Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNyac Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate 1993NYRt ()()/ c.~ LIBRARY COPY Please use BLUE SIGN-OUT CARD Nyac Hydroelectric Project Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate. -:- Prepared for: Alaska Energy Authority 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 4446 Business Park Boulevard Building B Anchorage, Alaska 99503 August 1993 . ... ... NYAC 001 c. 2 NYAC HYDROELECTR-IC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN & COST ESTIMATE DATE ISSUED TD HIGHSMITH 42·222 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents Paee Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . 2 Scope of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 Site Characteristics and Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Project l.ocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 History and Operation of Existing Hydroelectric Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 Condition Survey of Existing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Basin Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. 2 Historical Streamflow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. 3 Historical Precipitation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 Field Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5 Precipitation Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6 Stream Flow Data Analysis ............................. 11 3. 7 Flood Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. 0 Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1 Rehabilitation of Existing Project .......................... 14 4.2 Construction of Optimized Project at Existing Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 Recommended Development ............................. 15 5. 0 Selection of Project Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5 .1 Diversion Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2 Intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3 Canals .......................................... 17 5.4 Penstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5 Turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. 6 Powerhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 6.0 Project Power Production ................................... 20 6.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2 Assumptions ...................................... 20 N:07073.014:6 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents (Continued) Pa&e 7. 0 Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. 1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. 2 Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. 3 Indirect Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. 4 Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................... 28 List of Figures Following Pa&e 1 Project l.ocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Project l.ayout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Diversion Structure Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 Intake Structure Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 List of Tables Pap 1 Summary of Project Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Basin Characteristics Tuluksak River and Slate Creek at Diversion Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Nyac Precipitation -1992 and Historical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Average Stonn Flow (1992) ................................. 11 5 Average Runoff (1992) .................................... 12 6 Estimated Mean Monthly Flows ............................... 13 7 Estimated Flood Frequency at Tuluksak River and Slate Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8 Estimated Annual Energy Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9 Costruction Cost Estimate Summary-Rebuild Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10 Costruction Cost Estimate Summary-Optimized Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11 Power Output Estimates .................................... 28 List of Appendices Appendix A: Field Report Appendix B: Specifications for Existing and Proposed Turbines Appendix C: Streamflow Data Appendix D: Precipitation Data Appendix E: Specifications for New Turbine Appendix F: Detailed Cost Estimates Appendix G: Example Energy Calculations N:07073.014:6 ii 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Summary Introduction A hydroelectric project to provide power for a mining operation has existed at Nyac, Alaska since at least the 1950s. This plant operated until1987, at which time the turbine was damaged. This report evaluates the technical feasibility and construction cost of (1) rehabilitating the existing facility and (2) upsizing the project to generate the optimum power from the available water at this site. Nyac is located in Southwest Alaska, approximately flfty miles northeast of BetheL The project would divert flows from the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek. Existing canals would be used to convey water to the penstock. The project site has 70' of available head. The project would supply power to the Bethel power system through an intertie. The technical feasibility of this intertie is being evaluated by others in a separate study. Existing Facilities Except for the canals, very little of the existing system is considered to be salvageable. A new project is preferable to rehabilitation of the existing project. Hydrology Continuous streamflow records for the Tuluksak River basin did not exist at the start of this project. As part of this project, precipitation and streamflow data was collected from June 1992 to May 1993. Hydrologic analyses indicate that the Tuluksak River at Nyac and Slate Creek at the diversion site have an estimated average annual flow of 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 60 cfs respectively. Project Energy Production The project is assumed to be operable for a 6 month period, from May to October (inclusive) due to low flows and icing problems will likely preclude operation during winter. The actual power available during the open water period will depend on fisheries issues, which may govern the operation and amounts of flow available for power generation. Resolution of these issues was not within the scope of this project but annual power generation based upon several scenarios is presented. Construction Cost Construction of a project optimizing the use of the water available is estimated to cost $7.4 million. N:07073.014:6 1 8/93 ll/yac Hydroelectric Project Not included in this estimate are costs for land rights, the costs associated with obtaining the necessary pennits, licensing under FERC, environmental mitigation, and any costs associated with a transmission line. The following table summarizes the project features. Table 1 Summary of Project Features Project location The Tuluksak River and Slate Creek at Nyac in Southwest Alaska approximately 50 miles northeast of Bethel Gross head 70' Flow at Tuldusak diversion 280 cfs average annual flow 460 cfs average flow during 6 operational months Flow at Slate Creek diversion 60 cfs average annual flow 9S cfs average flow during 6 operational months Diversion(s) 100' by 10' high and 50' by 6' high concrete Diversion conduit(s) One 21,500' (4 mile) canal and one 5,000' (1 mile) canal Penstock Length: 550' Diameter: 7' (84ft) Material: Steel Powerhouse 24' by 56' prefab building Turbine Number of Units: 2 Type: Horizontal Francis Capacity: 900 kW/900 kW Total Capacity: 1,800 kW Estimated average annual 4,700 MWh to 6,700 MWh per year energy (6 month operational period, dependent on fisheries issues) Estimated construetion cost $7,400,000 N:07073.0l4:6 2 8193 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Study This report evaluates the technical feasibility and cost of reactivating an existing damaged hydroelectric facility at Nyac, Alaska. The following two options are explored: • Rehabilitation of the existing system, and; • Construction of a project at the existing site that optimizes the power generated from the available water. 1.2 Scope of this Report The scope of this report includes the following: • Determination of the condition of the existing system. • A reconnaissance level cost estimate to rehabilitate the existing system. • Collection of stream flow data to assist with determining power generation. • Conceptual design of a project to produce the optimum power available from the site. • A reconnaissance level construction cost estimate. • Estimation of the annual power generation capacity of the upsized system. This work is based upon office research and a site visit that took place on September 4 and 5, 1991 (field notes attached in Appendix A). Collection of precipitation and stream flow data was done as an addition to the original project scope and was conducted from June, 1992, to May, 1993 (inclusive). The scope is designed to provide input for future studies to determine the economic feasibility of reactivating the site. Evaluation of a transmission line to transmit power to the villages along the Kuskokwim River is to be addressed by others in a separate study. N:07073.014:6 3 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 2.0 Site Characteristics and Existing facilities 2.1 Project Location Nyac is located in Southwest Alaska, approximately 340 miles west of Anchorage and 50 miles northeast of Bethel (Figures 1, 2 and 3). Nyac is named for the "New York Alaska (Gold Dredging) Corporation" and has been the site of a placer gold mining operation since early this century. Nyac is located on the Tuluksak River at elevation 450'. The mountains that form the Tuluksak River basin rise from the flat arctic p1ain to an elevation of 3,500'. The Tuluksak River has two main forks, the west and east forks. The east fork of the Tuluksak is known as Bear Creek. These join together to form the Tuluksak River at Nyac. Downstream of Nyac the Tuluksak River becomes a lower gradient meandering river. It joins the Kuskokwim River at the village of Tuluksak. Past dredge mining operations have left tailings throughout the valley bottoms of the Tuluksak River and a number of its tributaries. 2.2 History and Operation of Existing Hydroelectric Project A hydroelectric project was originally constructed at Nyac sometime prior to 1955 to provide power for a dredge mining operation. Water for this project was conveyed from Slate Creek through a one mile canal. A 4' diameter woodstave penstock conveyed water from the canal to a francis turbine rated at 400 kW with 70' of head. An outlet was provided in the bank of the canal to permit release of surge or overflow. No history was found of the operation of this site, but it is likely that the entire flow of Slate Creek was diverted to the canal and excess water allowed to spill out through the outlet in the canal bank. A second project was constructed alongside this one about 1955 when more power was needed. Additional water for this project was conveyed from the Tuluksak River at a location 500' downstream of the confluence of Bear Creek through a four mile canal. A 5' diameter woodstave penstock conveyed water from the canal to a francis turbine rated at 500 kW. Both projects were located at the same powerhouse and used the same 70' of gross head. Mine employees recall that a ft.re occurred about 1962 during which the 400 kW unit and its penstock were destroyed. After fire destroyed the frrst plant it appears that the Slate Creek canal was abandoned. The 500 kW unit continued to operate to supply power to two dredges (supplemented by diesel generation) which operated on the Tuluksak River and its tributaries. Operation was seasonal typically running from May, when the canal was cleared of ice and muck, to late October, when cold weather shut operations down. Operational records for the 500 kW unit were recovered for the years of 1980 and 1982, listing an average production of 236 kW and a peak capacity of 360 kW. Start-up was noted in 1982 as May 26 and shutdown in 1980 as October 21. N:07073.014:6 4 8193 Nyac Hydroelectric Project At some point in time the diversion site for the canal was shifted from the Tuluksak River upstream to Bear Creek. This intake relocation was done so that the area of the original intake could be mined. The plant was shut down in 1987 when a turbine control gate broke from its shaft and fell into the turbine runner damaging the turbine runner and gate housing. 