized the synchronizing relay would be activated, recognize the dead bus situation and close
the breaker to pick up the load. The speed control would recognize the falling speed and adjust
the shunt load to hold frequency constant. For example: if the hydropower unit stabilized at 300
kW the shunt load would dissipate 300 kW to hold the speed constant before the breaker was
closed. After the breaker is closed and a 100 kW load is picked up, the shunt load would back off
to 200 kW, maintaining frequency.
Parallel Operation with Citv Diesel Plant and Assumed Load
Again, the needle valve and associated control would open to the maximum flow available and the
electrical load deflector system would hold frequency at 60 Hz. Frequency /throttle response would
be in "droop". The synchronizer would be activated and it would adjust the frequency slightly by
23
A1180:1:3:010
varying the setpoint on the electrical deflector control. After synchronization the breaker would be
automatically closed. The diesel generators could then be throttled down and taken off the line,
manually. Final frequency could be adjusted manually from the Akutan diesel power house.
Parallel Operation with Trident and Citv Combined
Operation would be identical to coming on line with the City power plant except that the
Trident/City combined load would always be able to absorb all the power that the unit could put
out. The electrical load deflector system would have a higher set point of say 62 Hz and only act
to "catch" the system, should the load drop off.
One option for Loud Creek includes a turbine pump driven hydropower unit with an induction
generator powered from a separate water source and penstock. This unit can only function with
a much larger synchronous unit on line to maintain excitation and frequency. Control of the unit
is quite simple. The water flow is adjusted to bring the unit to near 60 cycles; a standard motor
starter is closed exciting the motor /generator and then the water flow is increased to maximum.
As the motor begins to spin above synchronous speed, it becomes a generator.
A communications system is required for the control operation described above. We have assumed
that this could be done with small microwave telephone type communications devices with a range
of about one mile or with VHF or UHF telemetry equipment. Underwater communications cable
would be expensive and subject to damage.
G. TRANSMISSION LINE
Four options exist for the transmission line: overhead, direct-burial URD-type cable, three-phased armored
submarine cable, or three single-phase URD-type cables used underwater,
Overhead
Possible routes were examined for overhead wooden pole lines from both Loud Creek and North
Creek. The hillsides are very steep, the organic mat is over a foot thick in most of the area, and the
soil under the mat is a sandy volcanic material which turns to liquid when wet. It is doubtful that
equipment could be moved along the hillsides to allow construction of a standard overhead line.
Construction of an overhead line along the beach is possible in some areas but difficult in areas of
nearly vertical rock cliffs, particularly between Trident and North Creek. The high winds and snow
would cause high maintenance and low reliability for an overhead line.
24
A1180:1:3:010
Direct Syria! URD-Type Cable
The beaches were examined with the idea of direct burial or trenching of cable. This was found to
be impractical because most of the beaches are made of talus rock with large boulders. In many
sections of the beach, there are vertical rock outcrops and solid rock shelves at tide level. A beach
route would require substantial blasting, sand bedding, and concrete cover in spots. The route
from Loud Creek along the beach would be nearly three miles.
Previous studies had identified a buried cable route from North Creek to the community along a
high bench (500-600 feet). The slope is steep, between 50 percent and 100 percent grade, on most
of the bench. The organic cover is deep and below it, the sandy volcanic material seems thick,
judging from the deep erosion furrows in the hillside. A plow pulled by a tracked vehicle could not
navigate the route. Also, a small trencher could probably not navigate the route and could not cut
through the thick tundra mat without continual clogging. Even if the trench could be cut and cable
installed, substantial and objectionable soil erosion would likely ensue from water flowing down the
denuded trench cut.
Three-phased Armored Submarine Cable
A typical small armored submarine cable is shown in Appendix 6. This cable is three phase and
protected by galvanized steel armor which also increases tensile strength for laying and overall
specific gravity to maintain it on the sea bottom. The required #2 copper three-phase cable weighs
7.1 pounds per foot making a 4,500-foot roll weigh 32,000 pounds. Typically such a cable
installation would require relatively large and specialized equipment for installation. This type of
installation is very expensive but there are other installation options. There are 150-foot to 250-foot
boats in the area which have large hydraulic reels and possibly could be utilized for the cable
installation. The cable could also be floated into position on buoys and then sunk. These novel
methods of installation bear investigation but the feasibility of this project does not depend on them.
Single-phase URD Cable Used Underwater
An alternative type of underwater cable would be a URD concentric neutral cable, single phase, with
a heavy polyethylene cover. This type of cable is now standard for Rural Electric Administration
financed utilities and has been used successfully in the North Pacific and Alaska. A 4,500-foot reel
of this wire weighs about 5,000 pounds and can be handled easily by small equipment and small
boats. This could be laid from a small "sternpicker" fishing boat, off a barge, or even floated into
place with multiple skiffs and the reel located on the beach.
The recommended transmission line route from North Creek is a URD-type cable laid in about 60 feet of
water 100 yards off the beach from the hydropower site to Trident Seafoods (see Figure 8). From Trident
25
A1180:1:3:010
into the Akutan power house, the same cable would be laid in the beach using the trail that is being
improved.
The recommended route from Loud Creek would be directly to the Akutan power house using the URD-type
cable (see Figure 10). The water depth along this route is about 160 feet, requiring careful control of the
cable as it leaves the boat. The major hazard along this route is future entanglement when ships drop their
anchors. The submarine cable route would need to be marked on the marine charts and lighted signs
erected at each end. It is still likely that some damage will happen periodically by ships anchors. The
individual URD-type cable approach would include four separate cables, one for each phase and one spare.
The cables could be laid 150 to 200 feet apart to reduce the probability of an anchor catching more than
one. The weight of each cable is such that, if damaged, it could be lifted, spliced, and re-installed with a
small boat, rather than a barge. During repair, the spare cable would be used. The individual cables are
inexpensive allowing the possibility of a spare reel being kept on hand for about $10,000. A reasonable
assumption might be damage every 10 years at a repair cost of $20,000 or $2,000 per year. The fourth, or
spare, conductor would cost about $10,000 for materials and $5,000 for labor. The cost estimates do not
include the fourth (spare) cable or a spare reel of cable stored on-shore. A route from Loud Creek directly
to Trident was found to be less acceptable because of the anchor hazard around Trident's dock. Appendix
6 contains the electrical and physical properties of the three-phase submarine-type cable and the single-
phase URD-type cable.
Calculations shown in Appendix 6 show that at 2.4/4.16 kV, a 1/0 aluminum or #2 copper cable exhibits
about 2.6 percent voltage drop in 4,500 feet at 500 kW. At 7.2/12.5 kV, the voltage drop is 0.3 percent at
the same load. Losses are acceptable in either case. The 1 /0 aluminum is recommended. The actual
voltage during operation will depend on the turbinejgenerator selected.
The cable should be insulated for 15 kV because this is standard. Uttle money is saved by going to 5 kV,
and the 15 kV insulation allows for future upgrade. A 220-mil, EPA rubber insulation is recommended
because of it's resistance to "water treeing, • an insulation failure mechanism triggered by migration of water
into the polymer material. The conductor should be solid or stranded with strand sealing to prevent
migration of water up the center conductor in the case of a break. Such water migration will cause
deterioration of the conductor and insulation.
Using the single-phase URD-type cable, the capacitive reactive power introduced into the system by the
cables over a 4,500-foot, 3-phase section would be 2.2 kVa at 2.4/4.16 kV and 19.8 kVa at 7.2/12.5. 19.8
kVa is enough reactive power to possibly cause some problems with the small diesel power plant at Akutan.
In the case of Akutan community alone, the 2.4/4.16 kV operating voltage is probably preferred for this
reason. If the Chinese generator is to be used in this case, it should be able to generate directly at this
voltage, eliminating a step-up transformer.
A true, three-phase submarine cable plowed into the bottom with a hydroplow which pumps water under
the cable to produce a trench was briefly examined. Jacobson Brothers, an experienced underwater cable
26
A1180:1:3:010
firm, was contacted and they felt that this would be quite expensive at the HiO-foot depth required and
estimated about $1,000,000 for installation. This is not supportable with the economics of this project.
27
A1180:1:3:D10
~
~~ '-~~
z
0 ....
c(
> w
..J w
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
10" DIVERSION CONDUIT
UPPER DAM 1 6. PENSTOCK POWER HOUSE
LOWER DAM
\ 600
400
\ j f i I I l , I .,-I ~ I ! I I ! 1 ! I_ I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 1/ I I
200
0
0+00
2+00
UPPER DAM
./ ... .---
~-·:~·
___...-
-···
4+00
. . .
~ I
~
o•oo 4+00 8+00 12+00 16+00
6+00 2+00 6+00 10+00 14+00 18+00
PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
~ 10" DIVERSION CONDUIT
16" PENSTOCK\
---,. .· ---/ .·· ............... -~ ....
PLAN
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
SE.LECTED ROUTE
-----1980 OTT ROUTE VARIATION
••• • • • • •••• •• PO.LAR CONSULTANTS ROUTE VARIATION
~
NIL 2.._ Akutan Harbor
20+00
22+00
24+00
I.,
0 ;;;'i
.. \ r::::
._.-;:,;~
·_,,::;: .....
. _;'.\\i\!:l
,-':X;.i)<
-~
NORTH CREEK
PLAN and PROFILE
Figure
5
@!!) AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
z
0 ;::: ...: > w
...J w
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
i\ ---k
~UPPER ~AM ~ 16" PENSTOCK
~ I
~ I ~ ' ~ ~ POWER HOUSE
' ~ \
LOWER DAM ON WEST FORK -1\ ~
10+ 00
UPPER DAM
PLAN
20+ 00
0
0
+
0
Cll
30+00
PROFILE
11" PENSTOCK ___/
LOWER DAM ON WEST FORK __-/
NOT TO SCALE
~ N]
40+00
~~
...
0
""
_SZ Akutan Harbor
POWER HOUSE
c" . ,--o
.······~'??
LOUD CREEK
PLAN and PROFILE
Figure
6
I
!I
S3.LIS 3SnOH ~3M0d CNV NOIS~3AIC )133~:1 H.L~ON :,1 L 3~n91.:1
3118 38noH 1:::13MOd >1331:::1:::> H1I:::ION ~~
3118 NOI81:::13/\Ia >1331:::1:::> H11:::10N
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
~I
II
I
I I
,I
I
I
I
NORTH CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE
NORTH CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
FIGURE 8
NORTH CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE AND
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
'I
I
3l.IS 3SnOH 1::13M0d CNV 3l.IS NOISI::I3AIC )1331::1~ an01 li
· s 3i::ln~l.::l
3.LIS 3SnOH ti3M0d >133tl8 an01
311S NOISt13AIO >!33tl8 an01
I
.I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE
LOUD CREEK
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
FIGURE 10
LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK ROUTE AND TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE
ClAM
I
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
0 {3J 1'2:> L,op.o
PIG~UP
N E-e..D L.C:..
VALVES
AC./1 VATOfZ..
'o--~ h 1~\
SPEED CONTROL
SYSTEM
sHUNT
WAD
1:1
Figure
11
V. PROJECT POWER PRODUCTION
The average annual precipitation at Cold Bay during its 28 years of record was 35 inches. For each of the
years 1986 through 1988 the annual
precipitation was very close to this average.
Thus, these three years were representative of
average annual precipitation.
Comparison of monthly precipitation at
Akutan and Cold Bay showed a consistent
pattern for the three years of concurrent data
{see Table V-1). No similar pattern was found
between Akutan and Dutch Harbor for this
three-year period. Akutan averaged 2.2 times
the precipitation of Cold Bay.
Year
1950-88
1986
1987
1988
AVERAGE
TABLE V-1
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
(Inches)
Akutan Cold Bay
35.84
72.85 35.41
75.32 38.03
90.48 35.37
79.55 36.27
Ratio
2.06
1.98
2.56
2.20
Assuming the recorded three years of Akutan precipitation is consistent with the long-term Akutan average
{as is true with Cold Bay), it is assumed that the stream flows measured during this period also represent
a long-term streamflow average.
HDR/OTI's hydropower evaluation program {HEP) was used to simulate the power production for both
potential sites. The 1986-88 mean daily stream flows at the diversion sites of both creeks assumed to
represent a long-term average streamflow were input to the program, to determine the optimum power
available.
For each site, two turbine options were considered based upon the local alternatives of community-only
versus community plus Trident. For the first option, a previously purchased AEA-owned Chinese turbine
would be used. This turbine has a range of 1 to 6 cfs and thus, cannot use all of the water available from
either creek. The second option would use a pelton-type turbine with a flow range of 1.6 to 1 0 cfs.
With both sites and both options, the use of a 16-inch penstock would be required for efficient power
production. A 12-inch penstock pipe would create high friction due to hi~h velocities, using up to 10 to 30
percent of the available head. The use of 16-inch pipe would result in less than a 1 0 percent loss, an
amount typical for this type of project.
Loud Creek is capable of producing 1.2 to 1.25 times the energy available from North Creek. Table V-2
summarizes the optimum power available at each site for each hydropower option. The months of lowest
28
A1180:1:3:010
power production would be February through March. Hydropower evaluation runs are included in Appendix
4.
OPtion
1
2
3
4
A1180:1:3:D10
Site
North Creek
loud Creek
North Creek
Loud Creek
TABLE V·2
HYDROPOWER EVALUATION
Tvpe
Chinese
Chinese
Pelton
Peltons(2)
Range
1 • 6 cfs
1 • 6 cfs
1.6 · 10 cfs
1 • 13 cfs
29
Energy
Megawatt hours/yr
1,088
1,292
1,320
1,820
Average kll
126
150
153
210
VI. PROJECT COSTS
Construction costs for each of the four hydroelectric alternatives are summarized below in Table VI-I.
Complete details of cost estimates spreadsheets are included in Appendix 5.
TABLE Vl-1
COST SUMMARY
Alternative
NU~i)er Description cfs Max kW nilh Per Yr. Total Cost -1-North Creek 1 - 6 197 1,088 s 1,363,000
Akutan City Load Only
16-inch Penstock
Chinese Turbine at 200 kW
2 Loud Creek 1 - 6 209 1,292 s 1,364,000
Akutan City Load Only
16-inch Penstock
Chinese Turbine at 200 kW
3 North Creek 1.6 -10 332 1,320 s 1,550,000
Akutan + Trident Load
16-inch Penstock
New Turbine at 335 kW
4 Loud Creek 1 -13 352+60 1 ,640+80 s 1,668,000
Akutan + Trident Load
16-inch Penstock
New Turbine at 335 kW plus
New Turbine at 60 kW
Two non-hydro alternatives were briefly evaluated. Alternative 5, the construction of an intertie between
Trident Seafoods and the City of Akutan would cost approximately $165,000.
Alternative 6 is to keep the status quo: no costs would be involved. Improvement of the existing distribution
system to correct the 27 percent reported loss could be easily done and the remedies would probably be
relatively inexpensive.
30
A1180:1:3:D10
VII. LOAD FORECAST
A. CITY OF AKUTAN
Data for this load forecast were taken from power cost equalization (PCE) records submitted by the City of
Akutan to the AEA. Complete PCE records are included in Appendix 7.
Over the three base years of 1987 to 1989, the community showed a 23 percent per year increase in use
(see Table Vll-1).
TABLE Vll-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING DIESEL ELECTRIC P~ER PLANT COSTS FOR CITY OF AKUTAN
Three-Percent Change
1987 1988 1989 Year Total 1987-1989
Total Fuel Consumed (gallons) 31,435 33,283 35,932 100,650 14.3
Total Fuel Cost s 25,826 s 28,083 s 36,279 s 90,188 40.5
Average Cost Per Gallon s 0.82 s 0.84 s 1.01 s 0.90 22.9
Power Generated (kWh) 245,950 245,916 304,758 796,624 23.9
Average kWh per Gallon 7.82 7.39 8.48 7.91 8.4
Power Sold (kWh) 160,263 173,088 246,313 579,664 53.7
System Loss (kWh) 85,687 72,828 58,445 216,960 -31.8
System Efficiency Production to Sales 65.2X 70.4X 80.8X 72.8X 24.0
Fuel Expense s 25,826 s 28,083 s 36,279 s 90,188
Operating Expense 28.517 49,918 64,422 142,857 125.9
TOTAL EXPENSES s 54,343 s 78,001 s 100,701 s 233,045 85.3
Cost Per kWh s 0.221 s 0.317 s 0.330 s 0.293 49.5
Taken from State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) filings for 1987, 1988, and 1989.
Future load projections (see Table Vll-2) were based on a 20 percent growth rate for 5 years and 10 percent
after that. Distribution losses were held at 15 percent for 5 years and then reduced to 12 percent, a typical
value for small utilities. Dock expansion, cold storage, fish processing in the community, and an industrial
park at the end of the bay could all substantially impact the electrical load, but are too undefined at this
stage to factor into future loads. Space and economic infrastructure would seem to limit community growth.
Prior studies projected the City of Akutan peak load for 1989 at 500 kW, while the actual peak was about
80 kW.
31
A1180:1:3:010
TABLE VII -2
AKUTAN LOAD PROJECTIONS
Capacity
Power Distribution kWh Requirement
Sales losses Generation at .45 Annual LF
kllh Sold kllh Loss R~irement +35% Reserve
BASE 1989 246,313 58,445 304,758
1990 295,576 44,336 339,912 116
1991 354,691 53,204 407,894 140
1992 425,629 63,844 489,473 168
1993 510,755 76,613 587,368 201
1994 612,906 91,936 704,841 241
1995 674,196 80,804 755,100 259
1996 741,616 88,994 830,610 284
1997 815,m 97,893 913,671 313
1998 897,355 107,683 1,005,038 344
1999 987,091 118,451 1,105,541 379
2000 1,085,800 130,296 1,216,096 416
2001 1,194,380 143,326 1 ,337, 705 458
2002 1,313,818 157,658 1,471,476 504
Note that the capacity requirement is determined by dividing the total generation requirement by 8, 760 hours
in a year. This provides us with the average kW loading of the plant. Dividing by .45 load factor provides
the predicted system peak in kW. A 35 percent reserve is added to this predicted peak for equipment failure
and overhaul.
B. TRIDENT SEAFOODS
There was little base data related to operating cost available from Trident. The estimates of production costs
were derived from studies done with similar fish processing facilities. Load data was derived from projected
demands furnished by Trident and from information from the engine generator vendors such as NC
Machinery.
During 1989, Trident Seafoods peaked at about 2,500 kW. The new fish meal and surimi plant being added
in the spring of 1990 will probably add at least 3,000 kW to the load, or 5,500 kW total.
Energy use data was not available, but at a 50 percent load factor this would represent 24,000,000 kWh.
Appendix 8 presents the estimate of Trident's cost to generate electricity in Akutan.
For purposes of this study, Trident and the City of Akutan together represent an infinite load which could
absorb all of the energy produced by either or both hydropower projects (Loud and North Creeks).
32
A1180:1:3:010
VIII. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Each of six alternatives were evaluated to project power costs for the next ten years. Details on the
assumptions used and the computer spreadsheets showing the analysis are included in Appendix 9. Figure
12 presents a summary of the power cost projections.
The existing system, over three years of records, shows $87,896 in fuel costs and $142,857 in "operating
expenses" so 38 percent of the cost is fuel.
The existing diesel system will provide power to the system at a wholesale cost of $.33/kWh in 1989 and
$.42/kWh in 2001 with the cost to the consumer $.41 /kWh in 1989 and $.48/kWh in 2001. The difference
between wholesale and consumer costs is due to distribution losses. Distribution losses cost energy, just
as legitimate sales do. For instance, if the cost of power at the wholesale level is $0.25 per kWh but the 35
percent of the energy feeds losses and 65 percent is actually sold, the cost of the kWh at the retail level
would need to be $0.25 x (100/65) or $0.38 per kWh. These costs must be borne by the customer.
All of the following power costs are wholesale (bus bar) costs and do not include distribution losses. All
estimated construction costs include a 15 percent contingency and 16 percent for engineering. Debt service
is assumed at 8.5 percent for 30 years on the hydropower facilities. A full-time operator was assumed for
all alternatives. Actually, between 1/2 and 3/4 time would be sufficient if the operators could be shared with
other utilities. Also included are other fixed expenses which might be ongoing, such as diesel plant debt
service, which continues whether the plant produces energy or not.
Alternatives 1 and 2, North Creek and Loud Creek with only the community load show high cost power in
1991 of $.49/kWh wholesale. This is because the amount of energy the City of Akutan can use in the early
years is limited but the debt of the hydropower project has added a great deal of cost. By 2001, the sale
of energy grows and the cost of power is $.27 /kWh and $.26/kWh for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively.
Alternatives 3 and 4, North Creek and Loud Creek with a combined load of Trident and the City of Akutan
provides a market for all the hydropower the project can produce. The North Creek project is projected to
provide power at $.33/kWh, a cost equal to the existing diesel system, at the time of construction in 1991.
The Loud Creek project produces more energy and will come on with a cost of $.27 /kWh, a cost 20 percent
below current diesel generation cost. By 2001, the Loud Creek project would provide power at $.13/kWh
while the existing system is projected to be at $.42/kWh.
In alternatives 3 and 4, there is excess electricity produced (by the hydropower facilities) over what would
be used by the City of Akutan. This analysis assumes that Trident would purchase all of that excess power
33
A1180:1:3:D10
at a cost of 80 percent of their generation cost and that the City would pay 120 percent of what it costs
Trident to produce power for what they use. This would be based on the difference between total energy
sold and total energy purchased during the year. The analysis for these two alternatives also assume that
the existing City diesel units will be retained and maintained for emergency or stand-by use. In actuality,
with the transmission line from the hydropower source and the intertie with Trident, the existing units in
Akutan could be disposed of. This would reduce the power costs for Alternatives 3 and 4 shown in Figure
12 by about $.06/kWh, especially if the existing Akutan plant has no debt service.
The intertie alternative is the simplest. In 1991, this would be about the same cost as Alternative 4. After
1991, however, the Alternative 4 costs fall in price while the intertie alternative climbs with inflation and fuel
cost escalation. By 2001, the intertie option is 250 percent of the Alternative 4 hydropower project.
In summary, the City power costs for Alternative 4, the construction of a hydro plant at Loud Creek with
guaranteed sales to Trident, would vary from about $.26/kWh in 1991 to $.13/kWh in 2001, by far the most
economical source of power for Akutan.
AEA's review of this economic analysis is included in Appendix 11.
34
A1180:1:3:D10
Q)
ctS
(/)
Q)
0.6
0.5
I I I
I
0 J:: 0.4
~ -::c
~ ::s:: 0. 3
a: w a..
C/)
a:
<(
_J
_J
0
Cl
0.2
0.1 I l
0.0 I I
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
YEAR
0 CASE 1 NORTH CREEK WITH CITY LOAD 0 CASE 5 INTERTIE WITH TRIO EN T
e CASE 2 LOUD CREEK WITH CITY LOAD • CASE 6 EXISTING SYSTEM
0 CASE 3 NORTH CREEK WITH TRIO EN T
' CASE 4 LOUD CREEK WITH TRIDENT
!
AKUTAN
HYDRO
ELECTRIC
PROJECTED
COST OF POWER
AT AKUTAN
Figure
12
IX. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. REGULATORY PERMITS
FEDERAL
Federal Eneray Reaulatory Commission CFERC)
It appears that the proposed project falls outside of FERC licensing authority and will require neither a FERC
License nor an exemption from licensing (Ron McKittrick, FERC regulatory specialist, Washington D.C.,
personal communication, November 1989).
FERC normally does not claim licensing authority over hydropower projects which meet the following
criteria: (1) generate less than 1.5 megawatts (MW); (2) are not on navigable streams; (3) will not affect
interstate commerce by distributing power to areas served by the interstate electric grid; and (4) and are
not on federal lands (18 CFR). However, there is no proscribed extent of FERC authority. FERC makes an
independent determination of its authority for each proposed hydropower project. FERC bases its
determination on a project description and location map submitted by the client. Engineers for the
hydropower project previously designed for North Creek (1980) requested a determination, but there is no
record that the project ever received one.
According to HDR/OTI Regulatory Specialist Neil McDonald, the proposed project stands a better chance
of a favorable (i.e. non-jurisdictional) determination if the impoundment would be less than two acre-feet.
This project appears to meet this criteria but that determination must be made by FERC based on written
submissions (FERC spokesperson, Washington D.C., personal communication, November, 1989). The
project engineer should not apply for a preliminary permit: if FERC grants a preliminary permit, the project
forfeits all chances of an exemption and must then obtain a regular permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CCQE)
The creeks at the proposed sites are non-navigable; therefore, the project would not require a Section 1 0
Permit from COE (for structures or work affecting navigable waters of the United States) (Jeffery Stein, COE
Regulatory Branch, personal communication, November, 1989).
The project will need either a Nationwide Permit Number 26 or an individual Section 404 Permit from COE
(for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States). The Nationwide Permit 26 is
issued for projects which meet two criteria: (1) the project must be located "above the headwaters" (defined
35
A1180:1:3:010
as upper reaches with less than five cfs; and (2) the project must fill less than ten acres and require no
substantial modification of wetlands or waters. A Section 404 permit might be required if the power house
if is sited below high tideline. The recommended power house site is above high tideline.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Because this project will not discharge domestic sewage or otherwise degraded water, a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not needed (Dan Robison, EPA, personal communication,
November, 1989).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WSl
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires federal agencies who are proposing to control or modify a
body of water to first consult with USF&WS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For this
project, COE would seek comments from USF&WS and NMFS on the COE fill permit application. USF&WS
and NMFS would not issue any permits independently.
STATE
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
The proposed project does not appear to require a state Dam Safety Permit (Kyle Cherry, P.E., ADNR,
personal communication, November 1989).
ADNR issues Dam Safety Permits to dams over ten feet tall which impound more than 50 acre-feet of water.
The proposed project does not exceed either threshold limit. ADNR also issues permits to dams of any size
whose failure under non-storm conditions would damage life or property downstream. The areas
downstream from both proposed sites are uninhabited and undeveloped. There would be no threat to
property or life from dam failure, provided the power house built as part of the hydroelectric project is
located outside the probable flood path below the dam.
Alaska Department of Conservation (ADECl
The proposed project does not appear to require permits from ADEC (Dan Wilkerson, ADEC Planner,
personal communication, November 1989).
If the power generating process does not add chemicals or waste heat to the creek water, nor discharge
domestic sewage or gray water, nor require operation of heavy equipment on site after construction, the
project should be in compliance with ADEC water quality requirements.
36
A1180:1:3:010
ADEC will review applications to the COE, FERC, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game if the project
falls under the regulatory purview of those agencies.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game <ADF&Gl
The proposed Loud Creek site would not require an ADF&G Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit, but it appears
the North Creek site would CNayne Dalzell, ADF&G Biologist, personal communication, November, 1989).
Mr. Dalzell reports that minnow trapping and electrofishing have revealed no fish in Loud Creek. However,
he has found resident Dolly Varden in North Creek in reaches above the lower falls (at approximately 50 foot
elevation). He stated that he presumes Dolly Varden enter the upper tributaries of North Creek at least
seasonally, barring any sort of hydrologic barrier. The Dolly Varden do not appear to be anadromous.
ADF&G would address impacts to other species such as birds and upland animals under statewide coastal
habitat standards (ACMP) during coastal consistency review.
Division of Governmental Coordination
If the project requires a federal permit or permits from more than one state agency, the state Coastal
Coordinator in the Division of Governmental Coordination will oversee the consistency review process to
determine that the project complies with the state Coastal Management Plan.
LOCAL
Neither the City of Akutan nor the Aleutians East Borough (AEB) has a comprehensive plan.
The AEB Coastal District Coordinator must determine that the proposed project is consistent with the
Borough's federally-approved Coastal Management Plan. The proposed project appears consistent with the
AEB Coastal Management Plan: it does not affect the historic or optimal productivity of fish and wildlife
populations important for commercial and subsistence use, or limit other industrial or infrastructure
development, or limit recreation, or affect any known cultural resources. Moreover, the proposed project
appears to meet the AEB goal of developing cost-effective renewable energy systems that do not adversely
affect fish and wildlife populations and habitats (Aleutians East Coastal Resource Service Area Conceptually
Approved Coastal Management Plan, July 1985).
B. RIGHTS-OF-WAY
FEDERAL
The proposed project does not appear to affect any federal lands.
37
A1180:1:3:010
STATE
The proposed project would require a right-of-way from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
for placement of the transmission cable across state tidelands and submerged lands.
If the power house were placed below mean high tide, the proposed project would require a tidelands lease
from the state. However, the planned location will be well above high tide. A tidelands lease application
involves a land survey and appraisal, and approval may take up to one year because of ADNR's backlog
of applications (Marilyn Morris, ADNR Land and Water Management Division, personal communication,
November, 1989).
LOCAL
The City of Akutan has applied to lease tidelands near the town from the State. Depending upon the
granting of that lease and several factors (whether this lease is approved, the choice of project site, and the
date of project construction), the transmission cable route from the power house to the power distribution
point in town might require a right-of-way from the City.
PRIVATE
The proposed dam and penstock sites are on lands owned by Akutan Native Corporation. These facilities
would require rights-of-way from the Corporation.
If routed across private lands, the transmission cable will require rights-of-way. The cable could cross the
parcel occupied by Trident Seafoods or the adjoining tidelands, both privately owned/leased. In town, the
cable may have to cross private lands including residential lots, the site of the Russian Orthodox Church,
and lands owned by Akutan Native Corporation.
38
A1180:1:3:010
X. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation of a project depends greatly upon the load option selected. This is a political-economic
decision that Is outside the scope of this report. On a technical basis, Loud Creek has many advantages
over North Creek. However, both sites appear feasible. Most of the components of both sites are similar
and the construction cost comparison Is within 10 percent. The Loud Creek advantages are:
o Loud Creek will provide 25 to 30 percent greater power than North Creek;
o the 95 percent exceedence flow of Loud Creek is near1y double that of North Creek;
o the dam at Loud Creek will Impound 36 times more water than North Creek. This will
simplify the control systems;
o the penstock at Loud Creek, although slightly longer. will be constructed on easier working
grades and will have only one stream crossing versus three at North Creek;
o construction and maintenance will be improved at Loud Creek due to the easier working
terrain. Staging and work areas will be improved and damage to the environment will be
decreased;
o the transmission line can be a direct route to the community;
o no fish have been found at Loud Creek;
o there is no conflict with the present Trident Seafoods' water usage at North Creek; and
The only disadvantage of the Loud Creek site is the necessity of a cross-harbor transmission line. With
frequent boat traffic, there is a concern for damage to the line. This risk can be minimized by routing the
cable away from the Trident dock and by involving Trident in the project so that they will take an active role
in policing the anchoring of their vessels. Also, by laying four separate cables (one required for each phase
and one spare) separated by 150 to 200 feet, the danger of power outages because of cable damage would
be reduced. The light weight cable could also be raised and repaired using small boats.
On a technical basis, Loud Creek is the obvious choice. At the present time, the City of Akutan, by itself,
does not have a large enough load to make a project feasible. When the load increases, or the price of fuel
rises, a community-only option will become feasible. A project constructed with guaranteed power sales
39
A1180:1:3:D10
to Trident Seafoods would decrease costs of power for the City and Trident. The guarantee of construction
assistance and power sales should be negotiated with water rights and easements for Trident.
The construction costs and power costs estimated in this report are felt to be conservative. They could be
reduced by several factors which are presented in previous sections. The key to an economical and
successful project at this time is cooperation between the City of Akutan and Trident Seafoods.
40
A1180:1:3:010
XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carrick S., and Ireland, R.; Streamflow Data Summarv for Akutan Streams. Unimak A-G Quadrangle. Alaska;
October 1989.
Ott Engineering, Inc.; Dock and Marine Industrial Facility Feasibility Analysis; July 1989.
Ott Water Engineers, Inc.; U.S. Forest Service; Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest Service Region X;
1979.
Ott Water Engineers, Inc. and Humphrey, T.D.; Akutan Hydroelectric Project; September 1980.
R.W. Beck; Inspection and Testing of Hydroelectric Turbine-Generator Set for Alaska Power Authority; May
1989.
Polarconsult; Akutan Hydroelectric Project, Contract No. CCOS-5315; November 1985.
U.S. Department of Commerce; National Climatic Center; 1915 to 1989, Climatologic Records for Alaska.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Climatic Center; Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall -
Frequency Data for Alaska, Technical Paper No. 47; 1963.
41
A1180:1:3:010
APPENDIX 1
Trip Report for July 31 to August 2, 1989 Site Visit
JULY 31 1989
ACUTAN HYDROPOWER PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY
FIELD TRIP
Dennis Dorratcague
Arrived Anchorage about 11:00 am and met with Roy Taylor of APA , Bill Ryan, and Bob Dryden. Left for Acutan
at 1 :30 pm and arrived at approximately 8:00 pm.
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY DIVERSIONS
After senling in, walked to the two existing water supply diversion sites on the hill above town. On photo roll A,
the first few pictures are tourist shots on the way out and shots 8 through 16 were taken of the east diversion,
and pipeline, shots 24 through 35 were taken of the west diversion and pipeline. In this area there were also two
old diversion sites that are no longer in use and are completely silted in. The diversions are constructed of
treated wood timbers which bunress a dam constructed of 3 x 12 with a 1 /2-inch of plywood sheeting. Each dam
had a walkway on top with a small wooden sluiceway which acted as a spillway. Most of the water is gathered
at the west diversion site through a Johnson well screen which appeared to be about 6 or 8 inches in diameter
and about three feet long. At the west site the well screen was almost completely covered and clogged with a
brown substance which could be silt. Immediately behind the intake screen was a shutoff valve. The water after
passing through the intake screen, traveled in a four-inch diameter pvc pipe inside approximately a ten-inch
corrugated pipe filled with insulation. A sluiceway was left open slightly to keep silt moving through the diversion.
The west dam had similar construction, although the intake appeared about an eight-inch diameter well screen
about 12 inches long. This was not as badly clogged as the west diversion well screen.
The pipeline was supported on wooden bents constructed of treated wood. In the first few feet downstream of
the diversions, it was supported by a timber dug into the walls of the ravine, or by suspended cable which was
anchored at each side of the ravine and spanned the ravine.
OBSERVATIONS
At the west intake. the pool area was dug out considerably to form a good reservoir site. It appears that to
prevent silting in, a low-level outlet is necessary. In the remote areas of the two proposed hydro diversion. rt
migh: have to be left open slightly to continuous:y pass sediment during high runoff and sediment transport
periods
1 -
At the intake, a larger Johnson screen would be necessary to reduce the velocities through the screen when
drawing a maximum flow of about 6 cfs. The approach velocity would be about .2 fps. This would probably
require a well screen about the size of the one that we used at Boulder Creek (i.e. 2.5-foot diameter, four feet
long). It might also require a similar type of structure made out of wood to channel bypass flows and sediment
flushing flows past the screens, similar to the Boulder Creek arrangements. This was done by excavation into
the rock at the west diversion of the water intake site.
The means used to support the water pipeline would be unsatisfactory in supporting the penstock except in areas
of low head towards the upper diversion site. There was no restraint constructed along the water pipeline.
When Scott Wheaton is out here. he should test the pipeline route by boring at various locations along the route.
This would give us an idea of the types of soil we would encounter and where we would have to place anchors.
We need to know the soil resistance in order to design these anchors.
AUGUST 1, 1989
We talked with Jake at the City, and discussed the load and billing data for the electrical system. We found that
all the data for last year was shipped in June to Anchorage. Bob Dryden picked up the data there.
NORTH SITE
Walking up the trident 6 inch line, there have been several diversions in the steep portions of the hills here. It
cascades the last few hundred yards to the beach. Trident used a high density polyethyfene pipe 6 inches in
diameter. From the scrapes on the pipe they apparently welded it on the beach and pulled it up the hill. It is
retained with 2 x 4's in the ground, which hold a tie-back of 1/2 or 5/8-inch nyfon rope in order to retain the
pipe from slipping downhill. The nyfon ropes are anchored up the hill and extend several hundred feet down
the hill where they are tied to the pipe. At the trident diversion, see picture 6 on roll B. They used a sandbag
and visqueen type diversion structure. You can see a one-foot diameter pvc pipe, which is used for diversion
of flows during construction. According to our altimeter, the diversion is at an elevation of about 235 feet.
Apparently they removed considerable amount of material from the right bank in the pool area for the dam. Their
new pipe which was installed in 1988, is six-inch diameter SDR-11 160 psi Drico-pipe. In climbing up to the
diversion sites, we went along the top of the ridge on the left bank of the stream. We then branched and followed
the East Fork up to the diversion site. The East Fork diversion site Number 1. is at an elevation of 560 feet. We
will have to take the diversion pipe down along the creek and up over a flat area at the nose between the East
Fork and West Fork. see photo B 15. A wide flag labeled "East Fork Diversion Site• is on the a dam axis. On the
West Fork, diversion site 1. the water surface elevation is approximately 565. The pipeline from this diversion
would have to run downstream along the steep stream bank, perhaps crossing it once or twice before clearing
the nose downstream. The best solution perhaps would be to bring the pipe along the left bank. that is betv.1een
the East and the West Forks down the nose.
-2-
There are several diversion locations in the vicinity of the two diversions that were flagged. The West Fork
diversion appears to be about 70 to 100 yards upstream of the old diversion site. To avoid crossing the upper
side tributaries on the right bank of the West Fork, the pipeline should run along the left bank between the West
and East Forks. It would run approximately through the upper stake on the left bank of the old diversion site.
I placed a flag on this lath to mark approximately where the pipeline would run through. It would then run
downhill bearing to the left (facing downstream) and run down the center of the nose between the two creeks.
CROSSING OF WEST FORK
The west fork pipeline which follow the creek to an elevation of about 490 and about 30 yards east of the creek.
At this point, it would be joined by the east fork pipeline, which would come around the nose and over to the
West Fork. The penstock would then cross the West Fork. I have placed a wide flag with the word "CROSSING"
on it near the stream bed. This flag is wrapped around a rock on a terrace on the left bank which could be used
as a support for the pipeline crossing. Photo 8-16 is taken along the line of the crossing. An orange flag laid
on the ground in the photo shows the alignment. (After coming back down, the altimeter read -40 to -£0 feet at
sea level. This means that the head end of the side gully could be as high as 500 feet. All elevations given above
and below have been adjusted. These should be checked by Scott Wheaton when he visits the site.)
POLARCONSULT ROUTE
After reaching the 300 foot level, I encountered side ravines. I then backtracked up the Polarconsult route. I
flagged this route up to a point at approximately elevation 500. I used a thick wide flag wrapped around a lath
at the head end of the gully. Scott should estimate if anymore head-cutting will take place. The pipeline would
have to come out of the diversion at elevation 560, and drop in a straight line to this point. After coming out of
the diversion site along the right bank, after about a hundred yards of paralleling the creek, the pipeline would
then turn away from the creek to the lath mentioned above. The problem with this route is that it would still
require the east diversion pipeline to run all the way to the west diversion as in our 1980 report. The pipeline with
a ·u· in it could freeze in case of a winter shutdown. To prevent this. the pipe would have to come around the
nose between the two creeks and run back towards the north in order to maintain a constant elevation all the way
back to the West Fork diversion.
In the feasibility study, we should consider two routes for the north side. One is the route I described with the
diversions from the two forks coming together and crossing the west fork then crossing one of the side gullies.
and either going to pc ~ or pc 2 to avoid the other gullies. The next one is to look at the possibility of using the
polar consult route all the way. Particular at1ention should be paid to how the east fork diversion would join 1Nith
the west fork diversion pipeline.
-3-
LOUD CREEK
See film role 80 for photos of loud Creek site. The drainage divide is about 45 percent of the way from the East
Fork to the West Fork at elevation 550 where there is a ridge.
There is only one diversion site possible for loud Creek. This is on the east fork. The diversion site is where the
creek exits a relatively flat area, and goes through a cut at about 550 feet. A diversion just prior to entering the
cut would back one or two acre feet of water back into the flat area and make it much easier to provide water
control. The creek is about six feet wide at this point, has a flow of from four to six cfs. There is a left over-
bank area which would make a dam eight feet high have a crest length of approximately about 40 feet. There
is some rock outcrop in the area, the elevation of the water at the diversion would be about 560 to 550 feet mean
tide level. With a diversion dam about eight feet above the creek channel there would be about one acre foot
of storage with about a third to a half an acre of surface area.
The pipeline exits the dam, goes down through the left side of the cut and bends around the edge of the cut
where you'll see flag No. 2 tied around a rock. Elevation here is 545 -550. Aag No. 3 is located across a small
ravine on a small ridge. In the vicinity of No. 3 and downstream of No. 3, we will have to cross several
hummocks which will probably mean cutting down through some of them and providing trestles of about five to
eight feet high in-between. The elevation at No. 3 is 505.
About 50 yards to the northwest of No. 3 is No. 4. This is at elevation 480, and is a turnpoint for the pipeline
which will now head approximately due south.
Flag No. 5 is tied around a rock at elevation 380. The pipeline goes straight downhill toward the cannery until
it encounters the creek which bends from the right to in front of the pipeline route. The pipe would then take
a slight left turn and cross a ravine with a span of about 30 to 40 feet. Some trestles would be required on the
upstream side of the span. The pipeline would then follow the creek in a northwesterly direction. This ravine
crossing is about 200 yards down hill from point No. 5. No flag is placed here because no suitable rock can
be found to anchor it. The elevation at this crossing would be about 260 feet mean tide level.
Flag No. 6 is located about 75 yards northwest of the crossing and is a flag tied around a rock on a linle
hummock. It is about 30 yards southwest of the creek on a perpendicular line from the creek. The elevation is
about 220. The Pipe would continue downhill and cross the creek at the location of the upper staff gage.
Flag No. 7 is at the uppe~ staff gage on the West Fork of loud Creek. This is where the pipe crosses the creek,
and the elevation is abcJ: 150. The staff gage reading is about 4.17 at this time. The penstock would then run
downhill in a general ai;e:tion towards the west edge of the cannery to a small drainage cut out into the hiilside
to the east of the bene:-; ·.-., :tich is directly to the east of the creek. The Western Pioneer barge could come in and
set the equipment do1. :-with its crane right on the beach This lower site is preferable since we do not have
-4-
to cart materials up to the top of the bench which is 30 feet higher. The reading down at the water at mean tide
level is approximately -20. This raps up the field trip at 9:40 pm. On the beach at high tide level there's a
bedrock outcrop all along this area which could be used as foundation for the power house.
CITY DOCK
I took several photos of the dock area. There might be some bathometric data that has already been taken for
another study. Jacob Stepetin told me this. We should ask Erica about this.
·5·
APPENDIX 2
Trip Report for September 6 and 7, 1989 Site Visit
I
I
I
KIM DE RUBERTIS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CASHMERE. WASHINGTON
~n;s l:;:;TYdUldjue/£:(/ ~ya/l ,
JOB Ai:Uian
SHEET NO-----!..-------OF------
CALCULATED BY r:;t:J:::. DATE q /'7 /J'q
CHECKEDBY _______ DATE-----
SCALE
/. A#ac/~c? a~ C6p;e-::: c:/ h~ld /JtJk5 a;;d /J?C"mc lo /nd~1-1t. ~//au1~1
a.te .::bme o.dcf/limd c::--b~Y"af;~ !rnv_ lr1p.
2'.. /i;de;Jt ~hmctk:: -rcc 3pn (.A . .F$c?L f muci.. cus/;J/1' ... lo /aa_
<:x;:sl;~ /do;,') 1:;;/as.. !7eL..: .3;rlm / phJ. M1..:s ~ k /n.::Jre.
~.4k /../c/71-O~J:: CttA<.. 1 -:JWdace.. Cbw& I~ cop;~ cl' £a..
!3?/'1 /};fo /J!us ya.~r-e:h//Ju k c:/;!;.;;;, re/;aU~ Mw ;n ~ C3!"~?
S. I a rq.e& !ndt?/Jt lZ/ b. :.se/J5; hi./C: h C1 ~!::. /'tee0.. cY-.. V-tal.ef"
rtgdis "";~e,
4. -;;JJ.z ~~" ch::ut~~ ~ r~p;d/1 ;n A_f:a Ia; /ita f' ; ~.::. lou:t,l-
72? c/o~ a/) alti/J'J:£7~r fret Wr"SZ c.u;/Jiln /0 X. I gcJI ~SJ.s'lenltf;
~~r t<&1'LJ~ ~you c/;d. / d#fl f ..see /JJ7$ a~d;Jt---4 v ~b~/111-1 &1-/t p;rd.s lc ~ ./?f3ecl k"Y:Jooce maps /;y
c::(e::; t t7Jt .
~·
5 / /Jd.t-e.. /Ju /Atr/;c:alvr cY.r??/1/,..e;;l':-c><-yoar (t7Y fib!are!o/1Suli;)
;?:?r;s:tzx:.L· 1e-.:., k:::. 7h:: ~'/ .valky-.5 //I ~ d::u.)t'/ rc:2:le/L c-?
./Jcr17~ CJe:e;;c. aa£2 aLl' a/o.J~ -"~ E.t::::-1 ;=ErL c:/ ~c::ad dree):::...
~dt£ r'C(}j::: ...... -erlj C!uS::: (< 2 1 J .fJ-0)0... /t::.:. durfdcc:. c.-~ h 9/vttnd..