2.3 Existing Facilities An extensive system of infrastructure exists at Nyac. The area has two airstrips, the larger which is 5 ,000' long and is accessible to Hercules transport aircraft. Nyac is not connected to the state highway system. There is a winter cat trail from the Kuskokwim River to Nyac but it has not been used for many years. A road system exists within the local Nyac area along Bear Creek and the Tuluksak River connecting the airstrip, camp areas, Tuluksak River diversion site, powerhouse, and powerhouse intake. Overgrown roads also parallel both the Tuluksak and Slate Creek canals. The area designated as Nyac is a mining camp with shop and storage buildings along with dining and lodging facilities. In addition there are four recently constructed residences located approximately one mile from the existing powerhouse site that are currently unused. The camp has radio telephone and electricity. Camp electricity is provided by two 210 kW and one 90 kW diesel generators. Another 275 kW unit was not in service at the time of this report. Fuel costs in 1992 were reported to be $2 per gallon not including the costs of tanks, fuel trucks, and labor. The present mining operation has heavy equipment including two D-8 and two D-6 tractors, one large excavator, two backhoes, two large front-end loaders, one grader, a flatbed, one rear dump truck, and miscellaneous pumps and tools. 2.4 Condition Survey of Existing System A survey was made of all project components by HDR Engineering, Inc. and Kinetic Energy Systems, Inc. on September 4 and 5, 1991. Each component is described below. Tuluksak Dil'emon Site and Canal There were two diversion sites on the Tuluksak River at different times in the project history. The original site was located on the Tuluksak River approximately 500' downstream of the confluence of Bear Creek with the Tuluksak River. At some point in time the diversion site for the canal was shifted from the Tuluksak River upstream to Bear Creek. The diversion structures used were earthen berms, which were constructed or allowed to wash out as needed. No diversion presently exists at either of these locations and earth berms have been built across the mouths of the canals to close them off from the river. The area where a new diversion would be located has been extensively dredge mined. N:07073.014:6 5 8/93 . • ...... • LOCA 110N t.tAP t i t 12 I IiR SCALE: 1• -12 .a£5 HDA Engineering, Inc. PRo.ECT DRAINAGE BASJt,l NYAC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LOCATION MAP NYAC, ALASKA Dote OCT. 91 r, CADD FILE: NYA C2A LEGEND -U-IGUNIIMY -----1101101 --S1MMII --CMM.I 0 1/1 t/4 1/2 seAL£: 1• • APPROX. 1/2 MU: Iii( NYAC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VICINITY MAP NYAC, ALASKA Date OCT. 91 r. 0 1/4 1/2 I I I APPROX. SCAL£ IiR ti)A Engineering, Inc. NYAC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT LAYOUT NYAC, ALASKA Dote OCT: 91 r, CAOD FILE: NYACSITE Nyac Hydroelectric Project Cross sections were taken of the Tuluksak Canal at its upstream and downstream end and at one location in about the middle of its four mile length. A composite of these cross-sections has a bottom width of 11 feet, side slopes of 1.5H:lV, and a depth of 7 feet. An altimeter was used to determine elevations at the upstream and downstream ends. The average slope from these altimeter readings is 5 feet per mile. The canal was also examined on aerial photography. No breaches were noted except at the upstream end where a section of the canal has been filled for a road. Willows have grown profusely along both banks of the canal. Scour on the canal side slopes showed a normal flow level of approximately 2' had occurred in the canal during past usage. The canal bed and side slopes at the locations surveyed appeared to have been stable at those flows. The canal is considered to be salvageable but will require major clearing of vegetation. Slate Creek Diversion Site and Canal No trace of a diversion structure was found on Slate Creek, and an earthen berm closes off the upper end of the canal. Slate Creek splits approximately 400' upstream of the upper end of the canal. To capture the full flow available in the creek a new diversion would be best located upstream of this split or the split should be blocked off. The Slate Creek canal was surveyed at its upstream and downstream ends and at one location in the middle of its one mile length, it was also examined on aerial photography. No breaches were noted. The canal cross-section varies greatly throughout its length from a narrow incised section to a broad swale. An attempt was made to use an altimeter to determine elevations at the upstream and downstream ends of the canal but the elevation difference was too small to measure with the instrument. Willows have grown profusely along both banks of the canal and the upper, less recently used, section has grown in with small birch trees. The alignment of this canal is constructed in sandy gravel, which may have high permeability through some sections. This canal is considered to be salvageable but the canal will have to be extensively reworked. Intake The intake located at the end of the canals is a wood structure 15' wide and 20' deep in plan. It has a trashra.ck with 5/8" bars at 1-1/8" spacing. It is not considered salvageable. Penstock The existing penstock is a 5' diameter woodstave pipe supported on timber cradles and tied to the intake and turbine with steel thimbles. The pipe appears sound from the outside but an inspection of the interior at its lower end revealed numerous plywood patches. Maintenance personnel described the pipe as rotten and patched throughout its entire length. The support cradles have rotted where they contact the ground which has caused the supports to collapse. The penstock is not considered salvageable. N :07073.014:6 6 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Powerhouse The powerhouse is a 20' by 40' by 10' tall metal building on a concrete slab foundation. Three steel trusses support metal roofmg and siding. The metal skin and insulation are tom. No cracks were observed in either the foundation wall or slab. The tailrace area was constructed of a combination of steel, wood and concrete. It was not possible to inspect the tailrace footings because the water here was 6' deep. It is suspected that erosion has undermined much of this area. Alongside this existing powerhouse is a second foundation slab that has the charred remains of the previous hydroelectric project, old diesel generators, and the transmission substation. The building is potentially salvageable but would be undersized for a new project. Turbines There are two existing turbines. The one in most recent operation was manufactured by the James Leffel Company in 1953 (Leffel shop order number W-834) and placed in service on this site in 1956. Drawings and specifications for the turbine were obtained from the manufacturer (attached as Appendix B) and original purchase orders and shop drawings were located on site. A portion of these are included in Appendix B. It is a 27" horizontal, style 24, Francis turbine designed to produce 730 BHP (500 kW) at 514 rpm at an operating head of 71'. Records from 1985 show that turbine performance had dropped to 300 -350 kW. This loss of performance was attributed to loss of efficiency due to wear increasing the tolerance between the runner and the turbine housing. The hydropower plant was shut down in 1987 when a turbine control gate broke from its shaft and fell into the turbine runner while the turbine was on line. The turbine runner split in half and the gate housing cracked in multiple areas. Additional gates were also broken and the turbine shaft may have bent. The turbine is rebuildable. At a minimum the gate housing, turbine runner, and turbine shaft will need to be replaced. In addition, the runner housing will have to be sleeved or reconstructed by a welding and grinding operation used in the turbine industry. Little is known about the second turbine on the site, a horizontal spiral francis turbine. This turbine was abandoned after a ftre about 1962 destroyed its powerhouse, penstock, and generator. No nameplates were found on the turbine, and no history was discovered, except that it was rated for 400 kW. A cursory inspection revealed no major damage. Generator and GoPemor The Leffel turbine is matched to a Westinghouse 625 kVA, 4160 volt, 14 pole, 514 RPM, three phase, 60 cycle generator. Original purchase orders and shop drawings were located on site. A portion of these are included in Appendix B. The condition of the generator is unknown. N:07073.014:6 7 8/93 Nyac Hydroelecrric Project The governor is a Woodward mechanical type. Reports from 1969 state that the governor was unable to maintain consistency, otherwise its condition is unknown. Neither component is considered salvageable since newer generators and electronic load governors are superior to these older systems. Flywheel A 6' diameter, 6" thick steel flywheel is a part of the existing system. It appears to be in good condition. It is considered salvageable and its use is recommended with the existing turbine. N:07073.014:6 8 3/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 3.0 Hydrology 3.1 Basin Description Two streams are proposed as water sources for the project, the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek, a tributary to the Tuluksak River. The Tuluksak River has two main forks, the west and east forks, the east fork of the Tuluksak is known as Bear Creek. The proposed Tuluksak River diversion site is about 500' downstream of the confluence of these two forks. Slate Creek also has two forks. The proposed Slate Creek diversion site is located on the eastern fork of Slate Creek. The Tuluksak River and Slate Creek basins are shown on Figure 2 and their basin characteristics at the diversion sites are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Basin Characteristics of Tuluksak River and Slate Creek at Diversion Sites Tuluksak Ri..-er at Diversion Slate Creek Diversion Site Site Drainage Area (square miles) West Fork Tuluksak River 62 32 East Fork Tuluksak River 78 Estimated Mean Annual 28 28 Precipitation (inches) Mean Minimwn Jan. Temp (0 F) 1 l Percent of Lakes and Ponds (%) 1 0 Mean Basin Elevation (feet) l ,300 (500 -3,500) I ,300 (500 - 3 ,000) Stream Length (miles) 16 11 Main Channel Slope (feet/mile) West Fork Tuluksak River 35 90 East Fork Tulusak River 125 3.2 Historical Streamflow Data The Southwest region of Alaska, where the project is located, is characterized by a lack of streamflow data. Much of the data is from large rivers such as the Yukon or Kuskokwim. The closest gaged site is on the Kisanilik River, 50 miles south of the project site. The Kisaralik River was gaged by the USGS between 1979 and 1987. An extensive review of the Kisaralik River basin's characteristics and runoff patterns showed it to be very different from those of the Tuluksak. Specifically, the Kisanilik River is a higher elevation basin which is located at the crest of the Kilbuck Mountains. Because of local climatology this basin receives approximately N:07073.014:6 9 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project double the precipitation of the Nyac area. The snow pack resulting from this increased precipitation will runoff throughout the summer. Correlation of the Tuluksak basin to the Kisaralik basin would result in an overestimation of summer flows at the Tuluksak River. Spot measurements of flow at a number of locations within the Tuluksak River basin were done in the summer of 1983 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 3.3 Historical Precipitation Data Precipitation data was recorded at N yac from 1926 to 1929 and 1949 to 1963 (17 years total). The average annual precipitation at this site was 23", 15" of which fell during summer (May through September) and 8" in winter. Precipitation for the higher average elevation of the river basin was estimated based on a precipitation increase of 6" per 1,000' elevation gain. This predicts an average annual precipitation for the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek basins of 28 inches, 18 inches in summer, and 10 inches in winter. 