/c.~~ //Ji/11:. ;-~at~ good /ULI.C::. .::;;u.1r.::-'/h~ ~ ;"'":)Jp-e t:u/7J61::J;;:;e .
ha;;LJ!~r::: r;ed 7b 0; l:.:'tur:s :;rvu.l~.£2 1111-o l"cck..-
/
KIM DE RUBERTIS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CASHMERE, WASHINGTON
Jos d l:t~lo n
SHEET "10 -~:z~------OF-------
CALCULATED BY &£. DATE qj?jg-q
CHECKED BY ________ DATE------
SCALE
h / 2-:tl:d::lc:. J?C-p/toe!/k(c/ deci7;S__/-'Cid1oJ11nl£r pdd~
Cut-Lid! 9cl-~ ,jtJiJ c/v~ / U.:Jd'6 a cfa.r <e::pade: lo &'U:tva 4::.
lc rcc.J:::.1 tL roc~ 61l -!c d/J '! (~.afof :?H)//JICJ reck) c:u~4_
a -5J, lc ~~/;n !Ji.: /;ull &.-~d 41/'>:'J ~ t'l'??X~ _
4/k/oa!J~ I ~/j;~£( wc:14< I/o u:.::e.. D-/:a.vd/1"'~ ;:;;;oels cr
~~~ /'!f1urc! 40.1& ~c;/(<:-eede~07/;c:~;nkkk/?vk~)
/;:t ::/Y-2'!/';;I/c;p.~ /u~-;;ft; /u/t ~/ ;(.s i:Y't7;1tLJ ~l«#fl~t:_·
w/J/cL ;;rziubic: /~ a£-i.~ I 4 ~F. 4 5 -FI /.mj ~IZ D"{ r
.(M./0 cHJkc:ld./c:I) J-d:s a ::/;ear a.~~ awv.-1 C);t:::£_. fiz.
cu;L -::-.; ic LLi £:.. Ia l:e ti.L£tJ I 56·~ /6 /,:::;.a~ -~u c!.Lu !cf / m (Y c 1!£
c:r_ /.,:_..,L.::' h-./ toeid~.L~ vo~~ fo ~ i:ar: '"CJ ~
> -~\
/ .. / :,/ :/
/ '--
I
I
I
KIM DE RUBERTIS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CASHMERE, WASHINGTON
CALCULATED
CHECKED BY _______ DATE-~~~--
SCALE
e~~~~Ja/1;;; /17 ;tu. /t,z<.h:~/ /Ca:.'/.e:::; ~K-k p;pe u;;// ~e..{
1-o bz. ~-/ee::! /t a6o 4.1;// g;ve /!iL Ehordc.st k/l!fll:-74::.
cf;::;;.a_dvanbtpz-uH// ,ie t:v~YJ:::. I)? IPCl: .. c)t Sk~ ~/vJ_?e.s.-
/, V7! .:fL..z_ /b/c;yCJ:msuli J'2:;a k.. _, ~ cru ll.c: :L ;.~-a..i;vJA-/ e/.:;::c;o r_c;. ~-rf
w;// CLrnl;nue /6 ervde: £001;1-j
v
Cr?s:::/~.7 -~ :5.7';-&:m:: //XP!s ~ne mvafil: hi/:0
SJ?Ie d~.:= /Ct:<jh'~ I#: IV/ a e.r£.z//U c.,u;'!;t 5Jl ~~'/ &.er~ltk af::~t/e..v b' :::lra-:~;t. wc-Jtl i;e?/c; // /vnt /Jcrmd
7c Ot~u.J. A/)1!/;Jt-./.. $.;z. {!/0$:5:/'d :tf? avv;d ;s/;arp ln--;nd.::
u;t:-(Jik dvu.£1£ ;£ knp. :£ ~ec(/~naL _(e:,--ec.fd sei)
cfc.s.-·~;_,1..4 us/aef I-!.::r.::4m.::. cr1c:S< c~t21?/Jec m;.'1At 1/-.A:::y'i::._
"" ,A • y
y
I /-;.,~ -li-.------:-t.,...' ---,-.) I .:..::._.-; :. .. .
I : ) I :.· . ; '
I
cA.t~'?rrf
2/c/Jf"C'..i. _. ·'
;;,!~«"1,..~;.--,r
I
I
I
KIM DE RUBERTIS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CASHMERE, WASHINGTON
JOB A&un
SHEET NO _ ____L__ _____ OF------
CALCULATED BY_____o,_::&?=------DATE ~
CHECKED BY _______ DATE ____ _
SCALE
g, ~ /,av!ffaluR-u7ad dat.& CL .tG~tl?f /lu hade¥' ~~
c:zl::eul-17c /f d~~r. Jr;de11i /S C/JXI~ff:S. 76 ffitJw If
.?JtJ-kt wa / ~ .l:e 1 2'l J'J'l-r:''tl" .£: etc rec c;s ;; /I"M. .tlo v £ Gc-e.t::.. . ~~ /Y..r J:?
~ e'/uJt-,aJe.. a. su.bma!";r;.e /h£oer c?t:L.b/e. {];;~~!&. coc ~1-
u_ 6c~~JA... ?/'c;hk ~ /c;e/cl deteS at7J![tmd_J ~ ~ ,
dec):::." h~l-<-1 d~ /.JD?c. C:eh:z1---c:. em?:; aPtd~t" 17-o/i-
/ 1 .• 7 v c;-M f--C/T.#
t
I
I
KIM DE RUBERTIS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CASHMERE, WASHINGTON
-;z;: &y/Jt:J!d ....)tJ~
,Zt:;~ Alels~
RZPM.-Lm o'efZ&rl1s
SHEET NO--------QF ____ _
CALCULATED ev ______ DATE ____ _
CHECKEDBY ______ DATE ____ _
SCALE
4-d:zC'b.£2 /S ~ C!o/Y;;j c~/J'~Y ~;/£! /Jok-/ ~
drsC.Lt:S:::;;e£2 ,:::?sstHe .aa/:J;PX-S C-U/?ffi ~yi'J.o/~ au_£) ._)!)e.(.
/~y?p, ~;aJe 4ve'51t'~ ~ tuau./ help/ g;ve me a ·C?d.A2
;YJ hc/L£;rtLjfi al-:562-25/4-(l?J;..s ~/:::.) uY ;n &.5J;~t-e
CL-f .5V7 · 7cZ-:Z43...1-(~ :5ZA-?2Z-ZZ4fZ).
:5£Ut;r<"sl ~f yak<. ;::ars:u.e ~ t<.A:Lw rt~ l..s ISSUe..
~ 0:;c;1d11M ?..-t;__ !_.;..);//:; ~ 1:; seeJ:Us des/ rci.ble.
v
/ wtl/ c~~c!~ cH. & /Jy_drograp~ t:ZuJ2 lei yau knew
r~./)..A f I f~-k t-'Ck!-a!:vul /lows.
~~~r/9ff9
/J01$ C!--~
tJ;-7-;z;::,c:Jt.'-14 A.Je/~ f;;:; #ul \
,/ ' /
C'~ttd€(/ ~cf,iff
o Zr«AI d/l;ff~k-r ar 51/-c?/-/d:.
---
::!; k/?c!l. d~ ~"~ ::.t-a1-:Cl"' 1-;r:;,
3-.:;;/rm//7qa£k? rC£?d;/:1' o. ( .e.::hh1:1k c( Ezell) ~ :::' I' --...
4-/c;d::. /S C}-:o.<..k' a/ tt:ut7kr::; e:::fj!Z c::zu£? ap;5/// ~~ 6n4c--l.t:'<C
///a::.--::::/1/C' cJ;;t:f.c.v/-e ?OT;:Jprj
/;;.;e.t:?/!::..'-//i .sl~ a;:::p~r:: .k k /dc2r?R /??.:7./C' J6 ca?d.-i/:Ae: pd~::
/Jt&?<../-o ~d.#~ //7 ~~/otf!J ~ .:Siec;:? ch;/;; e'Kf:XJ51/?d /?dr.£2
/ ?fiJ::. ~t"" s// auk ,..b +4<::e -+ ~o
cva/Lt:/,1<...4 /~ /-S /r~u..;J<-:sa.uO:. u.:::k .,/ c?~)' ~ 7/ ~z,v/~ ~,;;e;
7 1: l -t'
sl?a/?r'a/?;r... /L/u.;ii; ,Pa ta//-r:'l ~A s~p-e t::?L/Se!.., .;sc,/
/5 sl;.r/t! ~£; s-l::z~./d:S?f·-. sk? (>!=!) S/Pj?C=· .,S:Jn;e
/rrad'culf/;~ Cff£1 be vbsc?·l7£2 oa-1 ~~r.c<. plZ:::~t/::;, e'/&:S/~, -
/ /'
Z:CLL-A ~ £;?,/~ro-y::. 4-c:;. J l/i/d .??', r~L-d . ~
5. 0c:/-,J;;:t c/~1 C/"'l!":sC :I-232
4'·:,t 0-.C. G '·¢ O~-.E 4L£ aadi 4/(/ q_:;..eyd.//"7!
'...)
5c.L.6m&-p/tL:f-2 c:'/, 1 -;;~;~.s /:::: a/.x;~~ I ''
o/1//~ //J /t?/f S;k ~c.YJ/7-C( zJL'1,US /JD SfF!::; /'/ ..:?/2/S/~
/CJC'.i:: ;:;:. ~?.d'£ /// ho~~ /!et""/c< ~--' /df. .b:2vL::::. U< I /Jd,/n kff.I/P-
1 -
c/ kr/t:t,_..
1
D/I a ( 4'~-;;/7-.-
dc:t14t c:Kd r"'Y;dc-::::. c:-0~ / /z"" k~r6?
j/7C I aLz& c 4 I cke-;~-:-
5:;;/d.l:ztg:: //1 .01 / &:r:t>l'r;~;-/:;.61/c C"c-...,-c:r<-{ /~t-LJ r;/b:::r/c / £.6//C. ~?1/L.
. //
/ ,_,_/:;.:::-::-" £.
/ /,i-"
~~I
0-L::;d" ;;/ h; )~ d 1/t'J'::;I/)t. ( /:r/J/1 /5 1 /Ia ;J f-:5/7
:;eC Q/7C17£1 /Jd:J at t-56Z
~//;:::.' ::;;le 15 L'ih.PI C?:S/f/P-as ~c~go //J t!"t?:st' WK w;~J
J:,s~~ UA1k/ b::t-cu.l'.:;;.:-~6 -/nhufCJrlr__:: tUtdl ~~..s: ~177b/e.
tz; Jizv kkue&.,_1',5;? c..J? -1'-~
/cdc ;:::; /JcL e'v; tic-;; I czl ~lc
?. ~t /VrL: dtl?:"r:Sih.. (,D:n/J;s '/b_ _1) -1-53/
\. 0"'
C:;$ ,JV h,rr" lo at~'?-~~~ k:~ no h/bu&oe.:;
c!v)?/Ticz~''---mud .,£; IZ..-u ielt:oe~ 53! .aud'l ~
~> c9. deNSJZ /oc.t:_ o--lz::e"rl/e;>/1 /t!'dd/cu I cl~..--e lo 22n/J! .$ I 5r/e
2. u/V,jl'/u..e'):c.~ + 395
9. W!J/1!.5 /ua~ k./u,..e:cr;--. k/i:s. ~ u,K:..
/C. ~k;:l:~ r-z:u;-crfJLr5C. .:s~le~ ro:V::. 11117,:;;;/c.J_ ~ lr;de:utp;~:;
e'J11-&/ i:a ')
v
// clucL::C'& a/b.md~r" a/ -~-~ ar slra:Pdl. km;;:t:'/.4/&~ ~..s
h1,r!t! &x:slc:u.tt (s~ .525$) ~/// ~pU1:"iJ~ J ~1&/k.Q. .5;qv;
/;J-;1?-l.. ?M
i.t. .. '
-/4£
t. .slrr::a,-n y/'aaJC'J:li &a~~:; --1-.::518 h~ ;j'1;:s ;::o;/JC up .#:a ~a;::; I/;;)::.
yta/!ey, rca /S &i-iC/d:£.PJ2 621 ;/ ~-::!' vnb?tJUJ><-d~k :tul a J
/~t'l::: 1-6 I d.J?ep kc4.LLS-e ~ d~YL Cl::Ut 6e OP~r~ /;1. s~aU"
LJ-::H•L w.A.& /,1/.:s;d..c skar-s, :;;c,/ 1:s b.rf!'-. CU<.62 ;e::rsls erc$/c;_
//J s~~IP'-fat>tL$ cJL.j <:"t.::~ ~J/1 :s:J'I&-h~£2. bre/z_,__..,,._ c;(:L1'e_f S:zub::
ar:.~t: :54M!) (!/LZ..L;J c...JI#-ff;/; a'5,/; JJJkr~c._:-• ~ fr6&!cs
./ ~
2. t«nc i.e +ce::o L-...:-71Jo.u I r!"n~;iwr /// .. ~ d;II"'(!',-::;1/A . ..;; -k /};a ,;tc,/ c
/// ~ /u: r-~cJC (r_ /0-c 0: n tv:;;au.c.c /~re-;T;i::; ~~JZ~I(f de>::: s /J,;;::} a?C ;·; t
/~ s//JaLL /»::;rem~,! J J./.:162 c21A&. ~ s.Jrr::cu,{/2:""J ~,-:::. /I . .
d/m!l715l..q-.:::
:?. at a.6c-al .,~-51-c; & :slraz1:L ~ //i.z. ~J /c /-/2' ~-c:..
5-l~aJ;~.£:. ' e-( 6... dJVC?'S/tJ~ C'£V-k mo.d!:c W/n_ 6... hm1""Y~
67;6 c:r /;cmc.~nuu-:.. //11 (__,}<-/~ a.r, ;ny;Wvtl:; memt:rdni2. . ;ZZ;z.
&?;1/wd"LI C!£al£2 u.. ,S;c/e ChUA-J~/n..... /e;; l::dt<k..
; d"'
/C. ~///IS / p;;:.e/;;i.e: o?or/c"r ~.t<:vul/tcXS
:#4 -1-..fzo
/ .· J-~"'-___,_c /
-:'!/)f./--0--t.:C:-LL I ~-,..-.tc: <..a:· r dun..L~ /~ VC"'<::r-.::--
,,;;/? ;;=;J),v.Q z l?Yl
f
..f.,.Y::;a : .!! IJ /
I I _,/ l.<:.r /;, o~)r
-"
i
'/;'L-" /; I J ..J
2. /7~"/e.;J);a/_ ~orcc 1/J Lc/?c/L ~~ 4~1 p/eute dc:<:L eut_i2
/r:5/-C~L. a/*1-/t:?ad /o fiid~ f / ex;:;ed /J1::lk;;d /o ixz.
'2);//l;/a/ ~ 6 ceh/ Lz/f U~c2_ h;:; lriO<';Jt 1 ~Hc..J.. IS ~
)(£12?-CZCLJ f /uO yd l&ci-( t:L!bx; /.xa<../.) J 3 yd htp4-e--5:?
c:Vx,·1i-2c ycf. v. .. Ndt. a. I ,&$;2_ (/Yctr ~.a! paP-e.~ c/c..), m0F
y;e//;1/--j ~d ~occyd~ hc£.:5 /;& ga.b10~ c:ueR ti~£?.
cu;/l_:__ re:. 0/,_,-.Q -excavak1._ Cv Pot:~ I --JUA-te dbcK.. ~re O;.e 1Jv /. /"'' /
olLf .;~:1 26t:-ttc.es moalh :--/ sl~ a/c7J'--4 ~ c>· ;-;;c / , r u
c@.h 1pl f.er·rttc-e o;e ~arcs! c5:/uY~, a~ /lrsl ~<1:-
alcl<_j rC-<1~ Ja ITI~;ri/ h/1/s.;c/e IS //'2:21)1/5 /CC/:....
3. ,k;:a_/;-k .. ~ £e//;r~::.hY/Jil//k!.:: al L>lue ~~CAc~ t2{;2c.c-;l lc
de-C/:::-... [;j....e 1:5 /k c::l~cl/lc.,~.I .Y/V~cc C/7 dudC:.
4. VIII~!'L ~Clif 11£fd l)e'ye'(' h1 r~ -(>f'.Ki~IJC~S: /C!IlJ ?n:.Ve;::: cv/?'7
111-f~-t:c .:z-· '6yaa1!<-, Yclo111e ?ro6kJir.::-OCCL?:51~Jt«.LI'<! ;;.: /v-'-"-·
//tu_· :-~-~~ ::,l's. 1n w!J; kr a.::;e "S/J1tZLf 'dcUbL fO StL..fJ?/L-1 u.;}.cr<-/ , r I
7/..£;:: ,r;.e.:-C:: h muck:. 5; It 1/::/)/J-_ /) -b1'j "da.tt<-
....
:::::. /:i.Lu_j ~ );ifdrc; .5h////7 pu>ctlu;t.sC-/ .. C! ITCLL lt!ff5 ''
No/17. -..:;-:::CL { ?d lr;1~-)
/.. _:-;/~/-::-/e;: ,.r--~: lc /~0r:cre:. t!'Yrs /;tu; daJJ1 a-tt ~ /;;j !dK£
d. '-~ C/~ o'NL.#<. /;n«-/-y-z; I
6-.::=:.~.: .. /K2c' dt:b'7!~lrfl2n(. Ia= m£u I und/r ;?& c//5 c::f~s.Lr
e dJCss c1e:::t /-t:wl ~~~ $(Uic/laye2v& reck.. 1-o
cne ~!:.tlg )?;~ /Jta-u.. /op c{' /~'}<1 p;;:;e kat/11
c;n-c t-Y' fwc 5aMd&Js oJ a-l /e/1 6::2-uk. !1/--x w/1/ ~
S!IVIC€.. 'Ep1//t.u1-:{ / /oz_u ~~ 1/1 :5U<c:f~!~ w;// (x_ ~ltY'7_je'l1(r
'?J¥/1~
. ..}
/! slra10J bn c:u f avd:;: sec.ure clk:td;~
5 · furn 4''tj ~ (£I'd)-'~ doL<-,'XO..V£2 /nk Cz/l~/tL
c/" cf.p-e;xs/-;::::t:Jtf //' p·cJ/ ~'-Jurf11J:k.1-'-t't-f au_;; ~-tclc:-~
~ //J::;de eX-2-1''~ h 36 q: ~~ ka.1":.: .:'r, Ctti~"Cr'l
p;;-~ w1Jl l;,/cttl';! tl' hd CL.<.) s!~ls /z; Ocf;n;C i-..cttt£/
' .S/d~ ,r_e-€k lo &--fcv--'zir£ !x:l!cJJL //' ;::;:;?€-~I p11-u:..
S),Ou!Jl .e;:k/,cf} czlx~~ {Nit 1-t:r: Abvv ~ Jl-z-c,/-~x!'lf/IL;
,1/Joui.J'-6z d:s;~lc-~cure p;;::x b(f aJAJ~--r/; ;;~ -
bllon--cv 1:::/a..c;ld' tv-e) 8A I c)'t kr_) OY bo/7. -
A. as/-~ lo d~akf h de /d;;-. ~v;/L /JJ~;rl I b_
h ~W.::f:J o.cr~.:s-:.:: ~? (' /~-:: !.LfJS-IK.at£< ... c'.v~ I ~L"€
/& ;rcr.. bcx) au&:. t/ttc dlvc:1"51/i-7Y)~ alcrd /ell-.!2utl::::-
2'-/7;-··> .::-;::::.a .:;; k; r;;.,r-{1. 7'ku.h:ta;t~ ab:-t:/ i /c:cyd:' ti.l;:::fr-'71. :_,;;?/( '-
q;Sii/1:: ::f.:'11X-· /! 15 ::; -f /~ C_:: k/1::. 1/. !'k? /Icc<". / .:-~ 7;-~ ".:-,;~
:;a.uc( f2:2c-:q;~ k c.:-c ~~ .---/~/~~ ;' < ,I ' .
~. / ~ '//. I!/' I / ;;· --.. /l__....y L/ -;' '>/ 1',~-. -...--~ 1-> .-V"-dC( ~~-·t-'"""-l'fc_ IL/.;<-, 'T . /-:,../, .' .. --' --
/), 1 r-:. r 6_ nIL G!c:' /Iii·-:_ . ,<j dtJ 1/:. , -::ailen?-!'.A-/' · ,:--, /
. -~ . ... ~·eu· I, 7/'· .. · f , ,,_ I /· .. , / '-'·-'--. ' v fc. { .
/JlakYJa!..::: . 0:3<'.9 /-?;/;£! {!oul£' be Ll$.c'M liv ~ 1/?rr:-e
/Jl:J;JJ Crt::-: ~ntt!Yr-:::: . SL.<f:Jr?sl se,I/;;Ld Ia; cro.:::::. /JJ.t?'li!!Y 1
_L . I I Ji _L c I / ~ . I / TD ;?ft!VIC"IL c2 it'bJ5 T C t:i-f :Su/JI~/<{jt'!l/{-e ev--e-r__. /J1/e. or pJ~ ·
lo/ Cru~ ;~;;11Y/ U-->tl/ k u~u I :?o I /c;t? , b::-llo!1t c.xe.::
mULl.. :::/J?dt:f. Cit re s/Laul( ixz lat'-c:t.<... !c -:::cci:ef eros::...
!?i~JM6er5 ;JJfv rocK.. UniKa~& 4/12::. ccu.Jk /;x_ u_sp£:
k/ ltU clec!L bu / ,Z "/?G. W0/1 1£; b:. .6ell~r< A '/!1/t.;'<'.r:: h..£!e~-c-(
ov.f/-t'/ [V;/l a!/c'-<-.: deu._;?L/.e1-;X..1. lo te!11Ct/e :5//1. /)Q CZJ!Jv:<-« r
'J
//4/1 • / ~ j./ I -2 ,/:1 c,.-11 ;f!A 1 Itt..-. .) !5.. u-u lin t/1.-JJ<.., .-fvt/;d-e.. J1v, /~ )lzdi"'-;. =' 5J.,.: ·
J . 61ic-{ ot:x::ltt1 !4£-l'c:zff.s drkCLpv/ ~a. ~--,;//tudL) c--5/rlce j;-.5-Coli-OW-1:5 ICC I~ ~.;:;;1£ C:Z-'"CJ fcJ7~~7
p;z,v~lp cc.dd.Q o:1CL.tr L.v//i.c;~.<-/-/;:;,/::_ fc ;.:t.c. ddJ~e'l . ({:;.,;SI'aer·,
e:xku d'11~ __JO slIt£_ 0 ''/?~.X:.. lc $::;.. iK:U. d~ / ka011( J;"_;._..
4 11 f p 1;::--e /)J ;':Yac..e. czl A:a. 4!Xr:::l;7 cfauJ-:~~~::pr~£:. ;-er
a/.A.:t:). B/a sc~ tJr..... ;nle/.
3. c5?o.s .2kij e:::..h;Ho/e::: t-ts..e a! 7ocJ;?1<--. .~ 7/i;s m~ 6C~S:.
~ . , /Yf/t C/if
t'../4. 1-C/ ct.·>a )o.i/.c.. _ (l,,s;d.e ~'·" ca.p!uo~A :::li-C"44t~ (e~ 1u/L;j
k ey;-e :::z.i~;.J-)17 1 d -UL. "I red£ ~a ~ Kt-< .J. a.~; a.v. £2
/ /
dn.Jri I;,{_J( ,.:;;:;,;r/_ fc 7tzc Yk''----~ 2cc &co ~J la:>:K-
,/
APPENDIX 3
Harbor Depth Chart Readings
DEPTH CHART READINGS
The depth charts attached were taken with a Lorance Eagle chart
recorder from an 18" skiff with the transducer mounted on the
transom just below the bottom.
The boat was run at a constant throttle setting and markers on
the tape note minutes into the run, which should correlate
reasonably well to distance alont the bottom.
We ran from the Akutan dock to Loud Creek and them from Loud
Creek to the center of the Trident Seafoods dock. We also made a
run from Trident up to North Creek but the weather was
deteriorating and wave action prevented us from moving at a
steady rate.
Akutan-Loud Creek
The depth drops to 60' only a few hundred feet from the dock and
then drops steadily about 1/3 of the way across to a depth of
about 150 to 160 feet then begins to rise toward Loud creek. At
Loud Creek there is a fan of material which makes the approach
quite shallow for the last 200 yards. The bottom seems
reasonably smooth. Soundings at the Akutan dock end indicate
that the material is overburden with bedrock 60 to 100' below the
bottom. This is probably the case all the way across. The end
of the bay is sand with a wide sandy beach. The bottom slowly
and smoothly rises toward that beach and it would seem reasonable
to assume that the entire harbor is a rock notch filled with
rubble and sand.
Loud Creek to Trident Dock
The depth is even and about 160' with a fairly abrupt rise to the
Trident Dock.
Trident Dock to North Creek
Behind the beaches in this area are steep vertical rock outcrops
and many large boulders and rock outcrops are visible on the
beach and in the shallow water. It looks like there is a route
about 100 yds offshore which is smooth and about 60' in depth.
':J
4l
1.1.!
i::l
<.) (')
0 ::>
9
i.L
to
if' ..., .;:J :r
a
0
--·
Cl Cl
ru ID
CJ .:r
n.t
Cl ::r ru
1 ,_
Q.~ !'"'' r• i;t. ~ t,J. ~ -o£Q o9_• ~U-~ /l I ,) w (Ll ;:::: u 0
:J
0
_j
~
j_
4!
It:
r::;;.
()
0
:J
0
_)
·~
1
~
t::
J
~
4
v1
(.j)
:1.
~
0
(J
~
l
~
\.o.J
.J
I· I
I I
'I
I
) ·.