3.4 Field Data Collection Stream stage recorders were installed on the Tuluksak River at the Nyac bridge, on Bear Creek at the bridge, and on Slate Creek at the diversion site. A continuous recording rain gage was installed at the Nyac mining camp. These instruments were installed in early June, 1992 and were removed following freeze-up in mid-October. They were reinstalled in May of 1993. The Tuluksak River gage was installed to provide flow data at the potential water intake on that river. The Bear Creek gage was installed as a backup should the Tuluksak gage fail and to compare runoff per square mile of the Bear Creek drainage basin to the entire Tuluksak River basin. The Slate Creek gage was installed to provide flow data at the potential water intake on that stream and to compare runoff per square mile of the Slate Creek basin to the Tuluksak River basin. To back up the stage recorders at the Tuluksak and Bear Creek sites, staff gages were installed at these locations and read daily by local workers throughout the summer. Six flow measurements were made with support of Calista Corporation personnel at each of the stream gage sites during 1992 to develop a relationship between stage and discharge. Flow measurements were obtained through a wide range of flows which included the high and low flows of the period of record. This resulted in well-defmed stream stage-discharge relationships at all three sites. The flow records developed from this relationship for the period of June, 1992, to May, 1993, are included as Appendix C. Precipitation and temperature were recorded with an automatic tipping bucket gage from June 1 through September 30, 1992. This record is included as Appendix E. N:07073.014:6 lO 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 3.5 Precipitation Data Analysis The precipitation data for June to September 1992 (Table 3) was compared to historical records collected at the site from 1926-'29 and 1949-'63 (17 years). The departure of the 1992 data from historical records is provided. The data show that precipitation in June, July, and August were slightly below average, that September precipitation was above average, and that the total precipitation from June to September, inclusive, was average for the site. Snowpack measurements made by the Soil Conservation Service at Chuathbaluk, a site 50 miles north showed that the April l, 1992 water content of the snow was approximately 50% of the average for the five-year period of record at that site. Table 3 Nyac Precipitation -1992 and Historical 1991 Historical Departure Departure (lnehes) (Inches) (Inches) (~) June 1.68 2.03 -0.35 -17 July 2.00 2.45 -0.45 -18 August 5.58 5.83 -0.25 -4 September 4.66 3.59 +1.07 +30 4-Month Total 13.92 13.90 +0;02 0.0 3.6 Stream Flow Data Analysis Average measured monthly stream flow in cfs and runoff in cfs per square mile for June to October 1992 are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. I June July August September October 5-Month Average N:07073.014:6 Table 4 Average Stream Flow (1992) (cfs) Tllluksak I Bear 397 214 238 121 328 177 612 309 419 200 395 203 11 l Slate 66 40 67 159 86 84 8/93 I June July August September October 5-Montb Average TableS Average Runoff (1992) (cfs/mi~ Tuluksak I Bear 2.80 2.74 1.67 1.55 2.31 2.27 4.31 3.96 2.95 2.57 2.78 2.61 Nyac Hydroelectric Project I Slate 2.07 1.25 2.10 4.96 3.04 2.63 As is apparent in Table 5, average runoff from each of the basins are similar. Tuluksak River flow data were extrapolated from October through March based on a winter discharge measurement of the Tuluksak River made on March 16, 1993 and by drainage area correlation to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging site on South Fork Campbell Creek near Anchorage which has continuous flow data from 1967 to 1979. Although distant geographically Campbell Creek is at the same latitude and has similar basin characteristics to the Tuluksak River basin, and both basins have similar patterns of precipitation in both volume and distribution. Based on the 1992 precipitation and snowpack data, measured 1992 stream flows for the three Nyac-area drainage basins are estimated to be slightly lower than average. Estimated average monthly flows for the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek at their diversion sites are shown in Table 6. N:07073.014:6 12 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Table 6 Estimated Mean Monthly Flows Slate Creek at Tuluksak River at Bear Creek Proposed Month Nyac (efs) Near Nyac (cfs) Diversion (cfs) January 90 50 20 February 80 44 18 March 60 33 14 April 70 39 16 May 706 388 159 June 503 274 66 July 238 121 40 August 328 177 67 September 612 309 159 October 360 181 82 November 160 88 37 December 120 66 28 Mean Annual 278 148 59 3. 7 Flood Frequency Estimated flood frequency analysis was based on a comparison of the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek to South Fork Campbell Creek: RetUm Interval (Yean) 2 5 10 25 50 N:07073.014:6 Table 7 Estimated Flood Frequency at Tuluksak River and Slate Creek Flood Discharge (cfs) Slate Creek at Proposed Tuluksak River at Nyac Diversion 1,200 280 1,800 420 2,300 540 3,100 710 3,700 860 13 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 4.0 Project Alternatives Two options were looked at for this project, the rehabilitation of the existing facility and construction of a project at the existing site to optimize the power generated from the available water. 4.1 Rehabilitation of Existing Project The rehabilitation of the existing project would make use of the existing damaged Francis turbine made by the James Leffel Company and the older Francis turbine of unknown manufacture. The Leffel turbine is rated at approximately 500 kW and the older turbine as approximately 400 kW for a total capacity of approximately 900 kW. As detailed previously, very little of the existing project except for the canals is salvageable. There is no diversion structure, and the intake and penstock are rotted and would need to be replaced. The powerhouse footings are suspected to be structurally unsound and the size of the existing powerhouse would be inadequate for two turbines. The turbines will require rebuilding, and the generators and controls are outdated, inefficient and should be replaced. Because the existing system is not sized to optimize the canal capacity available from either the Tuluksak Canal or from a combination of the Tuluksak Canal and Slate Creek canal, only the Tuluksak Canal would need to be reopened for this project option. The major construction work included in the rehabilitation of the existing facility consists of the following: • Construction of a diversion structure on the Tuluksak River downstream of the confluence of Bear Creek. • Rehabilitation of the Tuluksak Canal. This work includes setting the canal to grade where needed, setting sideslopes to a minimum of 1-l/2H:IV, and brushing of the canal to improve flow, reduce debris, and allow earlier thawing of the canal in spring. • Construction of an intake with fish screens. • Construction of a 6' (72 ") diameter penstock. • Construction of a new powerhouse. • Rebuilding the existing turbines. • Replacement of the generator and controls. • Tailrace canal improvements. 4.2 Construction of Optimized Project at Existing Site The construction of a completely new facility at the existing site would allow the project to be designed to maximize the power generated from the water available at the site. For this option power generated would be increased by using both the Tuluksak Canal and Slate Creek canal. The only salvageable component from the existing project would be the two canals. It is N:07073.014:6 14 8193 Nyac Hydroelectric Projecr assumed that the capacity of the canals would not be increased, although this should be evaluated during preliminary design. The major construction work included in this project consists of the following: • Construction of diversion structures on the Tuluksak River downstream of the confluence of Bear Creek and on Slate Creek near the head of the present canal. • Rehabilitation of the Tuluksak and Slate Creek canals. This work includes construction of a unifonn canal cross-section, setting the canals to grade where needed, setting sideslopes to a minimum of 1-112H:1V, and brushing of the canals to improve flow, reduce debris, and allow earlier thawing of the canals in spring. • Construction of an intake with fish screens. • Construction of a 7' (84 ") diameter penstock. • Construction of a new powerhouse. • Installation of new turbine(s), generator and controls. • Tailrace canal improvements 4.3 Recommended Development Rehabilitation of the existing project and construction of an optimized project at the existing site were both analyzed. Estimates of power production and construction costs were done for both options and are included in the appendices. A new project is preferred over rehabilitation of the existing project for the following reasons: 1. The estimated cost per kilowatt hour for both options is similar since very little of the existing project is considered salvageable. 2. There is an increased potential for cost overrun, startup, and maintenance problems with rehabilitation of the existing turbines. The installation of new equipment will minimize project risk and increase reliability. 3. The optimized project will allow the project to be tailored to the available flow, maximizing output and efficiency. Consequently, the rehabilitation of the existing project will not be further analyzed in this report. N:07073.014:6 15 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 5.0 Selection of Project Components 5.1 Diversion Structure Diversion structures are needed at both the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek. A conceptual drawing of the Tuluksak River diversion structure is shown in Figure 4. The Tuluksak diversion is located downstream of the confluence of the east and west forks of the Tuluksak River to capture their combined flows. A 10' high concrete diversion structure with a 4' deep concrete spillway was selected for the Tuluksak diversion. The width of the overflow section was designed to pass a 10-year flood with a gabion levee designed to overtop during larger events. Gabion levees would need to extend from the diversion to the valley walls. This length is unknown. The area of the diversion has been extensively dredge mined. This mining process extracts the fme materials from the native soils leaving a coarse, porous mix of gravel and cobbles. This may present problems with founding a diversion and controlling piping under the structure. This will need to be evaluated during preliminary design. The Slate Creek diversion has not been precisely located but would need to be near the head of the existing canal. A site at the head of the canal would require blocking off a stream side channel. Locating the diversion upstream of this side channel would require extension of the canal through a rock cut. A diversion with features similar to the Tuluksak River diversion was selected for Slate Creek. Three feet of head is required for canal operation. A 3' deep by 30' wide spillway is required to pass the 1 0-year flood. A gabion levee would overtop during larger events. Total height of the structure would be 6'. Gabion levees would need to extend from the diversion to the valley wells. Total length of the gabions is unknown. Both diversion structures include concrete fish ladders with 1' drops and 6' by 8' pools. Across the canal entrances are structures which combine fish pickets with stop log gates to close off the canals. The pickets across the canal entrances exclude adult spawning salmon from the canals. To exclude salmon fry from the turbine, fish screens are provided at the powerhouse intake. A detailed survey at both intake sites is necessary before preliminary design. The use of sheetpile diversions should also be explored at that time. 5.2 Canals There are two existing canals; a canal from Tuluksak River to the intake, and a canal from Slate Creek to the intake. During the field reconnaissance cross-sections were measured at each of these canals. An altimeter was used to measure relative elevations at the canal ends to determine N:07073.014:6 16 8/93 lryac Hydroelectric Project slope. Bed material was classified to assign a roughness factor to the channels. Based on this data. a depth versus flow rating table was developed for each canal and a maximum capacity determined. This maximum capacity was based upon a minimum freeboard of 1' plus 25% of the flow depth in the canal. The maximum capacity of the existing canals was determined to be approximately 300 cfs for the Tuluksak Canal and 60 cfs for the Slate Creek canal. These numbers could vary depending on the actual slopes of the canals and control cross-sections at unsurveyed locations along the canals. Design of the diversion structures will also directly affect canal capacity. Capacity of the canals will directly affect the estimate of power available from the system. A complete survey of both canals is necessary before preliminary design. The size of the canals could be increased to carry greater flow. This would involve cutting the uphill slope, filling on the downhill slope, and potentially destabilizing the existing canals. Canal capacity should be increased if existing capacity is insufficient for available flows. This option was not explored for this study but should be looked at in the preliminary design. 5.3 Intake For this project we looked at the option of installation of fish screens at the diversions but selected the use of screens at the powerhouse intake (Figure 5). Placing the screens at the powerhouse intake protects them from high flows in the river and allows installation of a cleaning system that can be easily monitored and maintained. Thus the redundancy of screening at both the Tuluksak River and at Slate Creek is eliminated. Current Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish screening criteria are determined on a case by case basis but typically a screen intake velocity of 0.4' per second is used for a continuously cleaned screen. This velocity was used in this study to determine preliminary screen sizing. This velocity requires a screen area of 1,000 ft2 at the maximum flow of 360 cfs. The screens are inclined upwards from the horizontal at a shallow angle from the upstream end and water passes over the screens with a component going through the screens to the turbine and a component flowing pamllel to the screens and over a spillway. Salmon fry entering the canals would be swept past the screens and over a spillway to re-enter Slate Creek and the Tuluksak River. A distinct advantage of this system is that the sweeping velocity (component of velocity pamllel to the screens) can be increased in a downstream direction along the screens thus directing fish downstream and away from the intake. This sweeping velocity may also enable the project to operate farther into the winter months by allowing floating ice to pass over the screens. The screens chosen are constructed of stainless steel wedge wire panels and are supported from below by a steel structure. N:07073.014;6 17 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project An air-burst cleaning system was chosen to keep the screens clear of debris that could cause clogging and non-uniform velocities on the screen surface. This system uses compressed air to periodically clear the screens. The compressors and storage tanks for this system would be located in the powerhouse. An alternative to this type of system would be a mechanical cleaning device. 5.4 Penstock The existing penstock is a 5' diameter wood stave pipe 550' long. Field survey showed it to be unserviceable. A new penstock was re-sized based upon the amount of power lost to friction. A loss of less than 5% was considered acceptable for this project. Based on this a 7' diameter penstock was selected. Both steel and woodstave pipe were considered. Either pipe type would be acceptable for this system. Costs based on materials, constructability, and ease of transportation to the site were analyzed, and the overall costs for either pipe were comparable. Steel with an inside and outside epoxy coating was selected as the preferred material because of its straightforward construction and ease of maintenance. The penstock would be above ground and supported on concrete saddles. It was assumed that 40' sections would be used and joined with collars. S.S Turbine Selection of a turbine to optimize the power production from the project is defmed by the head and available flow. The available head is 70'. A Francis turbine is the best type of turbine for this head. The combined total flow from both streams ranges from 200 to 1,000 cfs and will likely be reduced based on fishery constraints. The high end of the flow is further limited by canal capacities of approximately 300 cfs in the Tuluksak canal and 60 cfs in the Slate Creek canal. The estimated operating range of the turbine is approximately 100 to 350 cfs Francis turbines will not operate efficiently below 40% of maximum capacity. Because of this and the broad operational flow range of the project, a single Francis turbine will not allow efficient operation throughout the expected range of flows. The use of two Francis turbines can be used to extend this range. Two turbines can be connected to one generator (double-hung style) to reduce costs but reliability is sacrificed since if the single generator malfunctions, the whole system would be shut down. The use of two 900 kW Francis turbines with a separate generator for each was selected to maximize capacity and reliability. These turbines are of a horizontal configuration and are at the upper end of the sizing for horizontal francis turbines. Specifications for a potential new turbine are included in Appendix E. N:07073.014:6 18 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Other turbine options to be explained in preliminary design are the use of a double-hung Francis and a Turgo style which has a wider operating range than a Francis. 5.6 Powerhouse A 24' by 54' prefabricated steel building would house the turbines, generators, and switch gear. This building would be constructed at or near the site of the existing powerhouse. The existing tailrace channel leading to Slate Creek would be used. N:07073.014:6 19 8/93 L co:.Je r:: ' ffctltlirV [c,Atli.ID._..!o) I ~---" I" :r "1-0' -...... ....----...... ~~'------------------~~ B-e ?oec.. l w~~ Ft.Ctt-~~ U 1 MoP fo 1 X. .,., Louefl!!t 6AIC..!:>. o"-Srnp LOC..S. } ' 00t.LI..i F"!~U e'X.C.1..11.$1cn:l) J · .. ' ' N'YI9C. H'fOtt!o r~t~ec.r D1::UfY<./%1JN ..fT~-.AC..TI.Ail.£ t:.e»JC-i!Pr..,,. c.. l)~..s:rt:rr' ;:.r~ .. ~€ T!.f A c..I"'JkA. \ A.....-J I _... ___ 4'0 -----J ..... A- "\lit &u.IC.&.T' Cl..llll'•mvc,. sv~ MAN I t="oi...O ---------------------- 1152. a ~C? '>'" //00 w,r,.;. S~.<l"',..olltls. 'if~ " S"L.oT OI"~U1l.'! Nyac Hydroelectric Project 6.0 Project Power Production 6.1 Methodology The estimated average annual power production for project was estimated using the combined streamflow data collected at the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek in 1992-'93. For each daily flow, any instream flows were subtracted, then for any flow above the turbine minimum flow and below the turbine maximum flow, the head loss in the pipe, turbine efficiency for that flow, and the power generated with that flow were computed. Power losses due to generator, transformer, and station power usage were subtracted to obtain the energy available at the meter for each day. The daily power was summed for each month and for the year. 6.2 Assumptions The estimated average annual power production is based on the following assumptions: l. The 1992-'93 measured flows represent long term averages. 2. The project will operate for 6 months, from approximately May through October, since low flows and icing problems will likely preclude winter operation. 3. A diversion(s) will be placed on the Tuluksak River that captures the combined flows of the Tuluksak River and Bear Creek. 4. The estimated maximum capacity of the existing Tuluksak canal is 300 cfs and the Slate Creek canal is 60 cfs. Preliminary design work for the intakes and the canals will verify these capacities. 5. 70' of gross head. The present powerhouse is optimally located at a defmed break in slope. No further head is available. 6. Efficiencies for the turbines based upon manufacturer data. 7. Additional power losses as follows: Transformers Line Station Power Unscheduled downtime N:07073.014:6 20 1% 0% (transmission line by others) 2% 3% 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project The actual power available will depend on fisheries issues which may govern the amounts of flow available for power generation. Resolution of these issues was not within the scope of this project but, to aid in determining project feasibility, we have computed the annual power that could be generated based on several scenarios, each of which leave a different amount of flow in the natural channel between the intake and tailrace for fish passage and habitat. We looked at six cases, listed below. These were similar in all respects except that the amount of instream flows were varied. Cases 3-6 have instream flow requirements based on the Tennant method. This method classifies the quality of fishery habitat based on a percentage of the average annual flow (QAA). This method is used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as a simple way to determine the amount of instream flow needed for fish habitat. The estimated QAA for the Tulusak River is 278 cfs and for Slate Creek is 59 cfs. The six cases were as follows: 1. No instream flow requirements. 2. An instream flow requirement equal to the estimated winter low flow. 3. An instream flow of 30% of the QAA, based on the Tennant method "fair" classification. 4. An instream flow of 40% of the QAA, based on the Tennant method "good" classification 5. An instream flow of 50% of the QAA, based on the Tennant method "excellent" classification. 6. An instream flow of 60% of the QAA, based on the Tennant method "outstanding" classification. Based on the estimated flows, the assumptions outline above, and the various cases for instream flow, Table 8 presents power output estimates for the combined flows of the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek. Table 8 Estimated Annual Energy Generation Estimated Annual Energy Case Generation No. Deseription (megawatt· bourslytW) 1 No instream flow reservation 6,700 2 Flow reservation equal to low flow 6,200 3 Tennant "fair" classification 5,900 4 Tennant "good" classification 5,500 5 Tennant "excellent" classification 5,100 6 Tennant "outstanding" classification 4,700 N:07073.014:6 21 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project With all of these cases, flow to the hydropower project is limited by canal and turbine capacity, thus periodic high flows would be available in the river channel for flushing of sediment and bedload and to maintain the existing river regime. In all cases the percentage of energy generated from Slate Creek was approximately 15% of the total energy generated from both creeks combined. N:07073.014:6 22 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 7.0 Construction Costs 7.1 Assumptions Reconnaissance level estimates of probable cost for rebuilding the existing project and construction of an optimized project are shown in Tables 9 and 10. Detailed construction cost estimates are included as Appendix F. They are based on a single field investigation, a conceptual engineering layout, and data from previous projects. Their purpose is to provide initial costs on which to base further decisions to continue the study of this project. They are not comprehensive cost estimates and they exclude costs associated with land and land rights and a transmission line, which will be addressed by others in a separate report. Also excluded are the costs associated with obtaining the necessary permits, licensing under FERC, and any environmental mitigation. A contingency factor of 30% was used for all work to account for project and site unknowns. 7.2 Capital Costs The methodology used for the estimate of capital costs is detailed below for each of the major components. Mobilization and Logistics A major disadvantage of the Nyac site is that it is remote and difficult to access. Once at the site an extensive infrastructure already exists including airstrips, roads and bridges, field camps, electrical power, and telephone. It is assumed that some heavy equipment is available on-site and will not have to be airlifted into the site but that some specialized equipment and all material will need to be airlifted into and out of the site. Air freight costs are based upon the use of Hercules aircraft transport from Anchorage to Nyac. The Hercules aircraft can carry a 44,000 pound payload with a maximum length of 54' at 7'-7" high. The 1992 cost to charter this aircraft from Anchorage to Nyac is $17,000 per round trip and from Bethel to Nyac is approximately $11,000 per round trip. The option of barging material to Bethel and airlifting to Nyac was explored, but the cost savings was not significant. The use of the winter cat trail from the Kuskokwim River was not explored. Powerhouse A new powerhouse would be constructed on the site of the existing powerhouse. A new powerhouse is necessary to accommodate the additional turbine capacity. Cost of the powerhouse construction is based on quantities from the conceptual design and unit costs based on data from completed projects adjusted for the remoteness of the Nyac area. N:07073.014:6 23 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Diversion Sites Diversions would be constructed at both the Tuluksak River and Slate Creek. Cost of the diversions are based on quantities from the conceptual design and unit costs based on data from completed projects adjusted for the remoteness of the Nyac area. Canal Canal rehabilitation in both options is limited to clearing of the canal sideslopes and access roads, regrading if required, and dressing of canal to create uniform hydraulic sections throughout the length of the canals. Increasing the canal capacity was not addressed. Intake and Fish Screem Intake costs are based on quantities from the conceptual design and unit costs based on data from completed projects adjusted for the remoteness of the Nyac area. Penstock Penstock costs are based on manufacturer estimates for materials (FOB Anchorage) and construction man hours. Freight costs from Anchorage to Nyac are based on the use of Here Aircraft. Turbines, Generators, and Controls Turbine, generator, and controls costs are based on manufacturer estimates for materials (FOB Anchorage) and/or repair. Freight costs from Anchorage to Nyac are based on the use ofHerc Aircraft. 7.3 Indirect Costs Engineering and construction management costs are estimated as a percentage of construction costs as follows: • Engineering Design • Construction Management 10% 5% The allowance for cost escalation between 1993 and the beginning of project construction is based on construction in 1995 and an escalation rate of 5 % per year. N :07073.0 14:6 24 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 7.