Cl
.11 I'
I _,
_,
~
I .. :}
,.
I • I ' ··-I .I
Cl
ru
...
.. .; ... ~
t:J ::.r
ru
Cl :::r ..,.,..
APPENDIX 4
Power Evaluation Runs
* POWER GENERATION *
********************
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: plc3.prn
FLOW DATA FILE: flc1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: lc3
LOUD CREEK (16 11 PE pipe, 1-6 cfs chinese turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPL!NE DATA
PIPE LENGTil DIAMETER MANNINGS MINOR
SECT ION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
--------_..,.,. _____ ........... -....
1 1100. 15. .010 2.0
2 750. 14. .010 2.0
3 550. 13. .010 2.0
4 767. 12. .010 2.0
PROJECT DATA
--~------ -
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) = 558.
ELEVATION AT POWERHOUSE (FEET) 18.
FISH RESERVE FLOW (CFS) = .0
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLOW EFFIC
---------------
10. .6 .000
20. 1.2 74.189
30. 1.8 78.900
40. 2.4 80.100
50. 3.0 81.300
60. 3.6 81.620
70. 4.2 81.940
80. 4.8 82.000
90. 5.4 81.800
100. 6.0 81.200
GENERATOR LOSS= .0 PERCENT
TRANSFORMER & SYITCHYARD LOSS 3.0 PERCENT
LINE LOSS= 1 .0 PERCENT
STATION POYER REQUIREMENTS 5.0 PERCENT
.0 .0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 209 KILOWATTS
.0 ! .o .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
----------... "' -~-~ ---------~ .. . --------· . . ~---------. .., __ .... _., _____
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 :16.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9
AVERAGE 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 ;35.3 119.4 89.6 114.9
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOW RECORDS
% OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOWN FOR LOW FLOWS: 1.9
THE PLANT FACTOR IS .77
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
. ----... -·-------'""'~-------
128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
********************
• PO~ER GENERATION ~
********************
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: pns1fg.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: fns1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: nslfg
NORTHSITE CREEK (16" FG pipe, 1.6-10 cfs standard turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPLINE DATA
PIPE
SECTION
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIAMETER MANNINGS
(INCHES) FRICTION
1
2
PROJECT DATA
ELEVATION OF
ELEVA HON AT
2000.
320.
16.
16.
DIVERSION (FEET) =
PO~ERHOUSE (FEET)
.010
.010
MINOR
LOSSES
2.0
2.0
520.
18.
FISH RESERVE FLO~ ( CFS) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFFIC
10. 1.0 .000
20. 2.0 75.833
30. 3.0 80.500
40. 4.0 81.500
50. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83.100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERA TOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & SW!TCHYARD LOSS
llNE LOSS=
STATION PO~ER REQUIREMENTS =
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
1.0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
THE EFFECT:VE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 332 KILOWATTS
SIMULATED PRODUCT ION
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
~ --~ ---- - - - - - ------------------
1986 110.8 75.1 30.7 46.9 90.4 178.7
AVERAGE 110.8 75.1 30.7 46.9 90.4 178.7
IN MEGA~A TT ·HOURS
APR MAY JUN
-----------------
194.2 207.2 88.6
194.2 207.2 88.6
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOW RECORDS
%OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOIJN FOR LO~ FLO~S: 11.2
THE PLANT FACTOR IS 50
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
---------------------------
98.2 65.3 132.7 1318.7
98.2 65.3 132.7 1318.7
• PO~ER GENERATION *
K*******************
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: pns1.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: fns1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: ns1
.~ORTHSITE CREEK (16" PE pipe, 1.6-10 cfs standard turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
?!PLINE DATA
PIPE LENGTH D !AMETER MANN!NGS MINOR
SECTION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
1 930. 15. .010 2.0
2 765. 14. .010 2.0
3 330. 13. .010 2.0
4 295. 12. .010 2.0
PROJECT DATA
--------------
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) = 520.
ELEVATION AT PO~ERHOUSE (FEET) 18.
FISH RESERVE FLO~ (CFSJ = .0 .0 .0
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFF IC
----------------
10. 1.0 .000
20. 2.0 75.833
30. 3.0 80.500
40. 4.0 81.500
so. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83.100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERATOR LOSS= .0 PERCENT
TRANSFORMER & S~ITCHYARD LOSS 3.0 PERCENT
LINE LOSS= 1.0 PERCENT
STATION PO~ER REQUIREMENTS = 5.0 PERCENT
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 307 KILO~ATTS
. 0 .0 . 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGA~ATT·HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 108.0 74.0 30.5 46.5 88.9 169.2 182.5 193.9 87.4
AVERAGE 108.0 74.0 30.5 46.5 88.9 169.2 182.5 193.9 87.4
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLO~ RECORDS
%OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DO~N FOR LO~ FLO~S: 11.2
THE PLANT FACTOR l s .52
.0 .0 .0 . 0 .0 . 0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
96.0 63.9 126.7 1267.5
96.0 63.9 126.7 1267.5
* PO~ER GENERATION *
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: pns2.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: fns1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: ns2
NORTHSITE CREEK (12" PE pipe, 1.6·10 cfs standard turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPLINE DATA
PIPE LENGTH DIAMETER MANNINGS MINOR
SECTION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
1 930. 12. .010 2.0
2 765. 11. .010 2.0
3 330. 10. .010 2.0
4 295. 10. .010 2.0
PROJECT DATA
--------------
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION <FEET) = 520.
ELEVATION AT PO~ERHOUSE (FEET) 18.
FISH RESERVE FLO~ (CFS) = .0 .0
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFFIC
----------------
10. 1.0 .000
20. 2.0 75.833
30. 3.0 80.500
40. 4.0 81.500
50. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83.100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERATOR LOSS= .0 PERCENT
TRANSFORMER & S~ITCHYARD LOSS 3.0 PERCENT
LINE LOSS= l.O PERCENT
STATION PO~ER REQUIREMENTS = 5.0 PERCENT
.0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 211 K I L O~A TT S
.0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGA~ATT·HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 97.6 69.7 29.7 45.0 83.1 133.5 138.4 143.6 82.8
AVERAGE 97.6 69.7 29.7 45.0 83.1 133.5 138.4 143.6 82.8
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLO~ RECORDS
~OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DO~N FOR LO~ FLO~S: 11.2
THE PLANT FACTOR IS .64
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
87.7 58.8 103.8 1073.7
87.7 58.8 103.8 1073.7
~*******************
• POWER GENERATION *
-~******************
F l LES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: pns3.prn
'LOW DATA FILE: fns1.prn
OUTPUT FiLE: ns3
NORTHS!TE CREEK (16" PE pipe, 1-6 cfs chinese turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P!PL!NE DATA
PIPE LENGTH DIAMETER MANNINGS MINOR
SECTION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
---.... --
930. 15. .010 2.0
2 765. 14. .010 2.0
3 330. 13. .010 2.0
4 295. 12. .010 2.0
PROJECT DATA
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) 520.
ELEVATION AT POWERHOUSE (FEET) 18.
FISH RESERVE FLOW (CFS} = .0 .0
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLOW EFF!C
------------
10. .6 .000
20. 1.2 74.189
30. 1.8 78.900
40. 2.4 80.100
50. 3.0 81.300
60. 3.6 81.620
70. 4.2 81.940
80. 4.8 82.000
90. 5.4 81.800
100. 6.0 81.200
GENERATOR LOSS= .0 PERCENT
TRANSFORMER & SW!TCHYARD LOSS 3.0 PERCENT
LINE LOSS= 1.0 PERCENT
STATION POWER REQUIREMENTS = 5.0 PERCENT
.0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 197 KILOWATTS
.0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 99.8 73.7 34.6 50.6 88.6 129.1 129.9 134.3 87.3
AVERAGE 99.8 73.7 34.6 50.6 88.6 129.1 129.9 134.3 87.3
~OTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOW RECORDS
OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOWN FOR LOW FLOWS: 7.1
THE PLANT FACTOR IS .69
.0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
90.7 66.8 103.4 1088.7
90.7 66.8 103.4 1088.7
* POWER GENERATION *
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE:
'LOll DATA FILE:
OUTPUT FILE: ns4
pns4.prn
fns1.prn
NORTHSITE CREEK (12" PE pipe, 1-6 cfs chinese turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPLINE DATA
PIPE
SECTION
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIAMETER MANNING$ MINOR
(INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
1 930. 12.
2 765. 11 .
3 330. 10.
4 295. 10.
PROJECT DATA
----------.,.w_
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) =
ELEVATION AT POIIERHOUSE (fEET)
FISH RESERVE FLOII (CfSJ =
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT fLOII EFFIC
10 .6 .000
20. 1.2 74.189
30. 1.8 78.900
40. 2.4 80.100
50. 3.0 81 .300
60. 3.6 81.620
70. 4.2 81.940
80. 4.8 82.000
90. 5.4 81.800
100. 6.0 81.200
GENERATOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & SWITCHYARD LOSS
LINE LOSS=
STATION POWER REQUIREMENTS =
.010 2.0
.010 2.0
.010 2.0
.010 2.0
520.
.0
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
, .0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
18.
.0 .0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 177 KILOWATTS
.0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 93.0 69.6 33.7 49.0 82.9 116.0 :16.6 120.5 82.8
AVERAGE 93.0 69.6 33.7 49.0 82.9 116.0 116.6 120.5 82.8
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOII RECORDS
%OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOliN FOR LOll FLOWS: 7.1
THE PLANT FACTOR IS • 71
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
85.6 63.1 94.8 1007.6
85.6 63.1 94.8 1007.6
* PO~ER GENERATION *
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: plc1fg.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: flcl.prn
OUTPUT FILE: lc1fg
LOUD CREEK (1611 FG pipe, 1.6-10 cfs standard turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
---~-------~---~ --~---------------
~;PL!NE DATA
PIPE LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING$ MINOR
SECTION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
--------
1 2300. 16.
2 867. 16.
PROJECT DATA
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) =
ELEVATION AT PO~ERHOUSE (FEET)
FISH RESERVE FLO~ (CFS) =
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFFIC
10. 1.0 .000
20. 2.0 79.389
30. 3.0 86.900
40. 4.0 84.700
50. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83.100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERATOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & S~ITCHYARD LOSS
LINE LOSS=
STATION PO~ER REQUIREMENTS
.010 2.0
.010 2.0
558.
18.
.0
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
1.0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
. 0 .0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 352 KILO~ATTS
.0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGA~ATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
.0 .o
JUL
-------------------~-------------------------------------------
1986 149.8 69.4 95.1 91.3 151.2 199.9 128.8 99.4 134.8 177.8
1986 149.8 69.4 95.1 91.3 151.2 199.9 128.8 99.4 134.8 177.8
1986 149.8 69.4 95.1 91.3 151.2 199.9 128.8 99.4 134.8 177.8
1986 149.8 69.4 95.1 91.3 151.2 199.9 128.8 99.4 134.8 177.8
.0 .0 0
AUG SEP TOTAL
-----------------------
135.4 207.7 1640.6
135.4 207.7 1640.6
135.4 207.7 1640.6
135.4 207.7 1640.6
AVERAGE 149.8 69.4 95.1 91.3 151.2 199.9 128.8
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLO~ RECORDS
99.4 134.8 177.8 135.4 207.7 1640.6
% OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DO~N FOR LO~ FLO~S: 6.0
THE PLANT FACTOR IS .58
.0 .0
w POWER GENERATION w
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: pwfl.prn
FLOW DATA FILE: fwfl.prn
OUTPUT FILE: wfl
WEST FORK LOUD CREEK (12" PE pipe, 1-6 cfs chinese turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPLINE DATA
PIPE
SECT! ON
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIAMETER MANNINGS MINOR
(INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
------~-
550.
2 147.
PROJECT DATA
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION
12.
11.
(FEET) =
ELEVATION AT POWERHOUSE (FEET)
FISH RESERVE FLOW (CFS) =
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLOW EFFIC
10. .6 .000
20. 1.2 74.189
30. 1.8 78.900
40. 2.4 80.100
50. 3.0 81.300
60. 3.6 81.620
70. 4.2 81.940
80. 4.8 82.000
90. 5.4 81.800
100. 6.0 81.200
GENERATOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & SWITCHYARD LOSS
LINE LOSS=
.010
.010
2.0
2.0
175.
18.
.0
.0 PERCENT
3. 0 PERCENT
1.0 PERCENT
STATION POWER REQUIREMENTS = 5.0 PERCENT
.0 .0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 57 KILOWATTS
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCT ION IN MEGA \lA TT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
----------------~------------------------... -------. ----------------------
1986 17.8 5.4 10.5 7.5 16.1 23.7 12.9 7.9 13. 1 21.8 13.7
AVERAGE 17.8 5.4 10.5 7.5 16.1 23.7 12.9 7.9 13.1 21.8 13.7
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOW RECORDS
;; OF THE T!ME PLANT IS SHUT DOWN FOR LOW FLOWS: 16.7
THE ?LANT FACTOR IS .39
.0 .0 .0 .0
SEP TOTAL
------------
29.2 179.6
29.2 179.6
* PO~ER GENERATION *
F!LES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: plcl.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: flc1.prn
OUTPUT FlLE: lc1
LOUD CREEK (16" PE pipe, 1.6-10 cfs standard turbine}
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P!PLINE DATA
PIPE
SECT ION
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIAMETER MANN!NGS
CINCHES) FRICT:ON
MINOR
LOSSES
1 11 DO. 15.
2 750. 14.
3 550. 13.
4 767. 12.
PROJECT DATA
ElEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) =
ElEVATION AT PO~ERHOUSE (FEET)
FISH RESERVE FLO~ (CFS> =
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFFIC
-~ ...... ... --·~~~
10. 1 ,.0 .000
20. 2.0 79.389
30. 3.0 86.900
40. 4.0 84.700
50. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83.100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERATOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & S~ITCHYARD LOSS
Ll NE lOSS=
STATION POWER REQUIREMENTS =
.010
.010
.010
.010
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
558.
18.
.o
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
1. 0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
.0 .o
THE EFFECTIVE CAPAClfY OF THE UNITS IS 315 KILO~ATTS
.0 .0 . 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGA~ATT·HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 139.8 66.4 39.3 88.8 141.8 182.9 124.7 96.6 129.2
1986 139.8 66.4 89.3 88.8 141.8 182.9 124.7 96.6 129.2
1986 139.8 66.4 89.3 88.8 141.8 182.9 124.7 96.6 129.2
1986 139.8 66.4 89.3 88.8 141.8 182.9 124.7 96.6 129.2
AVERAGE 139.8 66.4 89.3 88.8 141.8 182.9 124.7 96.6 129.2
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLOII RECORDS
OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOliN FOR lOll FLO~S: 6.0
THE PLANT FACTOR !S .61
.0 . 0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
164.7 129.2 188.4 1541.8
164.7 129.2 188.4 1541.8
164.7 129.2 188.4 1541.8
164.7 129.2 188.4 1541.8
164.7 129.2 188.4 1541.8
********************
• PO~ER GENERATION*
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: plc2.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: flc1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: lc2
C.OUD CREEK (12 11 PE pioe, 1.6·10 cfs standard turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
~!Pl!NE DATA
PIPE LENGTH DIAMETER MANN!NGS MINOR
SECTION (FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION LOSSES
1100. 12.
2 750. 11.
3 550. 10.
4 767. 10.
PROJECT DATA
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) =
ELEVATION AT PO~ERHOUSE (FEET)
FISH RESERVE FLOW (CFS)
TURBINE EFFICIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT FLO~ EFFIC
,. _____________
10 ~ 1.0 .000
20. 2.0 75.833
30. 3.0 80.500
40. 4.0 81.500
50. 5.0 82.500
60. 6.0 83. 100
70. 7.0 83.700
80. 8.0 83.933
90. 9.0 83.800
100. 10.0 82.700
GENERATOR LOSS=
7RANSFORMER & S~ITCHYARD LOSS
Ll NE LOSS=
STATION PO~ER REQUIREMENTS
.010
.010
.010
.010
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
558.
18.
.0
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
1.0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
.0 .0
THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF THE UNITS IS 174 K ILO~A TTS
.0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV ClEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1986 100.9 53.4 66.2 76.6 105.6 119.2 108.8 83.8 106.7
1986 100.9 53.4 66.2 76.6 105.6 119.2 108.8 83.8 106.7
1986 100.9 53.4 66.2 76.6 105.6 119.2 108.8 83.8 106.7
1986 100.9 53.4 66.2 76.6 '05.6 119.2 108.8 83.8 106.7
AVERAGE 100.9 53.4 66.2 76.6 105.6 119.2 108.8 83.8 106.7
NOTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLO~ RECORDS
~ OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DOWN FOR LOW FLO~S: 6.0
;HE PLANT FACTOR IS .83
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
114.6 103.9 116.2 1155.9
114.6 103.9 116.2 1155.9
114.6 103.9 116.2 1155.9
114.6 103.9 1i6.2 1155.9
114.6 103.9 116.2 1155.9
********************
• PO~ER GENERATION *
********************
FILES USED:
PLANT DATA FILE: plc3.prn
FLO~ DATA FILE: flc1.prn
OUTPUT FILE: lc3
LOUD CREEK (16" PE pipe, 1·6 cfs chinese turbine)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PIPL!NE DATA
PIPE
SECTION
LENGTH DIAMETER MANNINGS
(FEET) (INCHES) FRICTION
MINOR
LOSSES
1100. 15.
2 750. 14.
3 550. 13.
4 767. 12.
PROJECT DATA
---------
ELEVATION OF DIVERSION (FEET) =
ELEVATION AT POWERHOUSE (FEET)
•ISH RESERVE FLOW (CFS) =
TURBINE EFfiCIENCY CURVE:
PERCENT fLO~ EfFIC
... _____ --
10. .6 .000
20. 1.2 74.189
30. 1.8 78.900
40. 2.4 80.100
50. 3.0 81.300
60. 3.6 81.620
70. 4.2 81.940
80. 4.8 82.000
90. 5.4 81.800
100. 6.0 81.200
GENERATOR LOSS=
TRANSFORMER & SWITCHYARD LOSS
LrNE LOSS=
STATION POWER REQUIREMENTS =
.010
.010
.010
.010
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
558.
18.
.0 .0
.0 PERCENT
3.0 PERCENT
1.0 PERCENT
5.0 PERCENT
.0
YHE EFFECTIVE CAPAC! TY OF THE UNITS IS 209 KILOWATTS
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
~-------------------------------------------------·------.. .... ----------------
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9 128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9 128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9 128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
1986 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9 128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
AVERAGE 112.9 59.3 84.2 84.1 116.8 135.3 119.4 89.6 114.9 128.6 112.3 135.0 1292.4
~OTE: PRODUCTION IS COMPUTED FROM SYNTHESIZED DAILY FLO~ RECORDS
OF THE TIME PLANT IS SHUT DO~N FOR LO~ FLO~S: 1.9
THE PLANT FACTOR IS .77
.0 .0
APPENDIX 5
Cost Estimates
OTT ENGINEERING Alaska Energy Authority AKBST1
AKUTAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 0 1-Dec-89
CASE 1 NORTH CREEK SITE -AKUTAN LOAD ONLY
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ( 1989 Dollars l
FERC Description Quan-Unit Unit Allount($)
A/C No. tity Price
330 MOBILIZATION AHD LOGISTICS
.11 Freight, Seattle to Dutch Harbor 1 L.S . $50,000 $50,000
. lZ Barge Lease for Staging Area Z8 Days $1,000 $28,000
.13 Boat Rental 30 Days $100 $3,000
.14 Construction Surveys 1 L.S. $6,000 $6,000
.15 Heavy Rquip1ent rental 2 Month 8300 $16,600
.16 Helicopter 1 L.S. $87,000 $87,000
.17 Air travel to Akutan 17 Trips $768 $13,056
.18 Subsistence 272 Days $1%0 $U,640
------------
$236,296
Subtotal -A/C No. 330.5 -Mobilization and Logistics $236,296
-----· ...... --
331 STRUCTURES AND IKPROVRKRNTS
331 .1 POWERHOUSE
.11 Excavation, soil 500 C.Y. no $5,000
.12 Excavation, rock 3Z5 C.Y. $75 $24,375
.13 Concrete (including reinforcing) 15 C.Y. $650 $9,750
.14 Structural Steel 4,000 Lb. $2.50 $10,000
.15 Ketal Fabrications 2,000 Lb. $3.00 S6' 000
.16 Partition Valls 1 L.S. u ,000 $1,000
.17 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S. $2,000 $2,000
.18 Pre-eng'd Metal Superstructure 528 S. F • $45.00 $23,760
. 19 HVAC and Plu1bing 1 L.S . $5,000 $5,000
• 20 Grounding Grid 1 L.S. $3,000 $3,000
--·---... -----
Subtotal Powerhouse $89,885
Subtotal -A/C No. 331 -Structures and Improvements $89,885
.,._.., _______
332 RESBRVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
332 0 1 TIMBRR DAMS
• 11 Additional mobilitation etc • (transport
of equip l aaterial to site) 1 L.S . $1,500 $1,500
. 12 Diversion and care of Water 1 L.S . $1,500 $1,500
. 13 Com•on Rzcavation 30 c. y. $150 $4,500
.14 Rock Excavation 9 C.Y. $200 !1.800
.15 Grouting and Backfill 40 L.F. $50 $2! 000
.16 Rock Bolts 85 L.F . $50 H, Z50
. 17 Concrete 5 C.Y. $700 $3,150
.18 Rock Revetllent 1Z C.Y. $250 $3,000
.19 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.2 Acre $2,500 $500
.20 Lumber and Carpentry 1 L.S. $15 '000 $15,000 __ ... _________
Subtotal -Ti11ber Da11s $37' 200
CASE 1 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 1
33Z .2 INTAKE
.21 Trench Excavation and Backfill 50 L.F . $30 $1,500
. zz Trash rack Each $1' 000 $1,000
.23 Intake Manifold Each $1,000 i 1, 0 00
.24 16-inch diameter Butterfly Valve Each $41000 $4,000
.25 5-inch dia1eter Valved Bypass Each $2,000 $2,000 _______ ... ____
Subtotal -Intake $9,500
332 .30 ABOVE GROUND PENSTOCK
'31 Clearing 0.0 Acre $0 $0
.32 Excavation (by hand) 20 C.Y. $75.00 $1,500
.33 Foundation Preparation 1 L.S . $2 1 5 00 $Z,500
. 3 4 Grouted Rock Anchors 520 L.F. $50.00 $261 OOQ
.35 Concrete in Anchor l Thrust Blocks 15 C. Y. $700 $10,500
.36 Structural Steel 3,000 Lb. $2' 50 $7,500
.37 FG Penstock, 16 inch diameter 2,320 L.F. $50 U!S,COO
'J s FG Penstock, 10 inch diameter 800 L.F. $30 $24,000
.39 Revegetation and Erosion Control 1.0 Acre U,500 $2,500 _______ ............ _
Subtotal -Above-ground Penstock $190,500
3 32 • 40 TAILRACE (Included in Power House Estimate) $0
Sabtotal -A/C No. 332 -Reservoirs, dams, Waterways 237,200
----------
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
' 11 Use Chinese turbine and generator
200 KV @ 6 CFS, Retrofit with
reMote actuated inlet valve.