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs First year operations and maintenance costs are as follows: • Hydroplant maintenance was estimated to be 2% of the equipment cost per year for the optimized project and 4% of the equipment costs per year for the rebuilt project. • The canal will require brushing and clearing on an annual basis before start up in the spring. • Liability, property and boiler/machinery insurance. • The plant will be automated but daily inspection of the powerhouse and intakes will be necessary. It is assumed that an operator will be needed full time for eight months of the year. • Subsistence costs for this operator are estimated at $50 per day for an eight month period. N:07073.014:6 25 8/93 FERC Account Code 330.5 331 332.2 332.3 332.4 332.5 332.6 333 334 335 Table 9 Construction Cost Estimate Summary Rebuild Option Description Mobilization and Logistics Structures and Improvements Diversion Structure(s) Canal(s) Intake and fish Screens Penstock Tailrace Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS Plus: Contingency Allowance (30%) TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST Engineering (12%) Construction Management ( 5%) Allowance for Escalation (2 yrs. @ 5%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST REBUIW FIRST YEAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Hydro Maintenance (4% of equipment costs) Canal Maintenance Powerhouse Heat Insurance FERC Fees General and Administrative Labor Subsistence TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST Plant Maximum Output (kW) Annual Energy, instream flow= 40% of QAA (MWbr/yr) Cost per Installed kW Annual Debt Service (26 yrs at 7%) First Year O&M First Year Energy Cost per kWh Nyac Hydroelectric Project Amount $ 431,422 368,170 464,000 81,000 343,800 356,181 16,000 560,000 165,000 15,000 $2,681,846 840.172 $3,640,745 364,074 182,037 418.686 $4.605542 $ 29,600 4,000 2,500 40,000 1,200 10,000 50,000 12.000 $149.300 900 3,600 $5,117 $390,612 $149,300 $0.15 Not included in this estimate are costs for land rights, costs associated with obtaining the necessary permits, licensing under FERC, environmental mitigation, and any costs associated with a transmission line. N:07073.014:6 26 8/93 FERC Account Code 330.5 331 332.2 332.3 332.4 332.5 332.6 333 334 335 Table 10 Construction Cost Estimate Summary Optimized Option Description Mobilization and Logistics Structures and Improvements Diversion Structure(s) Canal(s) Intake and fish Screens Penstock Tailrace Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS Plus: Contingency Allowance (30%) TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST Engineering (10%) Construction Management (5%) Allowance for Escalation (2 yrs. @ 5%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST REBUILD FIRST YEAR OPERA nONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Hydro Maintenance (4% of equipment costs) Canal Maintenance Powerhouse Heat Insurance PERC Fees General and Administrative Labor Subsistence TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST Plant Maximum Output (kW) Annual Energy, instream flow = 40% of QAA (MWbr/yr) Cost per Installed k W Annual Debt Service (26 yrs at 7%) First Year O&M First Year Energy Cost per k Wb Nyac Hydroelectric Project Amount $ 501,477 484,970 702,000 99,000 404,300 410,515 22,000 1,754,000 121,000 15,000 $4,514,262 1.354.279 $5,868,541 586,854 293,427 674.882 $7.423.705 $ 37,800 5,000 2,500 50,000 2,000 10,000 50,000 12.000 $169.300 1,800 5,500 $4,124 $629,630 $169,300 $0.15 Not included in this estimate are costs for land rights. costs associated with obtaining the necessary permits, licensing under PERC, environmental mitigation, and any costs associated with a transmission line. N:07073.014:6 27 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations This report evaluates the technical feasibility and cost of reactivating an existing hydroelectric facility at Nyac, Alaska. Technically, the development of a hydroelectric project on the Tuluksak River appears feasible. Two options were investigated. Rehabilitation of the existing project and construction of a project which is tailored to the existing flows. The existing turbines could be rebuilt but very few of the other components of the existing project were found to be salvageable. Because of this the estimated cost per kilowatt hour is similar for either option. Therefore, construction of a new project, tailored to the available flows thus maximizing the output and efficiency, is preferred over rebuilding the existing project. The power which can be generated from this project will depend on fisheries issues which may govern the amount of flow available for power generation. Resolution of these issues was not within the scope of this report but to aid in determining project feasibility, Table 11 shows the annual power that could be generated for several scenarios, each of which leave a different amount of flow in the natural channel between the intake and the tailrace for fish passage and habitat. Based on the estimated stream flows and construction and O&M costs (not including transmission line) and the various cases for instream flow, the power output estimates and cost per kWh for the optimized project are shown in Table 11. Table 11 Power Output &timates Estimated Annual Estimated First Euttv. Generation Case No. Description Year.Cost per kWh· (megawatt hours/year) L No instream flow reservation 0.12 6,700 2 Flow reservation equal to low flow 0.13 6,200 3 Tennant "fair" classification 0.14 5,900 4 Tennant • good • classification 0.15 5,500 5 Tennant "excellent" classification 0.16 5,100 6 Tennant "outstanding" classification 0.17 4,700 N:07073.014:6 28 8/93 Nyac Hydroelectric Project Design issues which will need to be resolved in preliminary design for this project are as follows: • The potential location for the Tuluksak River diversion structure has been extensively dredge mined. This may present problems with founding the diversion and controlling piping under the structure. • The capacity of the existing canals will need to be verified as this will directly affect the estimate of power available from the project. Increasing canal capacity should be explored if the existing capacity is insufficient for the available flows. • Once the available water is determined, the turbine type and size should be refmed. • The diversion, intake, and intake screen designs will need to be developed with input from regulatory agencies. * * * * * N:07073.014:6 29 8/93 Appendix A Field Report ~ ~ ~ J/ ... ~! ::t' " l i j "' ., ~ ~ :12 ~ ~ 1& • IS(. n I .-~1-! ' .... I ~i \..,I <)I ~I 0 ~I '-':1 -:l.l ~ ~I 9'-1 ... I ~I ~I ~I i ·::i Mi .... ;: .,.., 4; -..: 'ot-! <::) ~ ....... f'l '-41 ._., "'-! I"'! I .... I '! -I ....... q I' ~ 'c. t' I ~ ~ ~ "" v. 0 "' . ~ • N "' "' "' "\J Q ~ () "' "" N tn ---. . . -- ' ' Ni 'to ~ ~ ~ -! I I ~ \-Ji '-,: 0 ~ v ' "'. -. r.i •<r i- ---·---·~ ---~--------- ..... , .......,-.. '"· - Appendix B Specifications for Existing Turbine .( :r . :J ~ 11.• ;r: ~ w-:l% .J -.. ~ a w. ~I .. ~-~ J - ......... ~:""'""1'"''"''1 .......... , '"l~· . ''""':\i''"'""j"'""" ... ,.. ... ....... .. .... \:·" ......... 'l""!"-1' --· .. t~::·:.r .. ......... t.:-'"'"t''""'" ....... . ....... . . '""''::~~'"" .......... , .... . . .......... ""''::(''" ........ 1 ............ ····---:=-:::' ~=::::::::: ·:..:::::::~:::-:.:::: ·=·=:::::: ::::::: ··:: -= ::::!:::. :·:·::·:: :::::.... ·:: .· . :·::·:.::::..::.::·::==:w::.==:.. ·: · .• :::: ::::::.:::_:~..::.=== ·-=~:· . !·······~········-·· --······!••·••· ....• ~-·! . ...~······:i;:: ··-····. , .. , ... , ... ::!. . ··~······ . . . .. ····~~-· .. ·····-........ ~.·~+·~'-"· .... :· ... r: ........ :·· .. -··· ........ T ........ -~ ......... :t\: .................... ·:::· ... ......... ..... , ............................ . :~~;~~:\:~;:;~~~~~~~;~~;::::·~=;::.::::~::::! : .. : ~:~::;:;:;: .. :.::·:::::: .:::::.:=::::.: .. :· ::; ... ::;:·:.:: :. ~:· ::::::;.::=~:::~;~:~;:::::~:~ ::::::(":: ........ , ......... t ........ 1 ....... 1 :......._'\3V-· ... :\·:· ··.. ... · · ·I :7:: ·:!............ ·· ...... · · ..... , .. ·· ···· · ~;;;_~--=-~~~;;;·:;;;;;:.·::i:.:-~:::·~··~7~:.-:-:-·=f· ::::f:t·· --~----~: T ... >:{ .. ; .. ·; ··:-·-: ·:·:· ; .:·: ... ;· :. :·, ·. ; ~-~ 1::-::~~;~: . I : :::::;·: .. :": ... t ":~:::",' ~ :: :·· ·: • : ~.:: ,.M·.··· ::t·.·:: : ..... ! . : : . : .. : ;· ~' 'WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORFORATION New York Alaaka Gold Dredging co.~ NJ&C , Alaaka TELEPHONII: MAIN 0808 3451 E. MAllGlNAI. WAY SEA TTI.E 4, WASH. September 20, 1954 Attention& Mr. J. K. Crow~, President Subject: Horizontal Water Wheel Driven A-c Generator Hegot1at1on No. l24579 In ccapl1ance w1 th 7our recent request to our Mr. S1malaDda and Mr. Maden, we are pleased to aupplJ ,-ou the folloWing quotat1ona Item 1 One (1) 625 lt'Va., 80f powr faoto:r, 3 pnaae, 6o OJ'Ole, 4160 vol.ta, 514 ~., Olalla A 1na\llated, 50° C rtae on stator U,. ~tel', 600 c r1ae on tield b7 riae in rea1atanoe, 111door, open. t7Pe atr aool.ecl, bori&aa.tal •ter Wheel. generator COIIl)lete With sole pl&tea tor stator, pedeatal bear- ings 8Dd dt:reot connected exotter. Price - - - - - - - - - - - - -$14,218.00 net eacn. 'l'h18 -.oniDa w1ll be deatgned for - VR2 ••••••••••••••••••• 10,000 lb•tt.2 09erapeed ••••••••••••• 8,.. !htt-.:ef.t1U8a.c1es ot ~ P .'I. W1ll a.ot be lesa tbuu hll !r.C.d 93.5 314 Load. 93 l/2 Load 91.4 Tbe above aenerator can be sh1pped in twent7 a1X weekB atter recei-pt ot an order and compl.eta 1Dt~t1on .from our laat P1ttaburg,h, i8DD&J'lvan1a Worka. 1fbe above price ia tirm. 'lbe above prtoa 1a f' .o.b. Eaat P1ttaburgn, Perm- SJ'lV&ni.a. ·n ·~· J31-. Mr. J. K. Crowdy - 2 - It tba foregoing generator 1a to be ordered w1 th bedl)late 1nat..ct of sole plates, there will be a price addition ot $453.00 net. In the e'Nnt you purchase the foregoing generator nth sole plates 1t will be neoes11&1'7 to ship the rotor se.,an.teJ,y tram tb8 stator. Attaobed are tbNe col):l.es of our D111ena1on Sheet 310, Pace 2 which gi vee tbe outline d1mena:l.one tor tbe above quoted geDerator. '!b8 d1mllne1on also 1D.Gludea cloae &l)prox1.- •te wighta. We 8ft alao traDam:l.tt:l.ng three coe»:l.ea ot our deaer:l.-pU ve bulletin 310-H, Wh:l.ch covers the hori:ontal •ter W..l clri ven a-o generators. Th1a deacr1pt1 ve bulletin contains general deaor:l.ptive intor.mat:l.on. !be above quoted del1Ver.J ape»eara to be 1n l1Da Wltb your requested delivery, b.at 1n tbe eYent you t1Dd ttaat. J'OU require a better deli VeJ:7 pl-• let ua kllo1r and we WUl do eftl7'th1D& poaa1ble to -t }'Our recauire-nta. Also • 1t 701.1 bave &n3' turtber queet1ooa perta:l.ning to tba above quot.a- t1on or tbe attached d1MU10D abeeta and dacr:l.pti ve bull.et1Da, pleaH let ua know. Ve would be moat happ,-to aaaiat 70u wtth tb.1a ganan.tor 1n aDJ' •7 poaaible. Yours very trul'i. VI:S'lDIOHOUSB EI.BC'r~UC CCJRPORl'fiQII E. '1'. Naden S&lea BDgi.neer ~em.~~ &ID encla. P. M. Truttman CCI New York, Alaaka Gold Dredging Comp&n'J 1616 Sld.th Tower Seattle 4, Waah:l.ngton Attt Mr. L. B. Rcbbtna Purchasing Agent ... E I \ __________ _) 1--------B------1 1------B ------4 IY-&. YDLTS POUI .... na. .... 615 4160 l4 .. 1 ne.l \ I \.-~!~~·-) E----1------------A --------+--~ Grout bedplote in to this line E--~----------A-------~ DIIIIIIIOa COIIEIPOIIDI.I TD lD1UI w-.n 1• OITU•I YI~IICIIU WI• I• US. FT.• ' I c .l E TIITIL linT. PIECE .. " 11 e. .., 11.-o .... •• ooo -15.100 ill • IDalM'DC Tlllll....._n_....,., .. nlll .............. ........_ ·~rtl!l:. .. f4snNGtfaUS£ -'ft.· - .Jal -~!" ......... n. - D l ~ c I 8--......,. "'"' WOL11 fOUl .... A E --~-----------A o CGIWPOIIDIII& TD LiTTIIS II DI1'UIII ftEW-tiiCIIU I c D l I ,... ..................................... ,_ ••• , .......... =---o, ............... ..... mn ........ r min. de ora nee to eoupling llftl.ftUI ........ , "·' .. A G 1: 1 EPPECTIVE JUNE 25, INS WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION • T & G DIVISION • EAST PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA ..... laU.I..L ,0, ~~-·::,·~-~-~. ~ .,..··-~-~..,. '1"'1".,.,., •·,l' t •'" :l'~/. -~ . ',--, . ,,.. ·---· ~ .;.. : ~:· ·~·~·.: •::,··-· -~;~ :·~~ ·,::: ~ .,.;: ~ -~-·, ~~~~r· . ·.~. • .·: l •. "' -~·-' .• . ·. :;.: .... ~ , 1i: ::r • ,Jr. , ,,~ ~ :r~;,.. .~-N t:' ~~ a. w~ ;' 'li'l::k 1!' ... ,,; .,~ . '._.:· :.}!I .i. •' .,...,l' ,.. .,-~' ~~~ ·~ 'f· -:l ~--~)·.: ·~,-ir~·-:-\~ .... i ~·- :;.... ..; __ .,.._.; .. l> > "":, , .. ' -,..;.y ;~ .- •·' w·-·, ':" I< ... r;·: ··--·a ~-" . -~.:: ~ . lk~ i "';. ~'!'r -·-·~-· ~ J_., -~ :t: ~ .. tr . .I :::: ~~ --~~ Mf ...... . ~:..' .~ .... ~ .·;r ... • 10{,:; j}]tE: JJ.\~1~~ 1~[fJ:~1 ~ ~~©~ Manufacturers of ~:YDRAULIC TURBINES 1978 Commerce Circle -Springfield, OH USA 45504 Phone (513) 322·01 16 Teletax (51 3) 322·0467 October 4 , 1991 Mr. Scott Thompson Alaska Power Systems Inc. 11221 01 i ve Lane Anchorage, AK 99515 Ref: NYAC Powerhouse Redevelopment JL&Co O.no. R-120151 Dear ~1r. Thompson : vlith reference to our agreement, The James Leffel & Co. is pleased to provide the following budget pricing for rebuilding of existing turbine with new gear box and new high speed generator consisting of the following: A. Turbine 1 pc Runner 27" F single bucket of welded construction in carbon steel. 1 pc Turbine Shaft of forged steel. 1 pc Complete gate casing with bottom cylinder for attachment to existing casing and draft tube elbow. B. 1 pc C. 1 pc Material in major components -Ductile Cast Iron. All bolts will be made of -Stainless Steel. Budget Price: ••••••••• $94,000.00 Parallel Gear Speed Increaser. In speed 514 Out speed with two flexible couplings. Ratio 2.37 1200 rpm Budget Price: ••••••••• $25,000.00 500 KW, 625 KVA Kato Generator. 1200 rpm .80 PF for horizontal mounting. Budget Price: • Delivery time: • • • • • • • • Progress payment will apply. $55,000.00 6 months ARO. File: Ref:R-120151 Leffel Turbines Page Alaska Power Systems October 4, 1991 Ref: R-120151 Refurbishment of existing governor and site installation is not included in the above prices. Prices are F.O.B., Springfield Ohio. The James Leffel & Co. is available to inspect and evaluate the condition of the existing turbines at the plant in order to determine the total work scope in placing this unit back in operation. We will provide a budget estimate for an 800 KW turbine shortly, and will also evaluate the use of two 400 KW units. We hope the above information is satisfactory, and look forward to hearing further from you. Respectfully yours, \~ I '},/ . l \ l ,· . / /1 ' I '~/ '1 ,~'-i-··lti ·;t,J ;._ l~'-.J..I ~ "' •J\. '-'~ I ...._ Anders Oynge Manager AD:df File: Ref:R-120151 . ' Leffel Turbines Page 2 Appendix C Streamflow Data Streamflow Data TULUKSAK RIVER AT NYAC _QCATION: Latitude 60 59'30". Longitude 159 58' 37", Grid reference DC4762, in NW~SW~ of Section 33, Township 11N, Range 60W. On right Jank on downstream side of Nyac bridge. ~")RAJNAGE AREA: 142 square miles i'ERIOD OF RECORD: June 1992 to May 1993 by HDR Engineering Inc. -'JAGE: Transducer type water stage recorder and staff gage. Gage read daily by mine employees. Elevation of gage is approximately 475 feet from opographic map. Nail set in right abutment of bridge on downstream side. Assumed elevation of top of nail is 100.00 feet. Zero on staff gage is 93.23 ieet. ·~ffiMARKS: Records good for open water period. Rating curve encompasses high and low flows of period of record. Additional gaging stations were located ln Bear Creek and Slate Creek, tributaries of the Tuluksak River, from June 1992 to October 1992 . . JlXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD: See current period extremes (below). ~XTREMES FOR CURRENT PERIOD: Maximum Gaged Discharge, 1060 cfs on May 17, 1993. Minimum Discharge= 60 cfs on March 16, 1993. DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, JUNE 1991 TO MAY 1993 Day JUDC, July. Aug, Sq>t, Oct. Nov, Dec. 11111, Hb. Mar, Apr. May. 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 e700 307 112 61$ 444 el60 e120 c90 diO e60 c70 100(e) 2 e650 290 170 594 433 el60 el20 e90 diO e60 e70 200(e) 3 e650 27& 172 590 412 e160 e120 c90 diO e60 e70 JOO(e) 4 e600 271 192 570 386 e160 e120 e90 diO e60 c70 400(c) s e600 259 231 690 372 c160 e120 c90 diO e60 e70 500(c) 6 c550 253 201 770 471 el60 el20 c90 diO e60 e70 600(e) 7 c550 269 193 690 520 e160 c120 c90 diO e60 e70 650(e) 8 c500 258 192 650 482 e160 e120 c90 diO e60 e70 650 9 c500 238 199 610 437 e160 e120 c90 diO e60 e70 sso 10 495 27S 197 610 416 e160 el20 e90 diO e60 "70 S30 11 561 311 279 510 397 el60 c120 e90 diO e60 e70 490 12 561 285 318 610 410 e160 e120 e90 diO e60 c70 510 13 542 264 304 770 424 e160 el20 e90 diO e60 e70 650 14 486 253 291 843 405 e160 e120 e90 eSO e60 e70 610 15 449 231 274 773 399 e160 c120 e90 diO e60 e70 710 16 421 218 317 723 395 o160 e120 e90 diO 60 e70 840 17 401 203 310 727 375 e160 e120 e90 diO e60 c70 1060 IS 388 197 282 719 370 e160 e120 c90 diO e60 c70 960 19 367 194 264 650 c3$7 c160 e120 e90 e80 e60 e70 980 20 344 190 269 614 c344 el60 el20 e90 diO e60 e70 1000 21 340 liB 267 588 c331 e160 e120 e90 diO e60 e70 1010 22 382 185 264 564 c318 el60 c120 e90 diO e60 c70 960 23 349 198 261 533 c305 o160 et20 e90 diO e60 c70 980 2A 335 292 278 $10 e292 c160 c120 e90 diO e60 e70 1000 25 326 2$1 550 510 e278 cl60 e120 e90 e60 c70 900 26 314 217 838 490 e265 el60 e120 e90 diO e60 e70 800 27 310 213 630 467 e2S2 ol60 c120 e90 diO e60 c70 770 28 299 207 $61 440 e239 e160 e120 e90 diO e60 e70 770 29 306 190 520 417 e226 el60 el20 e90 diO e60 e70 770 30 357 190 53$ 445 e216 o160 ol20 c90 e60 o70 810 31 190 618 e200 c120 e60 770 TOTAL 13635 7367 10172 18353 11168 4800 3720 2790 2320 1860 2100 21890 MEAN 454 238 328 612 360 160 120 90 80 60 70 706 MAX 700 311 838 843 520 160 120 90 80 60 70 1060 MIN 299 185 170 417 200 160 120 90 80 60 70 100 ACRE·FT 27044 14613 20175 36402 22152 9521 7379 5534 4602 3689 4165 43.418 CPSISQMI 3.20 1.70 2.31 4.31 2.54 1.13 0.85 0.63 0.56 0.42 0.49 4.97 INGlES 3.57 1.96 2.69 4.81 2.92 1.26 0.97 0.73 0.61 0.49 0.55 S.73 ANNUAL 'l'OTAL 100.!7S MEAN 274 MAX I 060 MIN 60 ACli.E-FT 198,694 CPS!SQ Ml t. 96 INCHES 26.61 N:07073.014:7-Strmf.Data Streamflow Data BEAR CREEK NEAR NYAC LOCATION: Latitude 61 00'15", Longitude 159 55' 46", i.n SE\4SE\4 of Section 28, Township llN, Range 60W. On right bank on downstream side of ,.:.ridge . ..>RAINAGE AREA: 78 square miles -ERIOD OF RECORD: June 1992 to October 1992 by HDR Engineering Inc. vAGE: Transducer type water stage recorder and staff gage. Gage read daily by mine employees. Elevation of gage is approximately 500 feet &om topographic map. Nail set i.n right abutment of bridge on downstream side. Assumed elevation of top of nail is 100.00 feet. Zero on staff gage is 98.67 -eet. REMARKS: Records good. Rating curve encompasses high and low flows of period of record. Additional gaging stations were located on Slate Creek and the Tuluksak River at Nyac. DITREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD: See current period extremes (below). _EXTREMES FOR CURRENT PERIOD: Maximum Gaged Discharge, 466 cfs on September 14, 1992. Minimum Discharge "" 33 cfs (e) in March 1993. DISCBAllGE, CUBIC nET PER SECOND, JUNE 1992 TO MAY 1993 Day June, ]lily, Aug, Sq~t. Oct. Nov. Dec. Ju, Feb, Mar, Apr, May. 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 385 166 83 350 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 55 2 358 !50 83 333 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 110 3 358 133 83 316 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 16S 4 330 133 100 333 183 88 66 so 44 33 39 220 s 330 133 133 383 191 88 66 50 44 33 39 27S 6 303 133 lt7 416 243 88 66 so 44 33 39 330 7 303 133 117 383 261 88 66 50 44 33 39 3SB I 27S 133 117 350 216 88 66 50 44 33 39 358 9 27S 133 117 316 ns 88 66 so 44 33 39 303 tO 250 ISO 117 283 214 88 66 so 44 33 39 292 It 316 150 150 283 216 88 66 50 44 33 39 270 12 316 133 166 283 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 314 13 300 133 150 316 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 358 14 266 133 166 466 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 336 15 250 125 166 416 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 391 16 216 117 183 383 183 88 66 50 44 33 39 462 17 216 117 166 383 193 88 66 50 44 33 39 583 18 216 117 150 366 191 88 66 50 44 33 39 528 19 200 100 150 316 196 88 66 50 44 33 39 539 20 183 100 150 316 189 88 66 50 44 33 39 550 21 183 100 150 300 182 88 66 50 44 33 39 556 22 200 100 133 283 175 88 66 50 44 33 39 528 23 183 100 133 250 168 88 66 50 44 33 39 539 24 183 133 143 233 160 II 66 50 44 33 39 550 25 183 117 283 250 153 88 66 50 33 39 556 33 26 183 117 432 250 146 88 66 50 44 33 39 528 27 166 100 325 216 139 88 66 50 44 33 39 539 28 150 100 316 183 132 88 66 50 44 33 39 550 29 166 100 283 150 124 88 66 so 44 33 39 495 30 166 83 283 166 tt7 88 66 50 33 39 440 31 83 350 ItO 66 50 33 424 TOTAL 7,409 3.753 .5,493 9,273 5,597 2.64() 2.046 1 • .53.5 1,276 1.023 !.U.S 12,039 MEAN 247 121 177 309 181 88 66 50 44 33 39 388 MAX 385 166 432 466 268 88 66 50 44 33 39 583 MIN !.SO 83 83 1.50 110 88 66 50 44 33 39 55 AC·Fl' 14.696 7.444 10.896 18,392 11.101 .5,236 4.0S8 3.044 2.531 2,029 2,291 23.880 CFS/SQMI 3.17 !..5.5 2.27 3.96 2.31 1.13 0.8.5 0.63 0.56 0.42 0.49 4.98 INCHES 3 . .53 1.79 2.62 4.42 2.67 1.26 0.98 0.73 0.61 0.49 0.5.5 5.74 ANNUAL TOTAL .53.239 MEANI46 MAX 700 MIN 33 ACJlE..Fl' 105 • .598 CFSISQ Ml 1.17 INCHES 25.38 1! estimated N:t7073.014:7-Stnof.Data Streamflow Data SLATE CREEK NEAR NYAC LOCATION: Latitude 60 57'30", Longitude 159 58' 36", Grid reference DC4758, in NEt.4NEt.4 of Section 18, Township lON, Range60W. On right bank approximately 1.5 miles above road crossing and immediately upstream of fork in creek. w<{)RAINAGE AREA: J2 square miles PERIOD OF RECORD: June, 1992 to May, 1993 by HDR Engineering lnc. '""'GAGE: Transducer type water stage recorder. Elevation of gage is approximately 500 feet from topographic map. REMARKS: Records good. during open water period. Rating curve encompasses high and low flows of period of record. Additional gaging stations were located on Bear Creek and the Tuluksak River. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD: See current period extremes (below). EXTREMES FOR CURRENT PERIOD: Maximum Gaged Discharge, 229 cfs on September 18, 1992. Minimum Discharge= II cfs (e) in March, 1993. DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, JUNE 1992 TO MAY 1993 Day June. July, Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov, Dec. Ju, Feb, Mar. Apr, May. 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1 lSI so 37 ISO 96 c37 ell elO ell el4 el6 c23 2 141 48 34 131 9S c37 ell elO ell cl4 c16 e4S 3 130 so 34 130 93 c37 e28 c20 ciS cl4 el6 e68 4 124 47 35 130 89 c37 c21 c20 el8 <>14 cl6 e90 s Ill 4S 36 139 16 c37 e28 c20 dB el4 cl6 e113 6 103 43 3S 1114 99 c37 c28 e20 ell el4 el6 el31 7 92 43 36 212 101 c37 c28 c20 ell e14 e16 el46 8 86 42 37 211 113 c37 o21 e20 ell e14 e16 e146 9 76 40 31 206 104 c37 ell e20 ell el4 el6 c124 10 64 44 37 195 e96 c37 e28 c20 ell e14 el6 ell3 II 71 48 52 170 e91 c37 e28 c20 ell e14 cl6 cliO 12 74 45 63 132 e94 c37 e28 e20 ell e14 el6 e128 13 72 43 66 126 o98 c37 e28 c20 ciS el4 c16 el46 14 59 4l 66 151 c93 c37 e28 c20 ell el4 el6 e137 IS so 40 64 109 c92 c37 e28 e20 ell cl4 el6 e160 16 40 31 71 205 c91 c37 e28 elO ell e14 el6 el89 17 3S 36 68 202 e86 c37 c28 c20 ell c14 e16 c239 18 21 35 63 229 cas c37 ell e20 ell el4 e16 e216 19 21 34 61 227 ell c37 e28 e20 ell el4 d6 e221 lO 33 34 59 196 c79 c37 e28 c20 ell el4 c16 ens 21 so 33 59 184 c76 c37 e21 c20 ell e14 cl6 e227 22 17 33 57 163 e73 c37 e28 e20 ell e14 el6 e216 23 25 35 ss 127 e70 c37 c21 e20 ciS d4 cl6 e221 24 53 48 57 120 c67 c37 e28 c20 ciS el4 cl6 e225 25 53 38 liS 114 e64 c37 e28 e20 ell e14 e16 e203 26 so 34 163 Ill c61 c37 e28 e20 ell e14 e16 cliO 27 49 34 126 103 eSS c37 ell c20 ell cl4 el6 cl73 28 48 34 111 101 eSS c37 e28 e20 ell e14 e16 e173 29 4S 32 110 96 eSl c37 e28 e20 ell el4 e16 cl73 30 21 31 109 100 e49 c37 ell c20 cl4 el6 e182 31 36 120 e46 e28 c20 e14 cl73 TOTAL 1986 1237 2081 4763 2533 1104 8S6 628 S22 419 473 4925 MEAN 66 40 67 IS9 82 37 28 20 18 14 16 !S9 MAX lSI so 163 229 113 37 28 20 18 14 16 239 MIN 17 31 34 96 46 37 28 20 18 14 16 23 ACRE-FT 3931 24S4 4127 11447 5042 2190 1697 1245 1035 130 937 9769 CFS/SQMI 2.07 1.2S 2.10 4.96 2.SS I. IS 0.86 0.63 0.56 0.42 0.49 4.96 INCHES l.31 1.44 2.42 S.S4 2.114 1.28 0.99 0.73 0.61 0.49 o.ss S.72 ANNUAL TOTAL 21.S2S MEAN S9 MAX 229 MIN 14 ACRE·FT 42.694 CFS/SQ Ml 1.84 INCHES 25.02 N:07073.014:7-strmf.Data Appendix D Precipitation Data JUNE, 1992 PRECIPITATION DATA TEMPERATURE DATA Nyac, Bethel, and Aniak Nyac ====== Precip (inches)===== ====== TEMP (deg c)===== Date Nyac Bethel Aniak AVG MAX MIN 06/01/92 00: 0.04 0.12 0.04 11.5 21.0 5.0 06/02192 00: 0.00 10.5 18.0 2.5 06/03/92 00: 0.00 13.0 22.5 0.5 06/04/92 00: 0.00 12.0 18.0 5.0 06/05192 00: 0.00 10.5 18.5 1.0 06/06/92 00: 0.00 14.0 24.5 3.0 06/07/92 00: 0.12 0.02 0.03 11.5 17.0 7.5 06/08/92 00: 0.00 0.02 10.5 17.0 6.0 06/09/92 00: 0.00 11.0 20.0 2.5 06/10/92 00: 0.03 0.08 13.5 27.0 0.5 06/11/92 00: 0.36 0.26 11.5 15.0 8.5 06/12/92 00: 0.01 0.09 11.0 15.0 4.5 06/13192 00: 0.00 0.02 14.5 21.0 10.5 06/14/92 00: 0.00 0.02 11.5 20.5 3.0 06115/92 00: 0.11 11.5 18.5 7.0 06/16192 00: 0.00 0.02 0.02 12.0 22.5 -0.5 06/17/92 00: 0.00 12.0 20.5 2.5 06/18192 00: 0.00 0.04 11.0 18.0 5.0 06119/92 00: 0.00 0.15 0.01 10.5 19.0 2.0 06/20/92 00: 0.00 10.5 19.0 -0.5 06/21/92 00: 0.40 0.26 0.51 10.0 23.0 0.5 06/22/92 00: 0.12 0.05 9.0 17.5 -0.5 06123/92 00: 0.01 9.5 19.0 0.0 06/24/92 00: 0.03 0.05 0.13 10.5 19.5 3.0 06125/92 00: 0.01 0.11 12.5 22.0 5.5 06/26/92 00: 0.06 0.35 0.09 11.0 18.0 7.0 06127/92 00: 0.01 0.25 0.04 10.5 14.5 3.0 06/28/92 00: 0.00 0.09 12.0 16.5 8.5 06/29/92 00: 0.37 0.14 0.09 9.5 15.0 6.5 06/30/92 00: 0.00 0.01 10.0 15.5 3.0 Total 1.68 1.89 1.22 Average 11.3 Normal 2.03 1.34 1.52 Maximum 27 Departure -0.35 0.55 -0.3 Minimum -0.5 %Depart 83% 141% 80% x\bob\07073.014\precdata.wq1 JULY, 1992 PRECIPITATION DATA TEMPERATURE DATA Nyac, Bethel, and Aniak Nyac ------Precip (inches)===== ------TEMP (deg c)===== ------------ Date Nyac Bethel Aniak AVG MAX MIN 07/01/92 00: 0.00 13.0 23.5 1.5 07/02/92 00: 0.05 0.14 12.5 20.0 4.0 07/03/92 00: 0.04 0.05 13.5 18.5 9.5 07/04/92 