2.4/4.16 kv 3 phase synchronous Each $50,000 $50,000
.13 Prefab & Install turbine-generators L.S. $20' 000 $20,000
$70,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 333 -Turbines and Generators $70,000
CASE 1 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIHATR PAGE 2
334 ACCESSORY E~ECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
' 11 Switchgear at Hydro-generator breaker $30,000 $30,000
protective relaying, space for control
'12 Control Coaputer bardware -to control $12,000 $12,000
needle valve and water level at daa
with power from station battery
.13 Control Panel at Akutan end $10,000 $10,000
.14 level sensing, daa site, w/ install $3,000 $3,000
'15 Control Cable up to daa w/ installation 3500 u $71000
'16 Station Battery for controls, coaputer $41000 $4,000
comaunications, and switchgear
.11 Station Battery Charger S1,800 $1,800
'18 Communications Link to Akutan Plant VHF no,ooo $20,000
or microwave or cable
.19 Mise lighting, conduit, sockets, etc. $5,000 $5,000
.zo Labor to prefab in Seattle
1 man 120 hrs i $55 $6,600 $6,600
. 21 Labor to install in Akutan
Z men 80 hrs i $100 $16,000 $16,000
.zz Programming and debugging coaputer L.S. $20,000 uo,ooo
including site visits
------------
$135,400
Subtotal -A/C No. 334 -Accessory Elect. Equip. $135,400
----------
335 MISCEL~ANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
. 11 2-ton Overhead Bridge Crane Bach $5,000 $5,000
.12 Miscellaneous Rquip1ent L.S. $5,000 $5,000
____ .................. --
$10,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment $10,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.11 Land Rights -Transaission Facil. ~.s. so $0
------------
Subtotal -A/C No. 330 -Land and Land Rights so
CASE 1 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST RSTIKATB P&GB 3
356 UNDERWATER CONDUCTORS, UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS, AND DEVICES
North Creek to Trident to Village underwater cable
, 11 1 inch cable URD type 20400
.:2 Underwater Placement 1
.13 Direct Burial in Roadway $20/ft 2700
, 14 Disconnect Switch -Padmount-Three way
.15 Stepdown Transformer 500 KVA
. 16 Labor to install switch and Transformer
And Work at Trident
. 17 Hisc Materials, splices, terminations,
sectionalizing cabinets, etc
Subtotal -A/C No. 356 -Overhead conductors, etc
$2' 15 $43,860
$100,000 $100,000
$20 $54,000
$12,000 $12,000
$12,000 $12,000
$12,000 $12,000
$10,000 $10,000
------------
$243,860
CASE 1 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 4
$243,860
----------
FERC
Alaska Energy Authority
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT
CASE 1 NORTH CREEK SITE -AKUTAN LOAD ONLY
SUMMARY OF DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (!989 Dollars)
A/C No. Description
330 Mobiligation and Logistics
331 Structures and I~provemen~s
33Z Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
333 Turbines and Generators
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
350 Land and Land Rights
356 Underwater Conductors and Devices
SUBTOTAL, ESTIMATED COSTS
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Engineering and Administration t
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Amount($1
$236,296
$89,885
$237.200
$70,000
$135,400
$10,000
$0
$243,360
$1,022,641
!5.0S $153,396
$1,176,037
16.0~ $188,166
$l 13641203 ________ .,. __ _
------------
*Covering permitting and licensing (lS), design and specification (8~).
legal and financial fees (2~) and construction management (5~)
CASE 1 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGB 5
JTT ENGINEERING Alaska Energy Authority ARESTZ
AKUTAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 0 1-Dec-89
CASE 2 LOUD CREEK SITE -AKUTAN VILLAGE LOAD ONLY
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ( 1989 Dollars)
FERC Description Quan-Unit Unit Allount!$)
A/C No. tity Price
330 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS
.11 Freight, Seattle to Dutch Harbor 1 ~.s. !50,000 $50,000
.12 Barge Lease for Staging Area 28 Days t1' 000 $28,000
.13 Boat Rental 30 Days $100 $3,000
.!4 Construction Surveys 1 L.S. $6,000 $6,000
. 15 Heavy Bquipaent rental 2 Month 8300 S16,600
.16 Helicopter 1 L.S. $87,000 t87' 000
.17 Air travel to Akutan 17 Trips $158 $13,056
.18 Subsistence 272 Days $120 $32,640
------------
$236,296
Subtotal -A/C No. 330.5 -Hobilizatioft and Logistics $236,296 ____ .., __ .,..,._
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
3 31 .1 POWERHOUSE
. 11 Ercavation, soil 500 C.Y . $10 $5.000
'n Excavation, rock 325 C.Y. $75 $24,375 • I G
. 13 Concrete (including reinforcing) 15 C.Y. $650 $9,750
. 14 Structural Steel 4,000 Lb . $Z.SO $10,000
. 15 Metal Fabrications 2,000 Lb • $3.00 $6,000
.16 Partition Walls 1 L .S. $1,000 $1,000
. 17 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S. $2,000 t2, 000
.18 Pre-eng'd Metal Superstructure 5Z8 S.F. $45.00 $23,160
.19 HVAC and Plumbing 1 L.S. $5.000 $5,000
.zo Grounding Grid 1 L.S. $3.000 $3,000
------------
Subtotal -Powerhouse $89,885
Subtotal -A/C No. 331 -Structures and rmproveaents $89.885
----------
332 RESERVOIRS, DAKS AND WATERWAYS
3 3 2 . 1 TIMBER DAMS
. 11 Additional mobilization etc . itransport
of equip l material to site) 1 L.S • $1,500 $1,500
. 12 Diversion and care of Water I L.S. $1,500 $1,500
. 13 Common Excavation 30 C.Y. $150 $4,500
.14 P.ock Excavation 9 C.Y . $200 $1,800
. 15 Grouting and Backfill 40 L.F. $50 $2,000
.16 Rock Bolts 85 L. F . t50 $4.Z50
. 11 Concrete 5 C.Y. $700 $3' 150
.18 Rock Revet11ent lZ C.Y. mo $3,000
.19 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.2 Acre $2,500 $500
.20 Luaber and Carpentry L.S. $15,000 $15,000 ________ ,.. ...... _
Subtotal -Ti11ber Dams $37.200
CA'-€. :::_ AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST RSTrMATE PAGE 1
3 3 2 '2 INTAKE
.u Trench Excavation and Backfill 50 L.F . $30
. 22 Trash rack Each $1' 000
.23 Intake Hanifold Bach $1,000
.24 16-inch diaaeter Butterfly Valve Each $4,000
. 25 S-inch diameter Valved Bypass Each $21000
Subtotal -Intake
332 .30 ABOVE GROUND PENSTOCK
'31 Clearing 0.0 Acre $0
.32 Excavation (by hand) 20 C.Y. $75.00
.33 Foundation Preparation l L.S. $2,500
.34 Grouted Rock Anchors 520 L. F. $50.00
.35 Concrete in Anchor l Thrust Blocks 15 C.Y • $?00
. 36 Structural Steel 2,000 Lb. $2.50
'3 7 FG Penstock, 16 inch diameter 3 t 16 7 L.F . S47
. 39 Revegetation and Erosion Control 1.0 Acre $Z,500
Subtotal -Above-ground Penstock
m .4o TAILRACE (Included in Power House Estimate)
Subtotal -A/C No. 332 -Reservoirs, dams, Waterways
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.11 Chinese turbine 210 KW@ 6 CFS,
retrofit to reaote
actuated inlet valve,(needle)
4.15/2.4 KV 3 pb. synchronous
.13 Prefab & Install turbine-generators
Each
L.S.
Subtotal -A/G No. 333 -Turbines and Generators
$50,000
$20,000
$1,500
$1,000
n. ooo
S4.000
$Z,OOO
------------
39,500
$0
$1.500
$21500
$26' 000
$10,500
$5.000
$148.849
l2 1500 _______ .......... _
$196,849
$0
$50.000
$20,000
$70,000
~.e:.:;}~. ·--:., AKUTAN HYDRC PROJECT COST BSTIHATR PAGE :
243,549 _________ ...
$70,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
. ll Switchgear at Hydro-generator breaker $30,000 $30,000
protective relaying, space for control
.12 Control Computer hardware -to control $12,000 $12, ~00
needle valve and water level at daa
with power from station battery
'13 Sontrol Panel at Akutan end $10,000 $10,000
.14 level sensing, daa site, w/ install $3,000 $3,000
'15 Control Cable up to dam w/ installation 3500 $2 $7' 000
.16 Station Battery for controls, c'ollputer $4' 000 $4,000
com11unications, and switchgear
'11 Station Battery Charger tl 1 8 QQ $1 1 800
.18 Com11unications Link to Akutan Plant VHF $20,000 $20,000
or 11icrowave or cable
' 19 Mise lighting, conduit, sockets, etc. $5,000 $5,000
.20 Labor to prefab in Seattle
1 man 120 hrs @ $55 $6,600 $6,600
.21 Labor to install in Akutan
2 men 80 hrs 8 $100 $16,000 $16,000
.22 Programming and debugging coaputer L.S. $20' 000 $20,000
including site visits -...... -........... _ ... __
$135,400
Subtotal -AIC No. 334 -Accessory Klect. Equip. $1351400
_,....,. .. _.,. ____
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
' 11 2-ton Overhead Bridge Crane Each $5,000 $5,000
.ll Miscellaneous Equipment L .S. $5,000 $5.000 _.,. __________
$10,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 335 -Hisc. Mechanical Equipment $10,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
' 11 Land Rigbts -Transmission Facil. L.S. $0 $0 .,. ___________
Subtotal -A/C No. 330 -Land and Land Rights $0
~;,::E AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST BSTIHATB PAGE 3
356 UNDERWATER CONDUCTORS, UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS, AND DEVICES
. 11
.12
Loud Creek to Akutan Underwater Cable
Material
Underwater Placement
.14 Disconnect Switch -Padmount-one way
. 15 Stepdown Transformer 500 KVA
.16 Labor to install switch and Transformer
at Trident and Akutan Power House
.17 Mise Materials, splices, terminations.
sectionalizing cabinets, etc
13500
1
Subtotal -A/C No. 356 -Overhead conductors, etc
$2.15 $29,025
$150,000 $150.000
$6,000 $6.000
$12,000 $12,000
$25,000 $25 t 000
$15,000 $15,000
-·----------
$237.025
........ ~ ·,..--AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 4
$237,025
----------
Alaska Energy Authority
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT
CASE 2 ~OUD CREEK SITE -AKUTAN VILLAGE ~DAD ONLY
SUMMARY OF DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1989 Dollarsl
FHRC
A/C No. Description
330 Mobiligation and Logistics
331 Structures and Improveaents
332 Reservoirs, Da1s and Waterways
jJJ Turbines and Generators
334 Accessory Electrical Equipaent
335 Misc. Mechanical Kquipaent
3 50 Land and Land Rights
356 Underwater Conductors and Devices
SUBTOTAL, ESTIMATED COSTS
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Engineering and Adainistration t
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
15.0%
16.0l
Aaount(S)
$236,296
$89,885
$243,549
$70,000
$135,400
$10,000
$0
$237,025
$1,022,155
$1531323
$1,175,478
$188,077
$1' 363.555 ,.._,.. __ .., ______ __ .. _ ... ___ ... .,._ ..
t Covering permitting and licensing (1~), design and specification (8l),
legal and financial fees (2ll and construction 1anageaent (5l)
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 5
j'fT ENGIWEERING Alaska Energy Authority
AKUTAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
AIRST3
01-Dec-89
FERC
A/C No.
330
331
. 11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
'17
.18
331 .1
'11
' 12
.13
.H
'15
.16
332
'17
.18
'19
.20
33 2 . I
' 11
.1 z
.13
.14
'15
' 16
'11
.18
'19
.20
CASE 3 NORTH CREBK -AKUTAN t TRIDENT LOAD
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1989 Dollars!
Description
MOBILIZATION ANTI LOGISTICS
Freight, Seattle to Dutch Harbor
Barge Lease for Staging Area
Boat Rental
Construction Surveys
Heavy Equipment rental
Helicopter
Air travel to Akutan
Subsistence
Quan-
tity
1
28
30
I
2
I
17
212
Jnit
L.S.
Days
Days
L.S.
Month
L.S.
Trips
Days
Unit
Price
$50,000
$1 '000
$100
$6,000
8300
$&7,000
$768
$120
Subtotal -A/C No. 330.5 -Mobilization and Logistics
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
POWERHOUSE
Excavation, soil
Excavation, rock
Concrete iincluding reinforcing)
Structural Steel
Metal Fabrications
Partition Walls
Furnishings and Fixtures
Pre-eng'd Ketal Superstructure
HVAC and Plumbing
Grounding Grid
500
325
15
4,000
2.000
1
I
528
I
I
Subtotal -Powerhouse
C. Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
Lb.
Lb.
L.S.
L.S.
S.F.
L.S.
L.S.
$10
$75
$550
$2.50
$3.00
Sl. 000
$2,000
$45.00
$5,000
$3,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 331 -Structures and Improvements
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
TIMBER DAMS
Additional ~obilization etc. {transport
of equip l material to site!
Diversion and care of Water
Common Excavation
Rock Excavation
Grouting and Backfill
Rock Bolts
Concrete
Rock Revetment
Revegetation and Erosion Control
Lumber and Carpentry
1
1
30
~
40
85
12
0.2
1
Subtotal -Timber Dams
L.S.
L.S.
C.Y.
C.Y.
L.F.
L.F.
C.Y.
C.Y.
Acre
L.S.
$1. 5 00
$1.500
$150
$200
$50
$50
$700
$250
$2,500
$15' 000
Allount($)
$50,000
S28,000
S3,000
$6,000
$16,600
$87,000
$13.056
$32.640
$236.296
$5.000
$Z4,375
$9,750
SJO,OOO
$6.000
$1,000
$2.000
$23.760
$5,000
$3,000
$89.885
s 1,500
$1.5 00
$4,500
$1,300
$2,000
$4.250
S3,150
$3,000
$500
$15.000
$37.200
CASH 3 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 1
$236,296
$89,885
S32 . Z INTAKE
. z 1 Trench Excavation and Backfill 50 L.F. $~0 $1 '500
.22 Trash rack 1 Each $1,000 $1,000
.23 Intake Manifold 1 Each $1,000 $1,000
.24 16-incb diaaeter Butterfly Valve 1 Each $4,000 $4' 000
.25 6-incb diameter Valved Bypass 1 Each $1,000 $2,000
------------
Subtotal -Intake $9,500
332 .30 ABOVE GROUND PENSTOCK
. 31 Clearing o.o Acre $0 $0
.3Z Excavation (by hand) 20 C.Y. $75.00 $1.500
.33 Foundation Preparation 1 L.S. $2, 5 00 $2,500
.34 Grouted Rock Anchors 520 L.F. sso.oo $26,000
.35 Concrete in Anchor l Thrust Blocks 12 c. Y. $700 $8,400
. 36 Structural Steel 3,000 Lb . u.so $? ,5 00
.37 FG Penstock, 16 inch diaaeter 2,320 L.F. $50 Ul6.000
.38 FG Penstock. 10 inch diaaeter 800 L.F. $30 S24,000
. 3 9 Revegetation and Erosion Control 1.0 Acre $2,500 $2,500 __ ... _____ ...........
Subtotal -Above-ground Penstock $188,400
332 .40 TAILRACE (Included in Power House Estimate) $0
Subtotal -A/C No. 332 -Reservoirs, dams. Waterways 235,100
_.., ________
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
' 11 Furnish 1-10 cfs horizontal-shaft
impulse turbine, including remote
actuated inlet valve,(needlel
330 KW @ 10 CFS 480 v 3 ph. synchronous Each $150,000 $150.000
.13 Prefab l Install turbine-generators L.S. $20,000 S20,000
$170.000
Subtotal -A/C No. 333 -Turbines and Generators $170,000
CASH 3 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST KSTIHATB PAGR 2
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.II Switchgear at Hydro-generator breaker $30,000 $30,000
protective relaying, space for control
.12 Control Computer hardware -to control $12,000 $12,000
needle valve and water level at dam
with power from station battery
. 13 Control Panel at Akutan end $10,000 $10,000
.14 level sensing, da11 site, w/ install $3,000 ~3,000
.15 Control Cable up to da1 w/ installation 3500 $2 $7,000
.16 Station Battery for controls, computer $4' 000 $4' 000
communications, and switchgear
.17 Station Battery Charger s 1,800 $1,800
.18 Communications Link to Akutan Plant VHF $20,000 $20,000
or microwave or cable
. 19 Mise lighting, conduit, sockets, etc. $5,000 S5,000
.20 Labor to prefab in Seattle
I man 120 brs @ $55 $6,600 $6,600
.21 Labor to install in Akutan
Z men 80 hrs @ $100 $16,000 $16,000
.22 PrograMming and debugging co11puter L. S. szo,ooo $20,000
including site visits
------------
$135,400
Subtotal -A/C No. 334 -Accessory Elect. Equip. $135,400
----------
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
.11 ~-ton Overhead Bridge Crane Each $5,000 $5,000
. 12 Miscellaneous Equip1ent L.S. $5,000 $5,000
------------
$10,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 335 -Misc. Mechanical Equipment $10,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
. II Land Rights -Transmission Facil . L.S. $0 to
------------
Subtotal -A/C No. 330 -Land and Land Rights so
CASE 3 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST BSTIHATB PAGE 3
356 UNDERWATER CONDUCTORS, UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS, AND DEVICES
Loud Creek to Akutan Underwater Cable
.11 Material 1 ph URD type cable 20400
.12 Underwater Place11ent I
. 13 Direct Burial in Roadway $20/ft 2700
.14 Disconnect Switch -Padmount-Three way
.15 Stepdown Transformer 500 KVA
. 16 Labor to install switch and Transformer
at Trident and Akutan Power House
.17 Mise Materials, splices, terminations,
sectionalizing cabinets, etc
Subtotal -A/C No. 356 -Overhead conductors, etc
$2 .15 $43,860
$100,000 $100,000
$20 $54,000
$12,000 $12.000
$12,000 $36,000
$25,000 $25,000
$15,000 $15,000
------------
$285,860
CASE 3 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIHATB PAGE 4
$285,860
----------
Alaska Energy Authority
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT
CASE 3 NORTH CREEK -AKUTAN + TRIDENT LOAD
SUHHARY OF DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1989 Dollars)
FERC
A/C No. ;)escription
330 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reser,oirs, Dams and Waterways
333 Turbines and Generators
334 Accessory 8lectrical Equipaent
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
350 Land and Land Rights
356 Underwater Conductors and Devices
SUBTOTAL, ESTIMATED COSTS
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Engineering and Administration t
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
hountitl
$236.296
S89,885
$235,100
$170,000
$135,400
$10,000
tO
$285,850
U,l62.5H
15.01 U?4,381
$1,336,922
16.01 $213,908
$1.550,830
............... ------------------
t Covering permitting and licensing (IS), design and specification 18%),
legal and financial fees 12%) and construction manage1ent t5%)
CASH 3 AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 5
:)TT ENGINEERING Alaska Energy Authority AKEST4
AKUTAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 01-Dec-89
CASH 4 LOUD CRHHK SITE -AKUTAN + TRIDENT LOAD
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE I 1989 Dollars)
FERC Description Quan-Unit Unit Aaount!$1
A/C No. tity Price
330 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS
. 11 Freight, Seattle to Dutch Harbor 1 L.S. $50,000 $50.000
.12 Barge Lease for Staging Area 28 Days $1 '000 $28,000
.13 Boat Rental 30 Days $100 $3,000
.14 Construction Surveys I L.S. $6,000 $6,000
.15 Heavy Equipaent rental z Month 8300 $16,600
.16 Helicopter L.S. $87,000 $87,000
.17 Air travel to Akutan 11 Trips $768 $13,056
.18 Subsistence 272 Days $120 $32,640 _ .. ______ .., ___
$236.296
Subtotal -A/C No. 330.5 -Hobili~ation and Logistics W6,296
.... --------
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
331 '1 POWERHOUSE
. II Excavation, soil 500 C.Y. $10 $5,000
.12 Excavation, rock m C.Y. $75 $24.315
' !3 Concrete (including reinforcing) 15 C.Y. $650 $9,150
.14 Structural Steel 4,000 Lb. $2.50 $10,000
'15 Hetal Fabrications 2,000 Lb. $3.00 $6,000
'16 Partition Walls L.S. $1.000 $11000
'17 Furnishings and Fixtures L.S. $Z 1000 $2,000
' 18 Pre-eng'd Metal Superstructure 528 S.F. $45.00 $23,760
'19 HVAC and Plumbing L.S . $5,000 $5,000
. 20 Grounding Grid L.s. $3,000 t3' 000 ..... __________
Subtotal -Powerhouse $89,885
Subtotal -A/C No. 331 -Structures and Improvements $89,885
----·-----
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
332 .! TIMBER DAMS
. 11 Additional mobili~ation etc . (transport
of equip l material to site) 1 L.S. $1 1 5 00 $1,500
.12 Diversion and care of Water 1 L.S. $1,500 $1,500
'13 Common Excavation 30 C.Y . $150 $4 1 5 00
. 14 Rock Excavation C.Y. $200 $1,800
'15 Grouting and Backfill 40 L.F. $50 $2,000
'16 Rock Bolts 85 L. F . $50 $41 25 0
. 17 Concrete C.Y. $700 $3' 15 0
'18 Rock Revet1ent 12 C.Y. $250 $3,000
.19 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.2 Acre $2,500 $500
.20 Lumber and Carpentry 1 L.S. $15,000 $15,000 _____ ... ______
Subtotal -Timber Daas $37,200
.·.~:...::-a:. AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST BSTIHATR PAGE 1
332 . ~ INTAKE
. 21 Trench Excavation and Backfill 50 L.F . $30
.~2 Trash rack l Each $1,000
.23 Intake Manifold I Each $1 '000
.24 16-inch diaaeter Butterfly Valve 1 Each $4' 000
.25 6-inch diaaeter Valved Bypass 1 Each $2,000
Subtotal -Intake
332 .30 ABOVE GROUND PENSTOCK
.31 Clearing o.o Acre $0
.32 Excavation (by handl 20 C.Y. $75.00
.33 Foundation Preparation 1 L.S. $2,500
'3 4 Grouted Roci Anchors 520 L.F . $50.00
. 35 Concrete in Anchor l Thrust Blocks 15 C.Y. $700
.3£ Structural Steel 2,000 Lb. $2.50
• 37 FG Penstock, 16 inch dia1eter 3.167 L. F . $47
. 38 FG Penstock, 10 inch diameter ?00 L.F. $30
'3 9 Revegetation and Erosion Control 1.0 Acre $2,500
Subtotal -Above-ground Penstock
332 .40 TAILRACE (Included in Power House Bstimatel
Subtotal -A/C No. 332 -Reservoirs, da1s, Waterways
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.11 Furnish 1-10 cfs hori!ontal-shaft
i~pulse turbine, including reaote
actuated inlet valve,(needle)
350 KW i 10 CFS 480 v 3 ph. synchronous
.12 furnish .5-3 cfs horilontal-shaft
pu1p turbine, including remote
actuated inlet valve ineedle!
60 KW @ 3 CFS 480 volt 3 ph. induction
.13 Prefab l Install turbine-generators
Each
Bach
L.S.
Subtotal -A(C No. 333 -Turbines and Generators
$150,000
$1 t 500
$1,000
$1,000
$4. 000
$2.000 __________ ... _
$9,500
$0
$1,500
$2,500
$26,000
$10,500
$5,000
$148,849
$21,000
S2' 5 00
------------
$217,849
tO
Sl50, 000
S35,000
$20,000
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE Z
264,549 _____ .,..., ___
$205' 000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.11 Switchgear at Hydro-generator breaker $30,000 $30,000
protective relaying, space for control
.12 Control Computer hardware -to control $12,000 $12,000
needle valve and water level at dam
with power from station battery
. ; 3 Control Panel at Akutan end $10,000 $10,000
.14 level sensing, daa site, w/ install $3,000 $3,000
'15 Control Cable up to dam w/ installation 3500 $2 $7,000
.16 Station Battery for controls, coaputer $4' 000 $4' 000
communications, and switchgear
.1? Station Battery Charger $1 '800 $1,800
'18 Communications Link to Akutan Plant VHF $20,000 $20,000
or microwave or cable
. i 9 Mise lighting, conduit, sockets, etc. $5,000 $5,000
.20 Labor to prefab in Seattle
1 man 120 hrs @ $55 $6,600 $6,600
. 21 Labor to install in Akutan
2 men 80 hrs @ $100 us.ooo $16' 000
.22 Programaing and debugging computer L.s. $ZO,OOO $20,000
including site visits
------------
$135,400
Subtotal -A/C No. 33( -Accessory Elect. Equip. $135,400 ____ ,.. .. ____
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
.11 2-ton Overhead Bridge Crane Each ss.ooo $5,000
.12 Miscellaneous Equipment L.S. $5 '000 $5,000
-----------...
$10,000
Subtotal -A/C No. 335 -Misc. Mechanical Equipaent $10,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.11 Land Rights -Transmission Facil. L.S. $0 $0 ___________ ..,
Subtotal -A/C No. 330 -Land and Land Rights ~0
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJRCT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 3
356 UNDERWATER CONDUCTORS, UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS, AND DEVICES
Loud Creek to Akutan Underwater Cable
.11 Material 13500 $2.15 $29,025
.12 Underwater Place1ent 1 $150,000 $150,000
.13 Direct Burial in Roadwa7 $20/ft 2700 $20 $54,000
.14 Disconnect Switch -Padmount-Three way $12,000 $12,000
. 15 Stepdown Transfor1er 500 KVA $12,000 $24,000
.16 Labor to install switch and Transformer $25,000 us' 000
And Work at Trident
.17 Mise Materials, splices, terminations, $15,000 $15' 000
sectionalizing cabinets, etc
------------
$309,025
Subtotal -A/C No. 356 -Overhead conductors, etc $309,025
----------
.~ t. -_,-"'· AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PAGE 4
Alaska Energy Authority
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJECT
CASE 4 LOUD CREEK SITE · AKUTAN + TRIDENT LOAD
SUMMARY OF DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1989 Dollars)
FERG
A/C No. Description A11ount!$l
330 Mobilization and Logistics U36,Z96
331 Structures and I11provements $89,885
332 Reservoirs, Daas and Waterways $264,549
333 Turbines and Generators $205,000
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $135.400
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment $10,000
:so Land and Land Rights so
355 Underwater Conductors and Devices $3091 025
SUBTOTAL, ESTIMATED COSTS $l,Z50,!55
Contingency Allowance 15.0~ $187,523
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST $1,437,678
Engineering and Administration t 16.0~ $230.029
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,66?. 707
------------------------
:Covering permitting and licensing (1%), design and specification (81),
legal and financial fees (2%) and construction 1anagement (51)
AKUTAN HYDRO PROJRCT COST ESTIHATB PAGB 5
APPENDIX 6
Transmission Cable Data
•
A----
F
A Conductor-Stranded
Aluminum
B Strand Screen-
Extruded Sem1conductmg
C lnsulation-Okoguard
D Insulation Screen-
Extruded Sem1conductmg
::Outer Conductor-Bare
Copper Wires
F Jacket-Okolene
Section 2: Sheet 28
Okoguard U RO-J
15kV Underground Primary Distribution Cable-Jacketed
Aluminum Conductor/90C Rating lfi:'\
100% and 133% Insulation Levels ~
Insulation
Okoguard is Okonite's registered trade
name for its exclusive ethylene-propy-
lene base. thermosetting compound,
whose optimum balance of electrical
and physical properties is unequalled
in other solid dielectrics. The clean red
color of Okoguard is the resu It of an
evolutionary development in ethylene-
propylene rubber compounding to gain
greater dependability of the electrical
characteristics.
An insulation screen of ethylene-propy-
lene rubber is extruded over the insula-
tion. The copper concentric wires are
uniformly spaced around the insula-
tion screen. The overall polyethylene
jacket provides protection against
mechanical damage and corrosion.
Applications
Okoguard U RC>-J cables provide max-
imum circuit longevity in underground
residential distribution systems. They can
be buried directly or installed in under-
ground ducts or conduits.
Specifications
Central Conductor: Aluminum per
ASTM 8-233, Class 8 stranded per
8-231.
Conductor Screen: Extruded semicon-
ducting ethylene-propylene rubber
meets or exceeds the requirements of
ICEA S-68-516 and AEIC CS6.
Insulation: Extruded Okoguard meets
or exceeds the requirements of ICEA
5-68-51 6 for ethylene-propylene rubber
and AEIC CS6.
Insulation Screen: Extruded semicon-
ducttng ethylene-propylene rubber meets
or exceeds the requirements of ICEA
S-68-516 and AEIC CS6.
Outer Conductor: Bare copper wires.
Jacket: Black Okolene meets or exceeds
the requirements of ICEA 5-68-516 for
polyethylene jackets. Complies with UL
1072 lor Type MV-90 cables.
Product Features
• Okoguard cables meet or exceed
NEMA/ICEA standards.
• 90C continuous operating
temperature
130C emergency rating
250C short circuit rating
• Excellent corona resistance.
• Low dielectric constant and power
factor.
• Screens are clean stripping.
• Exceptional resistance to "treeing".
• Moisture resistant.
• Overall jacket provides extended life.
• Excellent resistance to most
chemicals.
• Listed as Type MV-90 for use in
accordance with Article 326 of the NEC.
Additional Information
For information on the complete line of
URO cables refer to the Okonite
Bulletin URC, Okoguard Premium
Underground Residential Distribution
Cables.
Okoguard U RO-J
15kV Underground Primary Distribution Cable-Jacketed
Aluminum Conductor/90C Rating
100% Insulation Level
Okoguard Insulation: 175 mils 100% Insulation Level
11 28·23·9234 2(7x) 0.68 0.75 10 X 14
128·23·9236 1(19x) 0.72 0.79 13 X 14
iA 128·23-9131 1/0(19x) 0.76 0.83 16 X 14
128·23·9202 2/0(19x) 0.81 0.87 13 X 12
1 28-23-9242 3/0(19x) 0.86 0.92 16 X 12
1 28-23-9244 4/0(19x) 0.91 0.98 13 X 10
128-23-9246 250(37x) 0.97 1.04 16 X 10
1 28-23-9248 350(37x) 1.07 1.16 20 X 10
1/3 NEUTRAL
1 28-23-9204 2(7x) 0.68 0.75 6 X 14
1 28-23-9207 1 (19x) 0.72 0.79 6 X 14
1 28-23-9208 1/0(19xl 0.76 0.83 6 X 14
Ia 128-23-9198 2/0(19x) 0.81 0.87
I
7x14
128-23-9213 3/0(19x) 0.86 0.92 9 X 14
128-23-9214 4/0(19x) 0.91 0.98 11 X 14
128·23-9216 250(37x) 0.97 1.04 13 X 14
128-23-9218 350(37x) 1.07 1.16 18 X 14
128-23-9220 500(37x) 1.20 1.29 16 X 12
128-23-9222 750(61 X) 1.39 1.48 15 X 10
1 28-23-9224 1 000(61 X) 1.54 1.65 20 X 10
A Authorized Stock Item· Available from Customer Serv1ce Centers.
Ampacltles
(1) Ampaclties are based on ICE A S-68-516. Appendix 1 tor 90"C
conductor operating temperature. 20"C ambient temperature.
100% load factor and an earth thermal resistivity of RH0-90.
1.01 555
1.05 630
1.09 710
1 .1 7 845
1.22 970
1.32 1175
1.37 1345
1.50 1660
1.01 505
1.05 545
1.09 590
1.14 655
1.19 740
1.24 845
1.30 945
1.43 1190
1.59 1545
1.90 2215
2.07 2760
~ fil'A.,-...._-....... ; ', ··~<t .......... • "-, ~ v u u ""'~ !;,.,'at..=.
Section 2: Sheet 28
645 165 120
720 185 135
805 210 155
940 240 175
1075 270 200
1295 310 230
1465 340 255
1840 405 300
595 155 135
635 175 155
680 200 175
745 230 200 I
835 260 230
950 290 240
1065 320 260
1315 380 320
1720 455 385
2465 555 470
3160 645 550
•
•
Okoguard U RO-J
15kV Underground Primary Distribution Cable-Jacketed
Aluminum Conductor/90C Rating til.\
133% Insulation Level ~
I FULL NEUTRAL
128-23-9284
1 28-23-9286
1 28-23-9288
1 28-23-9290
1 28-23-9292
128-23-9294
128-23-9296
1 28-23·9298
1/3 NEUTRAL
1 28-23-9278
128-23-9256
128-23-9258
128-23-9260
--128 23 9262
1 28-23-9264
128-23-9266
1 28-23-9268
128-23-9270
128-23-9272
128-23-927 4
Ampacities
I
I
2(7x)
1(19x)
1/0(19x)
2/0(19x)
3/0(19x)
4/0(19x)
250(37x)
350(37x)
2(7x)
1 (19x)
1/0(19x)
2/0(19x)
3/0(19x)
4/0(19x)
250(37x)
350(37x)
500(37x)
750(61x)
1 000(61 X)
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
!
0.78
0.81
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.01
1.06
1.17
0.78
0.81
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.01
106
1.17
1.29
1.49
1.64
0.84
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.01
1.07
1.15
1.25
0.84
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.01
1.07
1.15
1.25
1.38
1.57
1.75
(1) Ampacit1es are based on ICEA S-68-516, Appendix 1 for 9ooc
conductor operat1ng temperature. 20°C amb1ent temperature.
100% load factor and an earth thermal res!SIIVJty of RH0-90 .
10 X 14 1 .11 I 635
13 X 14 1.14 I 715
16 X 14 1.18 i 800
i 13 X 12 i 1.26 I 940 !
1065 j16x12
13 X 10
11.31
1.41 i 1280
/16x10
1
1.49 I
, 20 X 10 1.59 I
6xt411.11 /
6x14 1.14
6x14 1118!
7 X 14 I 1.23 !
9x14
11 X 14
1 1.28
13 X 14
18 X 14
16 X 12
15 X 10
20 X 10
! 1.34 I
!
: 1.41
• 1.52
Ius
j1.99 I
I 2.16 .
1480
1780
585
630
675
745
840
945
1075
1305
1760
2365
2925
725
805
890
1045
1190
1400
1660
1960
680
720
770
850
945
1070
1195
1485
2010
2765
3325
r--roauc1 uata
Section 2: Sheet 28
165 120
:
185 135
210 155
240 175
270 200
310 230
340 255
405 300
155 135
175 155
200 175
230 200
260 230
290 240
320 260
380 320
455 385
555 470
645 550
A----
B----
c---
o
E
F
j--
K--
A Conductor-Copper
B Screen-Extruded Sem1conductmg
C lnsulalion-Okoguard
D Screen-Extruded Sem1conductmg
E Sh1eld-Copper Alloy Tape
F Fillers-Jute
G Bmder Tape
H Beddmg-Jute and Asphalt
J Armor-Galvantzed Steel W1res
K Covenng-Nylon Servmg
Slushed With Tar
Product Data
Section 2: Sheet 25
Okoguard Submarine Cable
15 and 35kV Shielded Power Cable
3 Copper Conductors/90C Rating
133% Insulation Level
Insulation
Okoguard® is Okonite's registered trade
name for its exclusive ethylene-propy-
lene base, thermosetting compound,
whose optimum balance of electrical
and physical properties is unequalled
in other solid dielectrics. The clean red
color of Okoguard is the result of an
evolutionary development in ethylene-
propylene rubber compounding to gain
greater dependability of the electrical
characteristics. For assurance of long
term service reliability the insulation
thickness is at the 1 33% level.
Screens and Shielding
Strand and insulation screens are ex-
truded semiconducting matenals ther-
mally compatible with the insulation. In
addition, they are triple-tandem ex-
truded with the insulation to provide a
bonded, containment-and-ionization-
free interface that will not separate with
time and become a source of corona
discharge. A 5 mil thick corrosion-resis-
tant copper-nickel alloy tape applied
over the outer screen completes the
shielding system.
Coverings
Multiple galvanized steel wires provide
the primary mechanical protection and,
in add1t1on. provide longitudinal strength
tor lay1ng the cable on the sea bottom
and. if ever necessary, for its retrieval. A
heavy layer of tough nylon over the
armor protects 11 from scrapes and
damage during the laying process.
Assembly/Installation Services
Okonite. m conjunction with Simplex's
oceanographic cable plant can furnish
virtually any length submarine cable
thus eliminating mid-crossing joints.
Also ava1lable at the purchaser's dis-
cretion. Okonite-Simplex can supply
cable only, cable plus consultant or
supervtsory services or a complete
turn-key installation package for any
size submarrne project.
Specifications
Conductor: Uncoated (or optional
coated), Class B stranded per ASTM
B-8, and compressed.
Strand/Insulation Screens: Thermoset
semiconducting screens tandem extrud-
ed with and bonded to the insulation
exceed the physical and conductivity
requirements of ICEA S-68-516 and
AEIC CS6-82.
Insulation: Meets or exceeds electrical
and physical requirements of ICEA
S-68-516 and AE IC CS6-82 where
applicable.
Shield: Copper alloy tape applied with
a 12.5% nominal overlap.
Armor: Meets physical requirements of
ICEA S-68-516 for Division I type round
galvanized steel armor wire.
Product Features
• Okoguard cables meet or exceed all
recognized industry standards (UL,
AEIC, NEMA/ICEA)
• 90C continuous operating
temperature
130C emergency rating
250C short circuit rating
• Excellent corona resistance
• Exceptional resistance to "treeing··
• An insulation capable of being vul-
canized-spliced to share lengths
• Insulation capable of being vul-
canizer-spliced into long lengths.
• Full design, engineering and instal-
lation services available
• Experience in many successful sub-
marine installations
Additional Information
For additional information contact your
local Okonite representative or Service
Center Manager.
Okoguard Submarine Cable Product Data
Section 2: Sheet 25 15 and 35kV Shielded Power Cable
3 Copper Conductors/90C Rating
1 33% Insulation Level
Okoguard Insulation: 15kV-220 Mils
115-23-8402 I 2(19x) 1 .84 ' .91 II 2.82
11 5-23-8404 1 (1 9x) .88 .95 2.90
11 5-23-8406 1/0(19x) .92 .99 2.99
, 115-23-8408 2/0(19x) .96 1 .03 3.09
. 115-23-8412 4/0(19x) 1.D7 1.16 3.46
'115-23-8418 ! 350(37x) I 1.22 1.31 3.79
: 115-23-8420 500(37x) 1.35 1.44 4.06
1 115-23·8422 750(61 X) 1.5 1.64 1 4.50
Okoguard Insulation: 35kV-420 Mils
: 115-23-8456 I 1/0(19x) I 1 .37 1 .46 j 4.11
115-23-8458 I 2/0(19x) · 1.41 1.50 1 4.20
115-23-8462 I 4/0(19x) 1 .52 1 .61 ; 4.44
115-23-8468 350(37x) 1.67 1 .78 4.81
, 115-23-8470 500(37x) 1.80 1.91 5.08
i 115-23-8472 750(61x) , 1.98 2.09 5.47
(1) Based on shore end single circUit in a 36" deep trench.
90 RHO thermal s011 and 75% load tactor. Generally. the sub-
manne portion can safely carry higher currents than the shore
ends. but due to w1dely ranging submarine conditions these
ampacllies should be calculated separately lor each Installation.
IPCEA P-46-426
7,095
7,515
7,995
8,560
11.235
13,680
16.085
20.070
13.305
13.965
15.680
18.580
21.190
25.100
200
227
259
295
383
507
611
748
255
290
376
497
601
737
~) T:-:!E CKCNI7"a CC:\11P:~N":f
Ramsey, New ..Jersey 07446
--· -.,.
"' .;
i/o u{ZC c,~c~ -t"-j o. 44(.
a> 4, \b /z.4 1<\.l ~ b~ .~ ~PS
c.e. \"2A1 j;:z. t;:.\J -~ ~.2 ~PS
~'2 ~us o. E:t'S~ -r j od&
~ 4 ,e:, /2.4 ~\.1 ~ ,c:;, 'S ~PS
<! ~'2A1 /7~-z. K\J 7 2~, '2. AJ"'P..~
f,'2,9 \Iocr~ '2.b%
zo.i "~ 0,~0/o
~.4 \lO<-~ '2.5. ~ ..
\Ci , B \I()L."\"S. 0 • "5 °/o
~ "\L \l€. ~~ tJ'C" ~..,I::C'r~ 6'100 -'?... I M \ t..iE.--
7& I .s:z..j4'5t::o'
.. ~ ----.-.-~ ----------~----·----
Foa. 3 Plo\~C.~ o.5c5 ,.. "~-~4-K\J '1.. 3.
,. -1
. . -' --·--'---t----
)
~--~--: .. w''
J .
't ;
J•
•">4 ·-· ?<'-~-~ .... _ .. _____ ---"·-'--""~-
----. .... _, .. .__ .. _ .
\~I & 1<'-JA
·-· •H
_,
=·
RES\S.TJ.\~c.E.
I L.)()U~TI \J;E ~C.C.T:..'-lc.£.
CAP AC...l "r P..t·H~.e:.
A/-f....Pt:.. <:!.' '\'-'(
u.J e. 'G '"" r
t'?F-S.l 's:T"A~ C£
\~D~:rt\}E Rf:AC.\~CE.
C.A.P A.C-l TA~C E
AN\i)A~ 'T'i
~E~G4-4-t
vtec ~~ t=R.OH\. €. SSE..).. AA+)D Bc:ot:..
i
I
S4f.!Gl:E. AJ.~ Cl£l~~
o , '2o 1. J\.. I 1 c:.cc/
o.oC\'\ :..n.. I tooo'
o, o~3 p.'f I 1000
1
"2 \0 ,A.M.(:)~
o.& \b/rr.
, I
0,1"\ ..n. /1000
o . o4 ..a. I H:x::o '
o, os'=:. .~J..'F 1, ooo 1
'2.00 ~Ps.
£, l l\.::1/FT.
I
' i
I
I
I
I
I ;
S.0~M'2\ ~~ CA.\!t.£ C~ F~ Wt!..~t-lGileUS£ "'\~'b
---------·-
@ 4 , ~~ /zA 1<\..J
@. 1"'2Al j-,,'2. KIJ
--7-7 ,;.q .'S. t::.r-1\PS
-~~ 'L.~, '2.. ,A~-~4..~
@ 4,C::./2A K\.1 ---7-7 f,c;,~ AH\PS
~ V'2.Al /7,'2 \"-..\1 7 '2.~, '2. P.N\f>S
b 2 .Ci \j CLT::.
20, j_ \.JOL~
EAA \JOL~
\C\. , 8 \l6LTS
.:.t.f-J)Q...~ \""L\J€.. 'SJ,..~.i.._l\--.J\ R..r:....tc...Tp.JNCE_ f,lOO -'7_./ ~I L~'
7& I sz.. 1 4'5cc'
,..., (" ct
L. c ,"~
0, ~ 0 /u
.::co ooo
I
i/c AL ~,j'(CQ ~~l£. '2'26 /"7\1 l-Fu u... ~E..UI(<AL ~ S.\~GLE.. P~~CS.C. ~l=:
i
Ri:: Sl SIA~ c.E.
I ~~~ \) ~T I \j;: RE .C.C..TA ~c::.~
~p~~\!f)..MC.E..
AM~(:::..e_t \'-'(
U-.)E.IG 4\
((t S,l 'ST ~ ~ CE.
\ ~Ol)('__\l \J€. RF-~e..\~CE
c..~r--ACJ. T A~C E
AM.PAC:.l 1"'-{
WF-\G14-r
; uQD ~tt -:r=·i'2.Ct-f\. €. ~~f=-~ -\-1.-A~w E.cc~
o, '2ct
o, oC\Q.
o~ o6.3
~\C
c.&
,..t'1... I I C:CO (
..!l... I lOOO I
r~ 1 toea'
f:>..MP~
lb/rr.
0,\"t .fl_ /IODO
I
a, c4 ...a../,o:c'
0, O~b ).J."F I\ 000 I
-z.oa t:a.r-+..Ps.
(, l lla/FT.
:S.u~MA.k:.\ ~~ CL.·8LE DC.~ 'i=•f2cf-f.... wE::nNG~o\.J~E l~b
i
APPENDIX 7
Akutan Load Forecast Base Data
#OF #OF
FY89 RRSI a:JoiR
K) CUST CUST
JUL 28 6
Ain 28 6
SEPl' 29 6
OCT 29 6
l«JV 30 6
DBJ 29 6
JAN 28 6
FEB 29 6
MAR 29 6
Am 28 6
MAY 29 5
JUN 27 5
SUBIUl'AL
#OF #OF
FY88 RBSI (ntR
K) CUST CUST
JUL 26 5
AOO 26 5
SHPI' 27 5
OCT 27 5
l«JV 29 6
DBJ 29 6
JAN 29 6
FEB 28 6
MAR 28 6
Am 28 6
MAY 28 6
JUN 29 6
SUBIUl'AL
* HSTIMATED FIGURES
AKUTAN EI..'FVmlC -I1lAD ~ BASE DATA
TAKEN FRl:M ~ ENERGY AIJI1DUTY'S
f!DmiLY ~STATISTICS REF<:m'
#OF CURRENT GALS 'lUI'AL
<XHJ FlJHL F'lJHL 'lUI'AL OP:HRATING
FAC PRICE <XfiSlM FUBL aEI' ~
--------------------------------7 1.0210 2622 $2,677.06 $2,685.30
7 1.0210 3007 $3,070.15 $2,593.98
7 1.0210 2929 $2,990.51 $1,871.73
7 1.0210 3088 $3,152.85 $3,740.44
7 1.0210 2800 $2,858.80 $3,030.21
7 1.0210 3454 $3,526.53 U0,512.50
7 1.0210 3317 $3,386.66 $5,538.57
7 0.9700 3099 $3,006.03 $4,737.56
7 0.9700 3222 $3,125.34 $4,557.96
6 0.9700 2685 $2,604.45 $1,983.23
1 1.0300 2766 $2,848.98 $17,265.84
7 1.0300 2943 $3,031.29 $5,904.71 -----
35932 $36,278.65 $64,422.03
#OF CURRENT GALI..a'JS 'lUI'AL
<XHJ FlJHL FtJHL 'lUI'AL OPERATING
FAC PRICE ~ FUEL aEI' ~
------- --------------------------4 0.6800 2245 $1,526.60 $2,265.47
5 0.8300 2578 $2,139.74 $1,930.00
4 0.8300 2561 $2,125.63 $1,808.00
5 0.8300 3150 $2,614.50 $1,811.26
4 0.8300 2883 $2,392.89 $1,775.82
4 0.8700 3064 $2,665.68 $3,140.10
5 0.8700 2785 $2,422.95 $2,413.82
5 0.8700 2306 $2,006.22 $2,368.57
6 0.8700 2907 $2,529.09 $2,542.34
7 0.8700 2791 $2,428.17 .. $16,464.80
7 0.8700 2667 $2,320.29 $11,627.96
7 0.8700 3346 $2,911.02 $1,770.00
----
33283 $28,082.78 $49,918.14
foDllliLY f!DmiLY
kWh kWh
GENBRAT SOLD
--------------
18140 17968
22194 17041
24672 21736
27652 .. 19884
30632 23063
29660 21792
30492 25240
22073 20639
24408 21978
26540 22517
20636 15186
27659 19269 --------
304758 246313
romiLY romiLY
kWh kWh
GENERAT SOLD
--------------
18368 12065
17358 11643
18426 11794 *
23328 11946
19650 12688
19783 17526
21116 14561
19880 13692
20845 20163
22492 17566
19366 17180
25304 12264
------
245916 173088
Page 1
#OF #OF CURRBNT GAI.I1JilS 'IUI'AL r-orrHLY ~y
FYB7 lJI'ILITY CXHf FUEL FUEL 'IUI'AL OPERATING kWh kWh
K> ClJS'It:ll:mS* * FAC FRICE a:mt..MB FUEL CXBl' HXPBNSH GBNERAT SOLD
--------------------------------------------------------
JUL 26 6 0.8020 1463 $1,173.33 $5,265.16 15480 9856
AOO 29 5 0.8020 1931 $1,548.66 $1,219.85 18328 10695
SHPr 32 5 0.8020 2165 $1,736.33 $1,969.92 18678 12986
ocr 34 5 0.8020 2638 $2,115.68 $1,650.00 18412 11732
~ 33 5 0.8020 2767 $2,219.13 $2,724.06 21014 13263
DB:; 33 5 0.8020 3081 $2,470.96 $4,609.34 25428 16163
JAN 33 5 0.8020 3101 $2,487.00 $1,848.12 25547 15883
FEB 33 5 0.8830 2858 $2,523.61 $1,826.29 23132 14649
MAR 33 5 0.8830 3012 $2,659.60 $1,650.00 19256 15773
APR 34 5 0.8830 2982 $2,633.11 $1,666.50 22463 15501
MAY 34 5 0.8830 2766 $2,442.38 $2,256.70 20636 12242
JUN 34 5 0.6800 2671 $1,816.28 $1,831.28 17576 11520
SUB1UfAL 31435 $25,826.07 $28,517.22 245950 160263
Uln 1987 # of Residential Cus~rs and # of ea.ercial Custaoers were caobined into
I of Utility Custcae:rs.