00: 0.00 13.5 20.5 6.5 07/05/92 00: 0.01 0.17 11.0 16.5 5.0 07/06/92 00: 0.15 0.06 11.5 16.0 7.0 07/07/92 00: 0.10 12.5 18.5 8.0 07/08/92 00: 0.00 11.5 19.5 3.5 07/09/92 00: 0.00 0.02 13.0 22.5 5.0 07/10/92 00: 0.53 0.16 0.29 12.5 17.5 10.0 07/11/92 00: 0.03 0.09 11.0 15.5 7.5 07/12/92 00: 0.00 0.02 12.5 17.5 7.5 07/13/92 00: 0.03 12.0 14.5 9.0 07/14/92 00: 0.00 11.5 19.5 7.0 07/15/92 00: 0.00 10.0 18.5 2.5 07/16/92 00: 0.00 11.0 21.0 2.0 07/17/92 00: 0.00 12.5 20.5 5.5 07/18/92 00: 0.00 0.02 11.5 16.0 8.0 07/19/92 00: 0.02 12.0 18.0 9.0 07/20/92 00: 0.00 13.0 20.5 8.0 07/21/92 00: 0.09 0.01 0.03 12.5 16.5 10.0 07/22/92 00: 0.00 13.5 21.0 7.5 07/23/92 00: 0.49 0.23 13.0 17.0 9.5 07/24/92 00: 0.00 14.5 20.5 9.5 07/25/92 00: 0.01 0.18 0.18 13.0 19.5 6.0 07/26/92 00: 0.00 12.5 18.5 7.0 07/27/92 00: 0.25 0.36 0.3 13.5 19.0 9.5 07/28/92 00: 0.04 13.0 22.0 7.0 07/29/92 00: 0.01 0.03 12.5 22.0 5.0 07/30/92 00: 0.13 0.06 13.0 18.5 8.0 07/31/92 00: 0.02 0.03 13.5 19.5 9.5 Total 2.00 1.42 1.01 Average 12.4 Normal 2.45 2.11 2.37 Maximum 22.5 Departure -0.45 -0.69 -1.36 Minimum 2.0 %Depart 82% 67% 43% x\bob\07073.014\precdata.wq1 AUGUST, 1992 PRECIPITATION DATA TEMPERATURE DATA Nyac, Bethel, and Aniak Nyac ====== Precip (inches)===== ====== TEMP (deg c)===== Date Nyac Bethel Aniak AVG MAX MIN 08/01/92 00: 0.00 12.0 17.0 7.5 08/02/92 00: 0.00 0.05 12.0 21.0 4.0 08/03/92 00: 0.06 0.04 0.01 12.0 14.5 9.0 08/04192 00: 0.18 0.06 0.03 13.0 16.5 10.5 08/05/92 00: 0.01 0.19 0.01 14.0 21.0 11.0 08/06/92 00: 0.07 13.0 16.0 11.5 08/07/92 00: 0.03 0.02 11.5 14.5 9.5 08/08/92 00: 0.26 0.01 10.0 12.0 8.5 08/09/92 00: 0.00 12.5 17.5 9.5 08/1 0192 00: 0.30 0.51 0.16 11.0 14.0 9.0 08/11/92 00: 0.47 0.10 0.52 11.0 15.0 9.5 08/12/92 00: 0.13 0.33 10.0 14.0 7.5 08/13/92 00: 0.08 0.01 11.0 15.0 7.5 08/14/92 00: 0.00 0.13 10.5 16.5 7.5 08/15/92 00: 0.33 0.02 0.05 11.5 17.5 8.5 08116/92 00: 0.43 0.36 0.63 9.5 11.5 7.5 08/17/92 00: 0.01 9.5 14.0 7.0 08/1 B/92 00: 0.00 0.01 10.5 15.5 6.5 08/19/92 00: 0.04 0.05 10.0' 16.0 6.5 08/20/92 00: 0.12 0.05 0.62 11.5 17.5 9.5 OB/21/92 00: 0.03 0.01 0.13 11.5 16.5 9.0 08/22/92 00: 0.08 0.32 0.2 11.0 13.5 9.0 08/23/92 00: 0.05 0.08 0.16 12.0 18.5 8.5 08/24/92 00: 0.35 0.35 0.82 8.0 14.0 1.5 08/25/92 00: 1.54 0.02 1.36 9.0 11.0 7.0 08/26/92 00: 0.06 0.09 0.01 9.0 14.0 6.0 08/27192 00: 0.00 0.01 10.5 16.5 6.5 08/28/92 00: 0.01 0.09 11.0 16.5 8.5 08/29/92 00: 0.15 0.39 0.27 10.0 13.0 8.0 08130192 00: 0.54 0.53 0.35 9.0 12.5 6.5 08/31192 00: 0.25 0.18 0.03 7.5 11.5 6.5 Total 5.58 3.52 5.85 Average 10.8 Normal 5.83 3.46 4.71 Maximum 21 Departure -0.25 0.06 1.14 Minimum 1.5 %Depart 96% 102% 124% x\bob\07073.014\precdata. wq1 SEPTEMBER, 1992 PRECIPITATION DATA 1992 TEMPERATURE DATA Nyac, Bethel, and Aniak Nyac ====== Precip (inches)===== ------TEMP (deg c)===== ------ Date Nyac Bethel Aniak AVG MAX MIN 09/01/92 00: 0.06 0.15 0.34 7.0 12.5 4.0 09/02/92 00: 0.23 7.5 15.5 1.0 09/03/92 00: 0.06 0.14 0.27 6.0 12.5 1.0 09/04/92 00: 0.52 0.27 0.22 8.5 12.5 5.5 09/05/92 00: 0.74 0.12 0.17 6.5 11.5 3.5 09/06/92 00: 0.27 0.01 0.01 6.5 12.0 3.0 09/07/92 00: 0.00 7.0 15.0 1.0 09/08/92 00: 0.00 3.5 12.0 -2.0 09/09/92 00: 0.05 2.5 7.5 -2.0 09/1 0/92 00: 0.03 0.02 0.0 6.5 -7.0 09/11/92 00: 0.14 0.01 3.0 8.0 -1.5 09/12/92 00: 0.20 6.0 8.5 4.5 09/13/92 00: 1.31 0.04 0.13 6.0 8.0 5.5 09/14/92 00: 0.08 0.05 6.0 12.0 -0.5 09/15/92 00: 0.00 -0.5 3.0 -6.0 09/16/92 00: 0.00 0.02 1.0 4.0 -1.0 09/17/92 00: 0.47 0.80 0.05 3.0 6.0 1.5 09/18/92 00: 0.02 -1.0 2.0 -2.0 09/19/92 00: 0.02 -1.5 1.5 -3.0 09/20/92 00: 0.07 0.03 0.5 4.5 -1.5 09/21/92 00: 0.07 0.09 -0.5 2.5 -2.5 09/22/92 00: 0.00 -3.5 1.0 -7.5 09/23/92 00: 0.00 -6.0 0.0 -10.5 09/24/92 00: 0.00 -7.0 -1.0 -13.5 09/25/92 00: 0.01 0.01 -3.5 2.0 -9.0 09/26/92 00: 0.00 -5.0 1.0 -10.5 09/27/92 00: 0.00 -4.0 4.5 -10.0 09/28/92 00: 0.00 -6.5 0.5 -11.0 09/29/92 00: 0.00 0.15 -7.0 1.0 -15.5 09/30/92 00: 0.31 0.43 0.02 0.5 6.5 -3.0 Total 4.66 2.19 1.36 Average 1.2 Normal 3.59 2.58 2.88 Maximum 15.5 Departure 1.07 -0.39 -1.52 Minimum -15.5 %Depart 130% 85% 47% x\bob\07073.014\precdata.wq1 OCTOBER. 1992 PRECIPITATION DATA TEMPERATURE DATA Nyac, Bethel, and Aniak Nyac ====== Precip (inches)===== ====== TEMP (deg c)===== Date Nyac Bethel Aniak AVG MAX MIN 1 0/01 /92 00: 0.10 0.05 1.0 5.5 -2.0 1 0/02/92 00: 0.03 0.04 -0.5 1.5 -2.0 1 0/03/92 00: 0.00 -2.5 1.0 -6.5 10/04/92 00: 0.00 -7.5 -0.5 -13.5 1 0/05/92 00: 0.10 -3.0 8.5 -13.5 1 0/06/92 00: 0.38 0.41 3.5 8.5 1.5 1 0/07/92 00: 0.29 0.05 1.5 5.5 0.0 10/08/92 00: 0.13 0.02 ..0.5 1.5 -1.5 1 0/09/92 00: 0.00 0.01 -3.0 -1.0 -4.0 1 0/1 0/92 00: 0.00 -4.0 -2.0 -4.5 1 0/11/92 00: 0.00 0.25 -2.0 1.0 -7.5 1 0/12/92 00: 0.00 0.09 -0.5 1.0 -1.0 1 0/13/92 00: 0.32 0.5 2.5 -0.5 1 0/14/92 00: 0.51 1.5 3.5 -1.0 1 0/15/92 00: 0.29 2.5 4.5 1.0 1 0/16/92 00: 0.00 1.5 6.5 -5.0 10/17/92 00: 0.00 -3.5 ..0.5 -6.0 1 0/1 8/92 00: 0.00 -6.5 -3.5 -8.5 1 0/19/92 00: 0.00 -9.0. -6.0 -12.5 10/20/92 00: 0.00 -13.0 -9.0 -16.5 10/21 /92 00: 0.00 -11.5 -8.0 -14.5 2.15 0.92 Average -2.6 Maximum 8.5 Minimum -16.5 x\bob\07073.014\precdata.wq1 Appendix E Specifications for New Turbine March 30, 1993 Mark Barandy Bouvier Hydropower, Inc. Old Bridge New Jersey Fax: 908-390-7790 Subject: Request For Budgetary Price Quotation For Hydroelectric Turbine and Generator Equipment-Nyac, Alaska Project Dear Mark: HDR is performing a reconnaissance study for rehabilitation of an existing out-of-service hydroelectric plant. This project is located on the Tuluksak River at Nyac in western Alaska. As part of this project, we are estimating the cost of new power generating equipment. Can you provide us with a budgetary cost estimate to supply the turbine-generator equipment for this project, including governor, switchgear, controls and exciter, all FOB Seattle. If possible, we would also like rough unit dimensions and estimated delivery time from receipt of order. Information on typical performance curve data would also be very useful to us in finalizing energy estimates. You previously provided this information for this project to Alaska Power Systems on October 10, 1991. The existing project has a four-mile canal system which feeds water to 550 feet of 84-inch diameter penstock. The power from the project would feed infO a power grid for a larger community which has diesel power generation. There is a wide range of flows in the river and a turbine with good efficiencies over this range is desired. The project will have the characteristics shown on the chart below. HDR Engineering, Inc. Number of Units 1 or 2 Static Head (ft) 71 Flow range (cfs) 60-360 Arrangement Horiz. Generator Voltage 4.1kV Turbine Type Francis Governor Included Yes Generator Cooling Air Switchgear Included Yes Delivery FOB Seattle Exciter Included Yes 4446 Business Park Boulevard Building B Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 Telephone 907 562-2514 Fax 907 561-4621 Mark Barandy March 30, 1993 Page 2 The project is still in a feasibility stage and it is unknown when a decision on construction will be made. We will keep you informed. If you have any questions or need additional information to develop pricing data, please don't hesitate to call me at (907) 562-2514. Thanks for your help. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, HDR Engineering, Inc. Robert Butera Project Engineer en N:07073.014:5 BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, JNC. '·JS O!d :'o\otawan K~aa • PO. Box 997 • 1Jid Bndae, rleW jersev 08857 ·. "~3-300-<3~ • ;r:x: 908-390-7790 April 13, 1993 HDR Engineering, Inc. 4446 Business Park Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Mr. R. Butera Subject: Nyac, Alaska Project Dear Mr. Butera: Hydro turbines & equipment In your response to your recent inquiry, we are pleased to submit this budgetary quotation on hydroelectric generating equipment for the project you are studying. Based on the head and discharge requirements given us in your FAX of March 30, 1993, we propose two (2) turbine/generator units each including a horizontal Francis type turbine, synchronous generator, and hydraulic pressure system (HPU) for wicket gate operation. Also proposed is a controls/switchgear system. The turbine configuration proposed has the turbine runner mounted directly onto the generator shaft extension (overhung type). Alternative arrangements are also possible if such better suit the site conditions. The following data is submitted: Turbine Type Runner Diameter Speed Max. Turbine output (@ 70 ft. Net Head) Runner Material wicket Gate Material CL Runner to Tailwater Intake Type Draft Tube Type Horizontal Francis 850 mm 450 RPM 946 KW (180 cfs) each Aluminum Bronze Aluminum Bronze No higher than 8' above T.W. spiral case Elbow Mr. R. Butera -2-April 13, 1993 Turbine Performance at 70 ft Net Head: Output CKWl 946 Efficiency C%l 923 835 772 683 492 382 Generator Type Generator Rating Speed Voltage Temperature Rise Power Factor 88.6 90.0 92.7 91.0 88.0 83.0 78.0 Flow Ccfsl 180 173 152 143 131 100 82.5 Horizontal synchronous 900 KW 450 RPM 4160 v 80° c over 40° c Ambient 0.90 our budgetary price for the above equipment is (total for 2 units): Turbines, HPU's, Generators & Controls/Switchgear us $ 1,360,000 Prices are F.O.B., Jobsite assuming free and easy access to the site. We have included for your reference a preliminary outline drawing. Deli very time for the proposed equipment is approximately 12 months after contract award. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. !~ enc. ---~;, l ---i[ i I ----~ ··-t --:---!', ~ ~ --+--t.:.''>"''""'"l .... ·: ~ ·.:; ~:.::.·· •. ' ~;; • ' ... ~~---+--~-H..,:~.-+--1 I " ~ \ 1 '\,jJ ~ V) ~ '\\: -J ~ ~ ~ ' ' t ,_ \) ' '\!:: >..) (!) ),. rJ < ~ -.1 , .. ~ 0 1-- ~ V) () a (\1 d Q "·· @ . J .: ...... Q: :!..:. ----Q Q / 0 ' (">,. "-"' j_ .,.., 1'\j c.; ~ .:,:: Appendix F Detailed Cost Estimates NY AC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECf 20-Aug-93 DETAILED CONSTR UCflON COST ESTIMATE REBUILD OPTION FERC Description Quan Unit Unit Amount($) A!C No. Price :no .5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS .51 Construction Surveys 1 L.S. $20.000 $20.000 .52 Air Transportation USA-Anch 6 R.T. $700 $4,200 .53 Air Transportation Anch-Bethel 34 R.T. $578 $19.652 .54 Air Transportation Bethel-Nyac 34 R.T. $150 $5,100 .55 Air Freight. Equipment mob/demob 4 R.T. $17.000 $68,000 .56 Air Freight. Materials 13 R.T. $17,000 $226,270 .57 Subsistence 1.260 Days $70 $88,200 Subtotal-A!C No. 330.5 · Mobilization and Logistics $431.422 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 331 .I POWERHOUSE .10 Demolition 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .11 Clearing 0.5 Acre $5,000 $2.500 .12 Excavation 550 C.Y. $5 $2,750 .13 Concrete 190 C.Y. $1,000 $190,000 .14 Structural Steel 4.000 Lb. $3 $12,000 .15 Metal Fabrications 5,000 Lb. $4 $20.000 .16 Partition Walls 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .17 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .18 Pre-eng'd Metal Superstructure 1,000 S.F. $50 $50,000 .19 HV AC and Plumbing 1 L.S. $10.000 $10.000 .20 Lighting 1 L.S. $10,000 $10.000 .110 Backup Generator 1 L.S. $30,000 $30,000 Subtotal· Powerhouse $337,250 .. -331 .2 POWERHOUSE SITE/SWITCHY ARD .21 Fill 0 C.Y. $10 $0 .22 Crushed Rock Surfacing 30 C.Y. $20 $600 . 