Page2
APPENDIX 8
Estimated Diesel Power Generation Costs :
Trident Seafoods in Akutan
' ' 1-'~ T ~~ID <''~
4 Dec. 1989
ESTIMATED COST OF DIESEL GENERATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY
TRIDENT-! IT LA
Administrative -
The processor has management overhead which I would estimate at
15% of operating labor and material cost.
Operating Personnel -
Assume 4 operators at $30/hr (out of pocket) 8 hrs a day 5 days
a week for a month. They will handle minor maintenance.
$19,200 /month
Depreciation or Debt Service -
Switchgear, generators, and miscellaneous electrical and mechan-
ical equipment.
Investment $400 per kW x 8000 kW = $3,200,000
Useful life -10 years, interest 12%
Monthly debt service $45,910
Building structure @ $500,000
Fuel Storage @ $750,000
Useful life -20 years, interest 12%
Monthly debt service $13,764
Insurance -
$50,000 annual cost for fire and equipment coverage.
Fuel -
The Caterpillar D379 (with mechanical fan) will get about 12.5
kWh per gallon of #2 fuel at optimum load 85% to 100% and tuned
up. At half load it will get about 10.5 kWh/gallon. Below 1/2
load the efficiency will drop off rapidly to about 5 kWh at 25%
load.
The Caterpillar 3512 high speed unit (with mechanical fan) will
get 13.5 kWh per gallon at full load, 12.5 at ha+f load, and 7.0
at one-quarter load.
This type of processing should keep the machines relatively
loaded, at least 75%. I assume that station service loads will
consume 5% of gross generation.ervice energy is about 5%. I
would use a figure of 12 kWh per gallon overall production.
Lube Oil -
Assume with oil changes that the generators use 1.5% as much
lube oil as fuel oil at $5 per gallon.
Trident Seafoods
Mr. Doug Nelson
Overhaul and Maintenance -
Caterpillar D379 every 24,000 hours
One Top-end Overhaul @ $12,000
One Major Overhaul @ $35,000
Miscellaneous Parts & Maintenance
November 30, 1988
Page 2
$12,000
35,000
10,000
$57,000
In 24,000 hrs at 335 kW Cost per kWh $.0071
Caterpillar 3512 high speed every 22,000 hrs
One Top-end Overhaul @ $25,000
One Major Overhaul @ $40,000
Miscellaneous Parts & Maintenance
In 22,000 hrs at 825 kW Cost per kWh $.0055
Average of two costs $.0044 per kWh
$25,000
40,000
15,000
$80,000
A summary of these assumptions is presented in the following
spreadsheet.
ESTIMATED DIESEL GENERATION COSTS @ TRIDENT-AIIIfidJ
KW Peak Per Year
KWH Generated this Month @ • 65 PF
Cost of Fuel per gallon
Cost of Lube Oil per gallon
Assumed Overall Fuel Efficiency KWH/GAL
Description
Operating Personnel + 15% admin
Depreciation or Debt Service
Engines, Generators, Switchgear
Building and Fuel Storage
Insurance
Misc.-cleaning supplies,lights,tools, etc.
Subtotals-Fixed Cost
Fuel
Lubricating Oil
Overhaul and Maintenance
PROJECI'ED PRODUCTION COSTS
Petroleum Products escalated @ 8% annual rate
All other expenses ecalated @ 5% annual rate
Fixed Costs + Maint esc. @ 5%
Fuel + Lube Oil Costs esc. @ 8%
YEAR
Projected cost per KWH
6000
2808000
$0.75
$5.00
12
$/Month
$22,080
$45,910
$13,764
$4,167
$2,500 ------------
$88,421
$175,500
$11,700
$12,355 ------------
$199,555
Total/KWH
1989
------
$100,776
$187,200
------
$287,976
$0.103
Dec 6, 1989
Cents/KWH
0.79
1.63
0.49
0.15
0.09 ------------
3.15
6.25
0.14
0.47 ------------
6.86
10.01
1991
------
$111' 105
$218,350
------
$329,455
$0.117
1996 2001
------------
$141,802 $180,979
$320,828 $471,401
------------
$462,630 $652,380
$0.165 $0.232
APPENDIX 9
Cost Analysis Spreadsheets
Economic Analysis
We have looked at six cases:
c~~'-Diesel The City of Akutan continues to generate and distribute
power as it does now.
Case 1 North Creek hydro is built with the Chinese Turbine
and serves only the village of Akutan.
Case 2 Loud Creek hydro is built with the Chinese Turbine
and serves only the village of Akutan.
Case 3 North Creek hydro is built with a new turbine
and serves the City of Akutan and Trident (ml-h'N ~if-t.L'&::IR1,:";.
ti:Vo
Case 4 Loud Creek hydro is built with ,a; new turbinl and serves
the City of Akutan and Trident
~~5. Intertie The intertie between Trident's powerhouse and Akutan
power house is made and the City of Akutan purchases
power from the cannery.
The investments costs for the hydro generation and associated ~
electrical equipment and tie lines is provided in appendix ~ '
A summary of these cases is provided in the report section called
"Economic Analysis".
It is important to remember that all of these costs are related
to the supply or generation economics. This system shows an 18%
loss of energy between generation and sales during 1989. This
means that if we can generate and distribute energy for $0.33 per
KWH, the customer must pay $0.402 per KWH to make up for the
losses. Losses usually decline with increased system sales. We
assumed for this study that the losses would be at 15% between
1991 and 1996 and 12% between 1997 and 2001.
The diesel costs for the City of Akutan
From the PCE program administered by the Alaska Energy Authority,
we obtained monthly data on generation production, sales, fuel
expense, fuel cost, and a lumped category of all other expense.
We used the actual data for fuel cost, production and sales. The
money shown as "total expense" were spread to categories of
operator labor, administrative costs, depreciation, lube oil,
maintenance, and insurance etc. based on similar size utility
data. This was necessary because some of these lumped expenses
are fixed and others are variable with energy production and must
be split to project future costs. We did not investigate whether
the accounting behind these numbers takes into account
investment, depreciation, interest, etc. This data is filed with
the State as being a correct and complete representation of cost
related to the production and sale of energy.
The diesel costs for the Trident Seafood processor were estimated
from very cursory information obtained from the processor. It is
our understanding that the processor does not meter fuel used or
energy produced in the power plant and does not separately
account for maintenance and operations labor. We have taken data
from several power cost studies done for similar plants, from
caterpillar data books, and from operating experience with
similar power plants. The cost of fuel was provided by Trident.
This estimate of power cost for Trident is summarized in Appendix
~~f~? a.
Hydro Maintenance
This was estimated to be 2% of the equipment cost per year.
Lube Oil Use -Diesel Plant
Generation of 1000 KWH at a
gallons of fuel. A typical
oil, including oil change.
of lube oil per 1000 KWH or
rate of 8.48 KWH/gallon would use 118
lube oil useage would be 2% of fuel
We estimate this to be 2.36 gallons
1 MWH.
Overhaul and Maintenance
We assume on 3304 Cats 25,000 hrs to major overhaul and 12,500
hrs to top end.
Top end parts and labor
Major Overhaul parts and labor
Mise parts, injectors, water pump, etc
$10,000
$20,000
$5,000
$35,000
If the generator runs @ a 60% load factor the KWH produced
in 25,000 hrs would be --
90 kW X .60 X 25,000 = 1,350,000 KWH
Maintenance Cost would be $25.93 per 1000 KWH (1 MWH)
We have assumed that the village operator costs about $30,000 per
year. We assume that this individual also maintains the
distributions system but this is a small part of his activity.
In the all diesel case this is all assigned to the diesel plant
costs. In the Akutan load only cases #1 and #2 it is assumed
that this labor number is split 30% to the hydro and 70% to
diesel activities because the diesels must still provide all
standby and generate about 10% of the energy. In the cases where
the City of Akutan load and the Trident load are combined, the
village plant is very inactive and we assume that 70% of the
labor is now spent on the hydro. In the final case, the intertie
only the City of Akutan becomes just a retail distribution
utility, buying all its power from Trident, and we reduce the
operator labor from $30,000 per year to $10,000 per year.
Investment
Diesel Investment cost for the City of Akutan with building and
switchgear and aux mechanical was estimated to be $700 per KW
installed @ Akutan. A 15 year life is assumed and the
depreqjation costs escalate wii{h inflation,diDiES~ -1--/l/. IIE:::-';)-Tt,rJE:-rvr-
GV.:n-f-t1"-f!-172/!)t;;-r.~.{ (LAi!Ge:?C "'tNtr5) wou..u:J dE ·if.l-ov m s·oo pc...,e_ k.LtJ.
Plant Load Factor
In 1989 generation was 304,758 kWH and the annual peak was about
80 KW, yielding a 43% load factor. We have used this figure
throughout the study.
Akutan Generation Additions
In the case of self generation, diesel only, we assume that the
plant will retain the 3 generator configuration and about 100%
installed capacity in excess of annual peak.
In the hydro case with the village load only we assume that the
excess capacity will be reduced to 50%
In the case of the intertie and hydro development we assume only
the present plant is maintained as emergency standby.
Production of Each Generation Unit
Through hydrology evaluation we have arrived at a maximum annual
production for each hydro plant case. Due to breakdown, low
water, etc. we have assumed that the hydro cannot actually
produce more than 90% of this theoretical maximum.
If the hydro can carry the entire load all the time we assume
that the hydro -diesel split in production will be 90% hydro and
10% diesel.
If the hydro has capacity to carry the full load only part of the
time we assume that we will not get more than 80% of the maximum
theoretical energy because of low loading problems on the village
diesel.
When intertied to Trident we assume that there a market for the
full 90% of theoretical every year.
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
CASE # 1 NORTH CREEK -CHINESE TURBINE
CITY OF AKUTAN LOAD ONLY
Petroleum Escalation @
General Inflation @
Annual Hydro Costs
Mobilization and Logistics
Structures and Improvements
Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Mise. Mechanical Equipment
Underwater Conductors and Devices
8.0%
5.0%
BASE COST
1989
$236,296
$89,885
$237,200
$70,000
$135,400
$10,000
$243,860
Construction Subtotal $1,022,641
Contingency 15% $153,396
Engineering & Admin. 16.0% $188,166
Total Investment $1,364,203
COST
1991
COST
1996
COST
2001
Debt Svc/Y 30 yrs @ 8.50% $126,940 * $126,940 $126,940 $126,940
Operator Labor assigned to Hydro 30% $9,000 * $9,923 $12,664 $16,163
Overhaul, Ma.int, Outside Tech Srvcs $4,308 * $4,750 $6,062 $7,737
Total Hydro Production KWH 274282 367105 747549 979999
ANNUAL COSTS DIESEL PLANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity of Diesel Plant-KW 240 240 332 533
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-esc@ gen inf. $11,200 * $12,348 $27,782 $34,966
Diesel Energy Production KWH 30476 40789 83061 357706
Fuel $/gal $0.90 $1.05 $1.54 $2.27
Eff. kWH/Gal 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
Fuel Expense $3,468 * $5,413 $16,197 $102,489
Lube $/gal $5.00 $5.83 $8.57 $12.59
Gal/MWH 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
Lube Oil Expense $385 * $601 $1,800 $11,388
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel 70% $21,000 * $23,153 $29,549 $37 '713
Overhaul & Ma.int/Year $25.93 per MWH $790 * $871 $1,112 $1,419
Tools, Insurance, Mise $4,000 * $4,410 $5,628 $7,183
Administrative Costs and Billing $10,000 * $11,025 $14,071 $17,959
Total Operator Labor $30,000 $33,075 $42,213 $53,876
-----------------------------------
Total Annual Cost N/A $199,433 $241,804 $363,956
Cost/kWH NIA $0.489 $0.291 $0.272
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
CASE #2 LOUD CREEK -CHINESE TURBINE
CITY OF AKUTAN LOAD ONLY
Petroleum Escalation @
General Inflation @
Annual Hydro Costs
Mobilization and Logistics
Structures and Improvements
Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Misc. Mechanical Equipment
Underwater Conductors and Devices
8.0%
5.0%
BASE CX>ST
1989
$236,296
$89,885
$243,549
$70,000
$135,400
$10,000
$237,025
Construction Subtotal $1,022,155
Contingency 15% $153,323
Engineering & Admin. 16.0% $188,077
Total Investment $1,363,555
CX>ST
1991
CX>ST
1996
CX>ST
2001
Debt Svc/Y 30 yrs @ 8.50% $126,880 * $126,880 $126,880 $126,880
Operator Labor assigned to Hydro 30% $9,000 * $9,923 $12,664 $16,163
Overhaul, ~~int, Outside Tech Srvcs $4,308 * $4,750 $6,062 $7,737
Total Hydro Production KWH 274282 367105 747549 1033600
ANNUAL CX>STS DIESEL PLANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity of Diesel Plant-KW 240 240 332 533
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-esc @ gen infl. $11,200 * $12,348 $27,782 $34,966
Diesel Energy Production KWH 30476 40789 83061 304105
Fuel $/gal $0.90 $1.05 $1.54 $2.27
Eff. kWH/Gal 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
Fuel Expense $3,468 * $5,413 $16,197 $87,131
Lube $/gal $5.00 $5.83 $8.57 $12.59
Gal/MWH 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
Lube Oil Expense $385 * $601 $1,800 $9,681
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel 70% $21,000 * $23,153 $29,549 $37,713
Overhaul & Maint/Year $25.93 per MWH $790 * $871 $1' 112 $1,419
Tools, Insurance, Mise $4,000 * $4,410 $5,628 $7,183
Administrative Costs and Billing $10,000 * $11,025 $14,071 $17,959
Total Operator Labor $30,000 $33,075 $42,213 $53,876
-----------------------------------
Total Annual Cost N/A $199,373 $241,744 $346,832
Cost/kWH N/A $0.489 $0.291 $0.259
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
CASE #3 NORTH CREEK -NEW TURBINE GENERATOR
CITY OF AKUTAN + TRIDENT SEAFOODS LOAD
Petroleum Escalation @ 8.0%
General Inflation @ 5.0%
Annual Hydro Costs
Mobilization and Logistics
Structures and Improvements
Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Mise. Mechanical Equipment
Underwater Conductors and Devices
BASE COST
1989
$236,296
$89,885
$235,100
$170,000
$135,400
$10,000
$285,860
Construction Subtotal $1,162,541
Contingency 15% $174,381
Engineering & Admin. 16.0% $213,908
---------
Total Investment $1,550,830
Debt Svc/Y 30 yrs @ 8.50% *
Operator Labor assigned to Hydro
Overhaul, Maint, Outside Tech Srvcs
Total Hydro Production KWH
70% $21,000 *
$6,308 *
0
ANNUAL COSTS DIESEL PLANT
COST
1991
$144,306
$23,153
$6,955
1188000
COST
1996
$144,306
$29,549
$8,876
1188000
COST
2001
$144,306
$37,713
$11 '328
1188000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capa.ci ty of Diesel Plant-KW 240 240 240 240
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-escalate @ gen in $11,200 * $11,200 $11 '200 $11 '200
Diesel Energy Production KWH 0 0 0 0
Fuel $/gal $0.90 $1.05 $1.54 $2.27
Eff. kWH/Gal 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
Fuel Expense $0 * $0 $0 $0
Lube $/gal $5.00 $5.83 $8.57 $12.59
Gal/MWH 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
Lube Oil Expense $0 * $0 $0 $0
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel 30% $9,000 * $9,923 $12,664 $16,163
Overhaul & Maint/Year $25. 93 per MWH $0 * $0 $0 $0
Tools, Insurance, Mise $4,000 * $4,410 $5,628 $7,183
Administrative Costs and Billing $10,000 * $11 '025 $14,071 $17,959
Total Operator Labor $30,000 $33,075 $42,213 $53,876
-----------------------------------
Total Annual Cost $61,508 * $210,970 $226,294 $245,852
Village h~ Annual Requirement 304758 407894 830610 1337705
Energy Remaining for Sale to Trident 0 780106 357390 -149705
Estimated Cost of Energy @ Trident $0.103 $0.117 $0.165 $0.232
Credit Trident-Sell @ 0.8 Est Cost Buy @ 1.2. 0 * ($73,018)($47,175) $41,678
----------------------------
Cost of Operation to City of Akutan N/A $137,952 $179,119 $287,529
Cost per KWH to City of Akutan N/A $0.338 $0.216 $0.215
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
CASE #4 LOUD CREEK -NEW TlJRBINE GENERA'IDRS PELTON + PUMP /INDUCfiON
CITY OF AKUTAN + 'IRIDENT SEAFOODS LOAD
Petroleum Escalation @ 8.0%
General Inflation @ 5.0%
Annual Hydro Costs
Mobilization and Logistics
Structures and Improvements
Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Misc. Mechanical Equipnent
Underwater Conductors and Devices
Construction Subtotal
Contingency 15%
Engineering & Admin. 16.0%
Total Investment
Debt Svc/Y 30 yrs
Operator Labor assigned to Hydro
Overhaul, Maint, Outside Tech Srvcs
Total Hydro Production KWH
ANNUAL COSTS DIESEL PLANT
Capacity of Diesel Plant-KW
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-esc @ gen
Diesel Energy Production KWH
Fuel $/gal
Eff. kWH/Gal
Fuel Expense
Lube $/gal
Gal!MWH
Lube Oil Expense
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel
8.50%
70%
infl.
30%
Overhaul & Maint/Year $25.93 per MWH
Tools, Insurance, Mise
Administrative Costs and Billing
Total Operator Labor
BASE COST
1989
$236,296
$89,885
$264,549
$205,000
$135,400
$10,000
$309,025
$1,250,155
$187,523
$230,029
---------
$1,667,707
*
$21,000 *
$7,008 *
0
240
$11,200 *
30476
$0.90
7.91
$3,468 *
$5.00
2.36
$385 *
$9,000 *
$790 * $4,000 *
$10,000 *
$30,000
-----------
Total Annual Cost $66,851
Village KWH Annual Requirement 304758
Energy Remaining for Sale to Trident 0
Estimated Cost of Energy @ Trident $0.103
Credit Trident-Sell @ 0.8 Est Cost Buy @ 1.2 0 * -------
Cost of Operation to City of Akutan N/A
Cost per KWH to City of Akutan N/A
COST
1991
$155' 181
$23,153
$7' 726
1638000
240
$11,200
0
$1.05
7.91
$0
$5.83
2.36
$0
$9,923
$871
$4,410
$11,025
$33,075
--------
$223,489
407894
1230106
$0.117
COST
1996
$155,181
$29,549
$9,861
1638000
240
$11 '200
0
$1.54
7.91
$0
$8.57
2.36
$0
$12,664
$1,112
$5,628
$14,071
$42,213
--------
COST
2001
$155,181
$37,713
$12,585
1638000
240
$11,200
0
$2.27
7.91
$0
$12.59
2.36
$0
$16' 163
$1,419
$7,183
$17,959
$53,876
--------
$239,266 $259,403
830610 1337705
807390 300295
$0.165 $0.232
($115,138)($106,575)($83,602)
---------------------
$108,351 $132,691 $175,801
$0.266 $0.160 $0.131
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
INTERTIE CONSTRUCT INTERTIE BETWEEN TRIDENT SEAFOODS AND AKUTAN roWER HOUSE
CA!)IS;.tt.s' BUY ALL roWER FRCl1 THE CANNERY -USE EXISTING PLANT AS STANDBY
Petroleum Escalation @ 8.0%
General Inflation @ 5.0%
Annual Hydro Costs
Cable for Tie line 2700'x 3 x $2.15
Stepup and Stepdown Transformers 2 @ $12,000
Molded Case Breakers for Each end
Metering Panel inc. KWH
Labor to install cable 2700' @ $20
Labor to install trans, panels, conduit etc.
Mise Equipment and hardware
Construction Subtotal
Contingency 15%
Engineering & Admin. 16.0%
Total Investment
Debt Svc/Y 30 yrs @
Operator Labor assigned to Hydro
Overhaul, Ma.int, Outside Tech Srvcs
Total Hydro Production KWH
ANNUAL COSTS DIESEL PLANT
Capacity of Diesel Plant-KW
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-esc @ gen
Diesel Energy Production KWH
Fuel $/gal
Eff. kWH/Gal
Fuel Expense
Lube $/gal
Gal/MWH
Lube Oil Expense
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel
8.50%
infl.
100%
Overhaul & Maint/Year $25. 93 per MWH
Tools, Insurance, Mise
Administrative Costs and Billing
Total Operator Labor
Total Annual Cost
Village KWH Annual Requirement
Energy Remaining for Sale to Trident
Estimated Cost of Energy @ Trident
Credit Trident-Sell@ 0.8 Est Cost Buy@ 1.~
Cost of Operation to City of Akutan
Cost per KWH to City of Akutan
BASE <X\ST
1989
$17,415
$24,000
$5,000
$5,000
$54,000
$15,000
$3,000
$123,415
$18,512
$22,708
$164,636
COST
1991
COST
1996
COST
2001
* $15,319 $15,319 $15,319
240
* *
$11,200 *
30476
$0.90
7.91
$3,468 *
$5.00
2.36
$385 *
$10,000 * $790 * $4,000 *
$10,000 *
$10,000
$39,843
304758
0
$0.103
0 *
N/A
N/A
240
$11 '200
0
$1.05
7.91
$0
$5.83
2.36
$0
$11,025
$871
$4,410
$11,025
$11,025
--------
$53,851
407894
-407894
$0.117
$57,268
-------
$111,119
$0.272
240 240
$11,200 $11,200
0 0
$1.54 $2.27
7.91 7.91
$0 $0
$8.57 $12.59
2.36 2.36
$0 $0
$14,071 $17,959
$1,112 $1,419
$5,628 $7,183
$14,071 $17,959
$14,071 $17,959
----------------
$61 '402 $71,039
830610 1337705
-830610 -1337705
$0.165 $0.232
$164,461 $372,417
--------------
$225,863 $443,456
$0.272 $0.332
AKUTAN HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
EXIST SYSTEM EXISTING DIESEL SYSTEM AKUTAN LOAD ONLY
C.:f\~6. II< b DIESEL CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS AS PROJECTED
Petroleum Escalation @ 8.0%
General Inflation @ 5.0%
Annual Hydro Costs
Mobilization and Logistics
Structures and Improvements
Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical Equipment
Mise. Mechanical Equipment
Underwater Conductors and Devices
Construction Subtotal
Contingency 15%
Engineering & Admin. 16.0%
Total Investment
BASE COST
1989
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Debt Svc!YR 30 yrs 8.50% $0 *
Opera tor Labor assigned to Hydro 0% $0 * Overhaul, Ma.int, Outside Tech Srvcs $0 * Total Hydro Production KWH $0
ANNUAL COSTS DIESEL PLANT
COST
1991
$0
$0
$0
COST
1996
$0
$0
$0
COST
2001
$0
$0
$0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity of Diesel Plant-h1N 240 240 442 710
Depreciaton-$700/kw-15 years-escalate@ gen inf. $11 '200 * $12,348 $37,043 $46,622
Diesel Energy Production KWH 304758 407894 830610 1337705
Fuel $/gal $0.90 $1.05 $1.54 $2.27
Eff. kWH/Gal 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91
Fuel Expense $34,675 * $54,133 $161,968 $383,276
Lube $/gal $5.00 $5.83 $8.57 $12.59
Gal/MWH 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
Lube Oil Expense $3,853 * $6,015 $17,996 $42,586
Operator Labor assigned to Diesel 100% $30,000 * $33,075 $42,213 $53,876
Overhaul & Maint/Year $25.93 per MWH $7,902 * $8,712 $11,119 $14,192
Tools, Insurance, Mise $4,000 * $4,410 $5,628 $7,183
Administrative Costs and Billing $10,000 * $11,025 $14,071 $17,959
Total Operator Labor $30,000 $33,075 $42,213 $53,876
Total Annual Cost $101,631 $129,718 $290,039 $565,693
Cost/kWH $0.333 $0.318 $0.349 $0.423
APPENDIX 10
Control Schematics
NORTHSITE
CREEK HYDRO
CHINESE TURBINE
197 K\tl a 6 CFS
HIGH VOLTAGE SYST~
4.16/2.~ KV SYS~
480 V(LT
BUS
TRIDENT
SEAFOODS
(
/
.....;..,...,
AKUTAN
PO\JER
PLANT
//
/
4100 FEET
//
/
/
. _} PAOI'ICLNT i--OISCCN'ECT
/
// DrRECT ~y
IN ROflJVAY
271:10. LONG
501!1 KVA STEPOJ\IN TRI\NSFCRI'IER
CASE 1
NORTHSITE CREEK
VILLAGE ONLY
AKUTAN VILLAGE LOAD
UNDERWATER CABLE 3 PHASE
TRIDENT
~3EAFIJODS o-c~
(=>--{]-
~ u-c
480 VOLT
BUS
0. IN LENGTH ------------45. ------------------------l
--------------·~------~
KV A STEPOOVN 500 -Dr: TRANSFORMER
LOUD CREEK
HYDRO
CHINESE TURB I ~~E
209 K\J o 6 CFS
PAD.'\OLtH
OISCOf\I\IECT
CASE 2 LOUD CREEK
VILLAGE LOAD ONLY
AKUTAN
PO\JER
PL.ANT
c}-
()--
c}-481?1 VOLT BUS
AKUTAN VILLAGE L0/\0
NORTHSITE
CREEr< H'r'DRO
HIGH va_ TAGE SYSTEI\
4.16/2.4 KV SYSTE~
TRIDENT
SEAFOODS
/\KUTAN
PO\JER
PLANT
rr ~ 461?.1 VCl.. T GENERATOR
500 KVA
STEPI..P
TRANSFORI'IER
" '\.. .. "
""
LNOER\fATER LINE
" RUN I'£AR BEACH
"·" APP 60 FEET !N DEPTH
.t8B VOLT
BUS
i
/
//
/
~ 4100 FEET
/
.,
~-
"'· "
500 KVA
' /
't--1
/
/
/
/
// 0 f RECT BURY
IN ROAD\IAY
2711!0' LCN:>
P Al:li\O. .. tH
DISCDI'I\JECT
51il21 'r<VA
CASE 3
NORTHSITE CREEK
VILLAGE + TRIDENT
AKUTAN VILLAGE LOAD
480 VOLT,._ EUS
500 KVA
STEPUP TRANSFOP.~ER
TRIDENT
SE/\FOODS
o-o-
~ (_)-o-, 4812J VOLT C}-{]-BJS
o-o-
0--D-!----C~
500 rv-]'
KVA /
/
LOUD CREEK
HYDRO
L / "' RDAOVAY
I It~ ._______ ---------.__ PAD,OLNT /
._______ -----~~ . DISCO"'''ECT J' -----------'--------
UNDER~ATER CABLE 3 PHASE
4500. IN LENGTH
/
/
/
/
/OJRECT BURY
350 K~ SYNCHRONOUS TURBINE
60 K~ ASYNCHRONOUS TURBINE
CASE 4 LOUD CREEK
VILLAGE + TRIDENT SEAFOODS
AKUTAN
PO~ER
PLANT
·-----~~ ----------'--(
L 500 KVfl
21 7 00. LONG
480 VOLT BUS
()--[]-+--i
f.KUT f.N VI LLAC3E L .DAD
APPENDIX 11
Area Review of Economic Analysis
Alaska Energy Authority
A. ?uo:ic Ccrocro:;on
March 12, 1990
Mr. Bill Ryan
Ott Engineering, Inc.
4446 Business Park Blvd., Bldg. B
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Subject: Comments on Akutan Hydro draft report
Dear Mr. Ryan:
Srore of A'OSKO
,::e~;e Cowper, Goverro ..
The following remarks are based on my review of the subject report.
There appear to be three scenarios that warrant close attention:
1) Existing Diesel Case: Trident and Akutan are not connected. Each
produces its own power with diesel generators.
2) Loud Creek #4 Case: Trident and Akutan are connected, Loud Creek
hydro project is constructed.
3) Intertie Case: Trident and Akutan are connected, but hydro is not
added.
It is clear that the feasibility of Loud Creek is dependent on connect-
ing the village with Trident, and also depends on agreement by Trident
to purchase a major share of the hydro output. There are initially two
points that I wish to better understand:
1) Is Trident interested in purchasing a share (apparently a fairly
small share) of its power requirements over an intertie from the
local utility, at a fairly high fraction of its avoided costs?
2) Is Trident a year-round operation or is there some seasonal ele-
ment to it? I do not think that the report was exp 1 i cit about
that.
I built a Lotus spreadsheet that simulates your economic analysis of the
3 main alternatives fairly well, and then changed around some of the
numbers to see the effect. Table 1 (see Attachment) shows the estimated
costs/kWh to the City of Akutan from each of the three alternatives for
each of the three years highlighted in your study, using all of the same
PO Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465·3575
x PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877
Mr. Bi 11 Ryan
March 12, 1990
Page 2
assumptions used in the draft report. The estimates produced by my
spreadsheet correspond closely to the draft report estimates.
The load forecast used in the draft report is based on 20% annual demand
growth in the City of Akutan for five years and 10% annual growth after
that. The first issue I tested was to change the load forecast to a
constant, 4% annual growth rate throughout the period. The result is
shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that the hydro option im-
proves significantly using the lower demand estimate. This is because
Trident is purchasing the hydro power that Akutan does not use. Akutan
does better in this analysis by selling power to Trident than it does by
using the power itself.
This led to examination of the purchase terms assumed in the draft re-
port. You assumed that Trident wou 1 d buy power from Akutan at 80% of
its own cost of diesel generated power. Your estimates of Trident•s
diesel generation costs are simulated in Table 4. Using the first year
listed for illustration, your analysis assumes that Trident would pay
80% of its full costs (including fixed and variable costs}, specifically
.8 * .103 = .082. However, Trident•s avoided cost is basically its fuel
cost alone, estimated at .067 for that year. It is very unlikely that
Trident would pay more than .067 in that initial year, and may not be
willing to pay even that much. As a result, I changed the assumption
such that Trident would pay only 50% of its full cost, which in the ini-
tial year would be .5 * .103 = .052. This hurts the economics of the
hydro option.
Similarly, Trident may be willing to sell power to the City at less than
its fu 11 cost as long as the payment exceeds its variable cost.
changed that assumption such that Trident is willing to sell at 80% of
its full cost (rather than 120% as assumed in the draft report.) In the
initial year, this means that Trident would sell power for .8 * .103 =
. 082, which exceeds its vari ab 1 e cost of production. This he 1 ps the
economics of the third alternative: intertie between Trident and Akutan
but no hydro.
Tab 1 e 3 shows the effect of these changes. The tie 1 i ne a 1 one 1 ooks
better than hydro for 1991 and 1996, but hydro regains the advantage by
2001.
Finally, the draft report assumes real escalation of the diesel price of
about 3% per year (i.e. 5% general inflation, 8% nominal increase in
diesel prices}. I understand that staff from AEA previously directed
you to use this assumption. However, assuming transportation and deliv-
Mr. Bill Ryan
March 12, 1990
Page 3
ery account for 50% of the diesel price, and assuming the cost of these
factors remain constant in real terms, this assumption implies that the
real price of crude oil is increasing at 6% per year. A real increase
in crude prices of 2% per year is probably escalation enough, implying a
1% real annual increase in diesel prices. The last change I made was to
reduce the rea 1 increase in de 1 i vered di ese 1 prices to 1 percent per
year.
The impact of this additional change is shown in Table 5. The intertie
alone, without any hydro, now looks preferable until 2001, at which time
hydro breaks even.
While the assumptions underlying the figures in Table 5 are arbitrary,
they seem to me at this point more prudent than those used in the draft
report. The result of using these assumptions is a much more competi-
tive outcome between the intertie alone vs. the intertie plus hydro op-
tion. These issues should be addressed in the final report.
Finally, the economic analysis in the draft report is essentially a com-
parison of wholesale prices in future years. I understand that AEA
staff had directed you to take this approach. It would also be informa-
tive to evaluate the proposals by comparing the present value of their
life-cycle costs.
Sincerely,
''it~ (:ir-,
/ l //J 1 t/1/ tv ~ -·~~
Richard Emerman
Senior Economist
Revised 5/11/90
ATTACHMENT
Table 1
Loud
Exist Creek Ak-Tri
Case 14 Tie
1991 1.317 1.265 1.273
1996 1.348 1.161 1.272
2111 1.421 1.152 1.332
Table 2
Loud
Exist Creek Ak-Tri
Case 14 Tie
1991 1.372 1.322 1.317
1996 1.478 1.196 1.367
2111 8.584 8.184 1.441
Table 3
Loud
Exist Creek Ak-Tri
Case 14 Tie
1991 1.372 1.474 1.271
1996 1.478 1.371 1.311
2111 1.584 1.273 1.347
Table 4
Trident Trident Trident
O.Fi)(ed D.Fuel Diesel
Cost Cost Cost
($/kWh) ($/kl.l'l) ($/ld..tl)
1.136 1.167 1.113
1.138 1.112 1.111
1.141 1.178 1.117
0.842 8.884 1.126
0.844 0.891 1.134
0.146 1.898 1.144
8.148 8.116 1.154
8.858 8.114 0.165
8.853 1.123 1.176
0.156 8.133 1.189
8.158 1.144 1.212
8.161 8.155 1.217
1.864 1.168 1.232
8.868 1.181 1.249
Table 5
Loud
Exist Creek Ak-Tri
Case 14 Tie
1991 1.367 1.481 1.267
1996 1.453 1.394 1.291
2111 1.522 1.317 1.321
Alaska Energy Authority
MEMORANDUM
Apri 1 30, 1990
To:
From:
Subject:
David Denig-Chakroff
Director of Rural Programs
Richard Emerman ~ ~~
Senior Economist~, )}r
Akutan Hydroelectric Project
Stc~e cf _Aios~<a
S:eve C.:-Ncer ,.::<> .. -e~r-o"
A contract is currently in effect between the Energy Authority and Ott
Engineering to conduct feasibility and design work for a hydroelectric
project in Akutan. Phase I of the contract authorized costs up to
$64,826 for the feasibility study, a draft of which has been completed.
If Ott is directed to proceed by the Authority, Phase II would cover de-
velopment of final construction plans and specifications, and a final
cost estimate for the selected project. Funding for Phase II would come
from the existing Rural Community Feasibility appropriation, which is
expected to have an available balance of roughly $100,000 at the start
of FY 91.
The purpose of this memo is to go over the project proposal and its ap-
parent economics based on information from the Phase I draft report, to
help decide whether we should authorize Phase II or pursue a different
course.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In the draft Phase I report, Ott recommends construction of a $1.7 mil-
lion hydro project at Loud Creek across the bay from the City of Akutan
and Trident Seafoods. The only significant technical problem identified
is the underwater cable that would traverse the bay, and the probability
that the cable would be damaged on occasion by dragging anchors. How-
ever, the design ca 11 s for 1 i ght weight cab 1 e that can be 1 i fted,
spliced, and re-installed from a small boat.
PO Box AM Juneau. Aiosko 99811 [907) 465·3575
X PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Ancnoroge. AlasKa 99519·0869 (907) 561·78 77
2
The project would have the following energy production characteristics:
1) Average annual energy production --1.6 million kWh
2) Peak capability --412 kW
The Akutan utility presently serves 29 residential customers plus sev-
eral commercial and community facilities. Its approximate annual gener-
ation requirements are presently as follows:
1) Average annual energy production --0.3 million kWh
2) Peak demand --80 kW
Trident Seafoods generates its own power with diesel engines. Following
expansion this spring that will add a new fish meal and surimi plant,
their estimated annual generation requirements will be as follows:
1) Average annual energy production --24 million kWh
2) Peak demand --5500 kW
In terms of average annual energy, the proposed Loud Creek project would
provide over 5 times the present annual energy requirement of the Akutan
utility. However, the excess energy that would be available for sale to
Trident represents only 5% of Trident's annual requirement.
BACKGROUND
A 36-inch pelton wheel was installed on a nearby stream in 1927 and pro-
vided a small amount of direct current power to the City for many years.
Prior to 1982, this along with small, private diesel generators provided
all electric power to the City.
Prior to 1980, studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Robert A.
Retherford Associates identified a potential hydroelectric site on a
stream presently named 11 North Creek... In 1980, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Deve 1 opment provided funds for Ott Engineers to de-
velop a preliminary design for a hydro project on North Creek. The cost
of the project at that time was estimated at about $1 million. The City
attempted to implement the project using State loan funds and proceeded
to the point of acquiring a 200 kW Chinese turbine and soliciting con-
struction bids. However, the project was discontinued due apparently to
a combination of financial and seismic concerns. The Energy Authority
ended up in possession of the turbine, which is presently stored in
Seattle.
3
In 1982, the City completed construction of a new diesel plant facility
including fuel storage for 12,000 gallons. Annual fuel usage of the
generating plant is currently around 36,000 gallons. Sometime after
1982, the City also installed a bulk fuel storage facility of about
60,000 gallons.
In 1985, the Energy Authority directed Po 1 arconsult to review the op-
tions for Akutan hydro development. They concluded that the North Creek
project could be built for a much lower price, and also that a potential
site across the bay (Loud Creek) deserved further investigation.
The Authority contracted for the collection of streamflow data for both
North Creek and Loud Creek from 1986-88, and then entered into the pre-
sent contract with Ott Engineers to reassess the hydro alternatives.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ALTERNATIVES
Ott concludes that the Loud Creek site is superior to North Creek in
many respects and believes it to be the clear choice on technical
grounds. Shown below is a brief comparison of the least expensive hydro
alternative described in the report with the recommended alternative:
Capital Cost
Site
Maximum kW
MWh per year
Turbine
Least
Expensive
Alternative
$1.4 mi 11 ion
Loud Creek
209
1292
Chinese
Recommended
Alternative
$1. 7 mi 11 ion
Loud Creek
412
1720
New
The least expensive project at the North Creek site is also estimated at
$1.4 million. These findings are inconsistent with the view expressed
by Polarconsult that a much lower price can be achieved relative to the
1980 estimate. In addition, use of the Chinese turbine apparently re-
duces the cost estimate by only $100,000. A new 350 kW turbine is esti-
4
mated to cost $150,000, while the Chinese turbine would cost $50,000 to
retrofit for this application.
A different option is a 1 so brought up in the recent Ott report: con-
structing an intertie between Trident and the City at an estimated cost
of $165,000, and arranging for the City to buy all (or nearly all) of
its power from Trident. Although Trident's power costs are not reported
in any detail, it appears that the City would benefit not only from Tri-
dent's lower fuel purchase price but also from Trident's presumed advan-
tage in generating efficiency with respect to both fuel and operating
costs. (For example, Akutan's fuel efficiency is about 8 kWh/gal, while
Ott estimates that Trident's fuel efficiency is about 12 kWh/gal.)
While this would seem to be appealing to the City, it is not clear how
Trident would feel about it. The City's annual energy requirement is
about 1% of Trident's annual generation. Assuming for illustration that
Trident sold energy to the City for $0.03 more per kWh than it cost to
produce, Trident would stand to make a $9,000 annual profit on the ar-
rangement. If there were essentially no hassle factor involved in the
sa 1 e, then perhaps Trident wou 1 d agree if only to earn some goodwi 11
with the community. On the other hand, if operating and/or regulatory
problems were involved in the arrangement, there might not be enough in-
centive for Trident to serve as the City's energy supplier. These is-
sues have not been explored.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The analysis produced for the Ott report is based on a comparison of ex-
pected retail energy rates to City customers over the next 10 years
based on various assumptions about fuel price escalation, load growth,
and the price that Trident would be willing to pay for hydro energy that
is excess to the City's needs. While there are significant problems
with the assumptions themselves (see attached letter to Bill Ryan), the
overall problem is that the type of analysis conducted does not deter-
mine how the present value of project costs compares with the present
value of avoided costs. As a result, I constructed a spreadsheet that
makes that type of comparison in a rough but hopefully useful fashion.
It is assumed in the spreadsheet that the utility's fixed operating
costs are the same with or without the hydro project (i.e. operator la-
bor, insurance, tools, administration). Costs that are included in the
comparison are as follows:
Hydro
Capital Cost
Annual repair
($10,000/yr}
5
Diesel
Variable
fuel oil
(City + Trident)
lube oil
(City + Trident)
Diesel
Total
all variable
100 kW unit
(years 5 & 15:
$70,000/unit -
City only)
Annual maint.
($7,500/yr}
Three issues of significance in the comparison are discussed below:
1) Economic Life. A project of this type would probably be evaluated
over a 30 or 35 year period, allowing for the fact that the dam
itself would be constructed from timber. The major unknown factor
is seismic risk. The 1980 Ott report states that the chances are
significant that a large earthquake within the next 20 years could
render the facility inoperable. As a result, the spreadsheet com-
pares costs over 3 different time periods: 20, 25, and 30 years.
2) Fuel Efficiency. Presently, about 20% of the project output would
be used by the City and the remaining 80% would be sold to Tri-
dent. Using these factors, the spreadsheet assumes a weighted av-
erage fuel efficiency of 11.2 kWh/gal in the calculation of
avoided fuel costs. (Present estimated efficiencies: City = 7.9
kWh/gal; Trident= 12 kWh/gal.)
3) Fuel Price. An initial weighted average fuel price of $0.78/gal
is also assumed based on the same 20%-80% weighting factors.
(Present fuel prices: City= $0.90/gal; Trident= $0.75/gal.)
The "Benefit/Cost ratios" shown in the table below are actually computed
as the cost of the diesel scenario divided by the cost of the hydro sce-
nario. When the diesel cost is higher, the B/C ratio exceeds 1.0.
8/C ratios are calculated in two ways:
1) The diesel scenario costs include only the value of displaced fuel
and lube oil, providing a conservative assessment of hydro value.
6
2) The diesel scenario costs include a conservative estimate of capi-
ta 1 and maintenance costs for the City as we 11 as the variable
costs described above.
The parameters that are varied in the model are hydro capital cost, real
fuel escalation rate, real discount rate, and volume of energy produc-
tion from the hydro project. The 8 scenarios shown in the table below
are arranged in order from the least to the most favorable:
Run Years
20
#1 25
30
20
#2 25
30
20
#3 25
30
20
#4 25
30
20
#5 25
30
20
#6 25
30
20
#7 25
30
20
#8 25
30
B/C
Var
.73
.83
.90
.81
.92
1.00
.87
.98
1.07
.97
1.09
1.19
1.05
1.20
1.33
1.07
1.26
1.43
1.19
1.40
1.59
1.31
1.54
1. 75
8/C
Total
. 82
.92
1.00
.90
1.02
1.10
.97
1.09
1.19
1.07
1.20
1.30
1.15
1.32
1.45
1.19
1.39
1.57
1.31
1.53
1.73
1.44
1.68
1.90
Capital
Cost
$2.0 mi 1.
$2.0 mi 1 .
$1.7 mi 1.
$1.7 mil.
$1.7 mil.
$1.7 mil.
$1.7 mil.
$1.5 mil.
Real
Fuel
Esc •
0%
0%
0%
0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Discount
Rate
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
Energy
Prod.
90%
full
90%
full
full
90%
full
full
These results indicate that the project has a reasonably good economic
potential overall. For example, case #4 shows a 8/C ratio of 1.09 over
25 years, looking only at fuel savings and assuming constant real fuel
prices and a 4.5% real discount rate. Using the same conservative dis-
7
count rate, case #5 shows a B/C ratio of 1.45 over 30 years assuming an
average 1.0% real increase in fuel prices, and also accounting for capi-
tal and maintenance cost savings for the City utility.
While City residents would share in a portion of these long-term bene-
fits, most of the benefits would likely be realized by Trident Seafoods
(or whatever successor to Trident may someday emerge) over the life of
the project.
FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
On the basis of rough calculations, it appears that the State would have
to make a substantial grant contribution, perhaps on the order of
$600,000, in order for the project to be financeable. This is based on
the following assumptions:
1) At least in the early years, the City would use about 20% of the
project output (i.e. 340,000 kWh), and Trident would purchase the
other 80% (i.e. 1,360,000 kWh).
2) Because this represents only 5% of Trident's electric energy re-
quirements, it is assumed that Trident would be willing to pay no
more than its avoided fuel costs. At $0.75/gal and 12 kWh/gal,
this amounts to $0.063/kWh. The annual payment by Trident would
therefore be about $85,000.
3) It is assumed that the City could not afford any rate shock of its
own, and will also save primarily fuel cost in the early years.
At $0.90/gal and 7.91 kWh/gal, the fuel cost presently incurred by
the City is $0.114/kWh. If the City paid for its hydro energy at
that rate, the annual payment by the City would be nearly $40,000.
4) The combined annual payment by Trident and the City would there-
fore be about $125,000. If all of this were committed to debt
service for a loan over 25 years at 10% interest, it would be suf-
ficient to pay off a principal amount of about $1.1 million.
5) In order to limit the loan amount to $1.1 million, the State would
have to make a grant contribution of about $600,000 assuming a
project capital cost of $1.7 million as indicated in the recent
Ott report.
Of course, many of these numbers are subject to change. As noted in the
Ott report, perhaps the capital cost can be reduced through active par-
ticipation by Trident, particularly if Trident is interested in con-
structing a water line from Loud Creek across the bay to its processing
facility. Perhaps Trident would be willing to pay more than its avoided
8
fuel cost in the early years. On the other hand, the bond size may have
to be larger to include various financing expenses, and the 10% interest
rate may be overly optimistic. On the whole, it presently appears that
a substantial State grant contribution would be necessary to implement
the project. The probability that a sufficient State appropriation can
ultimately be obtained should be considered in the decision to proceed
with Phase II of the Ott contract for final project design.
cc: Brent Petrie
Attachment as stated