23 Chain Link Fencing 144 L.F . $30 $4,320 .24 16-foot Double Gate 1 Each $1,000 $1,000 .25 Grounding Grid 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .25 Concrete Foundations 15 C.Y. $1,000 $15.000 Subtotal-Powerhouse Site/Switchyard $30,920 Subtotal-NC No.331-Structures and Improvements $368.170 NY AC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 20-Aug-93 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE REBUILD OPTION l32 RESERVOIRS. DAMS AND WATERWAYS 332 .2 DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT TULUKSAK RIVER .21 Diversion of water 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .22 Excavation and backfill L.S. $10.000 $10.000 .23 Clearing and Levee construction 1 L.S. $35.000 $35.000 .24 Concrete 350 C.Y. $1,000 $350,000 .25 Gates 2 EA $10.000 $20,000 .26 Exclusion rack 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .27 Stop logs and wooden deck 1 L.S. $5.000 $5,000 .28 Miscellaneous steel 1 L.S. $14,000 $14.000 Subtotal-Diversion at Tuluksak River $464,000 332 .3 CANALS (Tuluksak) .31 Clearing 10 Acre $2.500 $25.000 .32 Trench Excavation and Backfill 1 L.S. $12.000 $12.000 .33 Gabions 80 YD $50 $4,000 .34 Revegetation and Erosion Control 10 Acre $4,000 $40,000 Subtotal-Canal $81.000 _132 .4 INTAKE AND FISH SCREENS .41 Site preparation 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .42 Concrete 100 C.Y. $1.000 $100,000 .43 Bedding Material 55 C.Y. $20 $1.100 .44 Fish Screens 550 S.F. $110 $60,500 .45 Fish Screens steel substructure 1 L.S. $100,000 $100,000 .46 72" Steel Pipe 90 degree bend 1 Each $4,000 $4,000 .47 12-inch diameter valved bypass 2 Each $3,500 $7.000 .48 Air-burst cleaning system 1 L.S. $50.000 $50,000 .49 Power and Control Lines 1 L.S. $10.000 $10,000 .410 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.3 Acre $4,000 $1.200 Subtotal-Intake and Fish Screens $343.800 332 .5 PENSTOCK (72" Steel) .51 Clearing 0.5 Acre $5,000 $2.500 .52 Foundation excavation 83 C.Y. $5 $415 .53 Foundation Concrete 60 C.Y. $1,000 $60,000 .54 Structural Steel 2.000 Lb. $4 $8,000 NY AC HYDROELECfRIC PROJECT 20-Aug-93 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE REBUILD OPTION .55 72" Steel Penstock 520 L.F. $255 $132.600 .56 Airfreight Penstock to Nyac 7 loads $12,238 $85.666 .57 84" to 2-42" Bifurcation 1 L.S. $12.000 $12.000 .58 Collars 27 Each $600 $16.200 .59 Reducers 2 Each $3.400 $6,800 .510 Penstock Installation 1 L.S. $30.000 $30,000 .511 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.5 Acre $4.000 $2,000 Subtotal-Steel Penstock $356.181 .332 .6 TAILRACE .61 Clearing 2.0 Acre $5,000 $10.000 .62 Excavation 800 C.Y. $5 $4,000 .63 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.5 Acre $4.000 $2,000 Subtotal· Tailrace $16.000 Subtotal-AIC No. 332 • Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways $1,260.981 . .,133 TURBINES AND GENERATORS .01 Rebuild Existing Turbine 2 Each $95,000 $190,000 .02 Gearbox 2 Each $27,000 $54,000 .03 Generator 2 Each $58.000 $116,000 .04 Electronic Load Governor 2 Each $50.000 $100,000 .05 Labor 2 L.S. $50.000 $100,000 Subtotal-NCNo. 333-Turbines and Generators $560.000 B4 ACCESSORY ELECfRICAL EQUIPMENT .01 Switchgear 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .02 Controls L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .03 Protective relays 1 L.S. $20.000 $20,000 .04 Transfer Switch and Batteries 1 L.S. $10,000 $10.000 .05 Stepup Transformer 1 L.S. $20,000 $20.000 .06 Station Service 1 L.S. $50,000 $50.000 .07 Supervisory & communication equip 1 L.S. $25,000 $25.000 Subtotal· NCNo.334-Accessory Elect. Equip. $165,000 B5 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT .01 Overhead Bridge Crane 1 . 02 Miscellaneous Equipment 1 Each L.S . $10,000 $10,000 S5.ooo ,_.....;s-.5.,..o...,oo ... Subtotal -A/C No. 335 -Misc. Mechanical Equipment $15.000 NY AC HYDROELECI'RIC PROJECI' DETAILED CONSTRUCI'ION COST ESTIMATE REBUILD OPTION SUMMARY FERC Account Description Amount($) 330.5 Mobilization and Logistics $431,422 331 Structures and Improvements $368.170 332.2 Diversion structure(s) $464.000 332.3 Canal{s) $81,000 332.4 Intake and Fish Screens $343.800 332.5 Penstock $356,181 332.6 Tailrace $16,000 333 Turbines and Generators $560,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $165,000 335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment $15.000 SUBTOTAL. ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS $2,800.573 Contingency Allowance (30%) TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Escalation (2 yrs @ 5%) $840,172 $3,640,745 10.0 $364,074 5.0% $182,037 $418.686 TOTAL CONSTRUCI'ION COST REBUILD P $4,605,542 FIRST YEAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Hydro Maintenance (4% of equipment costs) Canal maintenance Powerhouse Heat Insurance FERC fees General and Administrative Labor Subsistence TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST Plant Maximum Output (kW) Annual Energy, instream flow = 40% of QAA (MWhr/yr) Cost per Installed kW Annual Debt Service (25 yr @ 7%) First Year O&M First Year Energy Cost per kWh $29.600 $4,000 $2.500 $40,000 $1,200 $10,000 $50,000 $12,000 $149.300 900 3600 $5.117 $390.612 $149,300 $0.15 20-Aug-93 Not included in this estimate are costs for land rights, costs associated with obtaining the necessary permits. licensing under FERC, environmental mitigation, and any costs associated with a transmission line. NY AC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 20-Aug-93 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTIMIZED PROJECT ,330 .5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS .51 Construction Surveys 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .52 Air Transportation USA-Anch 6 R.T. $700 $4,200 .53 Air Transportation Anch-Bethel 34 R.T. $578 $19,652 .54 Air Transportation Bethel-Nyac 34 R.T. $150 $5,100 .55 Air Freight. Equipment mob/demob 4 R.T. $17.000 $68,000 .56 Air Freight, Materials 17 R.T. $17,000 $296,325 .57 Subsistence 1,260 Days $70 $88,200 Subtotal-A!C No. 330.5 -Mobilization and Logistics $501,477 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 331 .1 POWERHOUSE .11 Clearing 0.5 Acre $5,000 $2,500 .12 Demolition 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .13 Excavation 750 C.Y. $5 $3,750 .14 Concrete 250 C.Y. $1.000 $250,000 .15 Structural Steel 4,000 Lb. $3 $12.000 .16 Metal Fabrications 5,000 Lb. $4 $20,000 .17 Partition Walls 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .18 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .19 Pre-eng'd Metal Superstructure 1,716 S.F. $50 $85,800 .20 HV AC and Plumbing 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .21 Lighting 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .22 Backup Generator 1 L.S. $30,000 $30,000 Subtotal-Powerhouse $454,050 331 .2 POWERHOUSE SITE/SWITCHY ARD . 21 Fill 0 C.Y . $10 $0 .22 Crushed Rock Surfacing 30 C.Y. $20 $600 . 23 Chain Link Fencing 144 L.F . $30 $4,320 .24 16-foot Double Gate 1 Each $1,000 $1,000 .25 Grounding Grid 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 . 26 Concrete Foundations 15 C.Y . $1,000 $15,000 Subtotal-Powerhouse Site/Switchyard $30,920 Subtotal-NCNo.331-Structures and Improvements $484,970 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS ""~332 .2 DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT TULUKSAK RIVER .21 Diversion of water 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .22 Excavation and backfill 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .23 Clearing and Levee construction 1 L.S. $35,000 $35,000 .24 Concrete 400 C.Y. $1,000 $400,000 .25 Gates 2 EA $10,000 $20,000 .26 Exclusion rack 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .27 Stop logs and wooden deck 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .28 Miscellaneous steel 1 L.S. $14.000 $14.000 Subtotal-Diversion at Tuluksak River $514.000 NY AC HYDROELECfRIC PROJECf 20-Aug-93 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTIMIZED PROJECT '32 .2 DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT SLATE CREEK .21 Diversion of water 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .22 Excavation and backfill L.S. $5,000 $5,000 .23 Clearing and Levee construction 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .24 Concrete 120 C.Y. $1,000 $120.000 .25 Gates 2 EA $10.000 $20,000 .26 Exclusion rack 1 L.S. $7,000 $7,000 .27 Stop logs and wooden deck 1 L.S. $4,000 $4,000 .28 Miscellaneous steel 1 L.S. $7,000 $7.000 Subtotal· Diversion at Slate Creek $188,000 332 .3 CANALS (Tuluksak and Slate) .31 Clearing 12 Acre $2.500 $30,000 .32 Trench Excavation and Backfill 1 L.S . $16,000 $16,000 . 33 Gabions 100 YD $50 $5,000 .34 Revegetation and Erosion Control 12 Acre $4,000 $48.000 Subtotal-Canal(s) $99,000 332 .4 INTAKE AND FISH SCREENS .41 Site preparation 1 L.S. $10.000 $10,000 .42 Concrete 100 C.Y. $1,000 $100,000 .43 Bedding Material 55 C.Y . $20 $1,100 .44 Fish Screens 1,000 S.F. $110 $110,000 .45 Fish Screens steel substructure 1 L.S. $100,000 $100,000 .46 84" Steel Pipe 90 degree bend 1 Each $5,000 $5,000 .47 12-inch diameter valved bypass 2 Each $3.500 $7,000 .48 Air-burst cleaning system 1 L.S. $60,000 $60,000 .49 Power and Control Lines 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 .410 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.3 Acre $4,000 $1,200 Subtotal-Intake and Fish Screens $404,300 332 .5 PENSTOCK (84" Steel) .51 Clearing 0.5 Acre $5,000 $2.500 .52 Foundation excavation 83 C.Y • $5 $415 .53 Foundation Concrete 65 C.Y • $1.000 $65,000 .54 Structural Steel 2.000 Lb . $4 $8,000 . 55 84" Steel Penstock 520 L.F . $285 $148,200 .56 Airfreight Penstock to Nyac 7 loads $17.000 $119,000 . 57 84" to 2-42" Bifurcation 1 L.S • $12,000 $12,000 .58 Collars 27 Each $600 $16,200 .59 Reducers 2 Each $3,600 $7,200 .510 Penstock Installation 1 L.S • $30.000 $30,000 .511 Revegetation and Erosion Control 0.5 Acre $4,000 $2,000 Subtotal-Steel Penstock $410.515 B2 .6 .61 .62 .63 NYAC HYDROELECfRIC PROJECf DETAILED CONSTRUCfiON COST ESTIMATE OPTIMIZED PROJECf TAILRACE Clearing 2.0 Acre Excavation 800 C.Y. Revegetation and Erosion Control 2.0 Acre Subtotal· Tailrace 20-Aug-93 $5,000 $10.000 $5 $4,000 $4,000 _ __::$::..:::8:..:::.,0.:;.:00::_ $22.000 Subtotal-NC No. 332 • Reservoirs. Dams and Waterways $1.449.815 B3 TURBINES AND GENERATORS -134 '-135 .01 2-900 kW horizontal-shaft double Francis turbines. including controls .02 governor. and generators (FOB Nyac) Install turbine-generator 1 1 L.S. L.S. $1,700.000 $1.700.000 $54,000 =======$5;,;,4·=000== Subtotal -NC No. 333 • Turbines and Generators $1,754,000 ACCESSORY ELECfRICAL EQUIPMENT .01 Protective relays 1 L.S. $20,000 $20,000 .02 Transfer Switch and batteries 1 L.S. $6,000 $6,000 .03 Station service 1 L.S. $50,000 $50,000 .04 Stepup transformer 1 L.S. $20.000 $20,000 . 05 Supervisory & communication equip 1 L.S . $25.000 $25.000 Subtotal-NCNo. 334-Accessory Elect. Equip. $121,000 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT .01 Overhead Bridge Crane 1 Each $10,000 $10,000 . 02 Miscellaneous Equipment 1 L.S . $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal· NC No.335-Misc. Mechanical Equipment $15,000 FERC NY AC HYDROELECfRIC PROJECf DETAILED CONSTRUCfiON COST ESTIMATE OPTIMIZED PROJECf SUMMARY Account Description Amount($) 330.5 Mobilization and Logistics $501.477 331 Structures and Improvements $484,970 332.2 Diversion structure(s} $702.000 332.3 Canal(s) $99,000 332.4 Intake and Fish Screens $404.300 332.5 Penstock $410,515 332.6 Tailrace $22.000 333 Turbines and Generators $1,754,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $121,000 335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment $15,000 SUBTOTAL. ESTIMATED DIRECf COSTS $4.514.262 Contingency Allowance (30%) TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECf COST Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Escalation (2 yrs @ 5%) TOTAL CONSTRUCfiON COST $1,354,279 $5.868,541 10.0 $586,854 5.0% $293.427 $674.882 $7.423.705 FIRST YEAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Hydro Maintenance (2% of equipment costs) $37,800 $5,000 $2,500 $50,000 Canal maintenance Powerhouse Heat Insurance FERCfees General and administrative Labor Subsistence TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST Plant Maximum Output (kW) Annual Energy, instream flow = 40% of QAA (MWbr/yr) Cost per Installed kW Annual Debt Service (25 yr @ 7%) First Year O&M First Year Energy Cost per k:Wh $2,000 $10,000 $50,000 $12,000 $169.300 1800 5500 $4,124 $629,630 $169,300 $0.15 20-Aug-93 Not included in this estimate are costs for land rights, costs associated with obtaining the necessary permits, licensing under FERC, environmental mitigation, and any costs associated with a transmission line. Appendix G Example Energy Calculations NYAC HYDRO, OPTIMIZED POWER GENERATION TA FILE USED: COMBINED.QCH '~-'OEL DESCRIPTION PIPE # LENGTH 550 DIAMETER 84 MANNING'S n .012 MINOR LOSSES 5 ,_ADWATER ELEV: 570 TAILWATER ELEV: 500 ':oss HEAD: 70 :T HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 67.2 NAMEPLATE CAPACITY CkW): 1579.3 @ .9 POWER FACTOR 'ATION SERVICE LOSS: 2 I~ANSFORMER LOSS: 1 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 0 :HEDULED DOWN TIME: 3 TURBINE SELECTED: -FRANCIS2 MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB 135 500 500 500 500 500 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1992 1003.8 ·0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o IERAGE 1003.8 ·0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.40 liS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 0.00 0.95 0.00 20 0.75 0.96 0.72 30 0.83 0.97 0.81 40 0.91 0.97 0.88 50 0.89 0.97 0.86 60 0.83 0.97 0.81 70 0.88 0.97 0.86 80 0.91 0.97 0.89 90 0.89 0.98 0.87 100 0.88 0.97 0.86 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 500 135 135 135 135 135 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1145.4 1016.3 487.4 682.6 1187.6 5523.0 NYAC HYDRO, REBUILD POWER GENERATION \TA FILE USED: TULUKSAK.QCH ~"':lDEL DESCRIPTION PIPE # dJ LENGTH 550 DIAMETER 72 MANNING'S n .012 MINOR LOSSES 5 .. ::ADWATER ELEV: 570 TAILWATER ELEV: 500 ·-~OSS HEAD: 70 :T HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 68.4 NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 887.0 @ .9 POWER FACTOR TATION SERVICE LOSS: 2 ,RANSFORMER LOSS: 1 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 0 :HEDULED DOWN TIME: 3 TURBINE SELECTED: • FRANCIS MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB 111 500 500 500 500 MAR 500 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1992 636.1 ·0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 liE RAGE 636.1 ·0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.46 HIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 0.00 0.95 0.00 20 0.00 0.96 0.00 30 0.50 0.97 0.49 40 0.80 0.97 0.78 50 0.84 0.97 0.82 60 0.88 0.97 0.86 70 0.90 0.97 0.88 80 0.92 0.97 0.90 90 0.94 0.98 0.91 100 0.92 0.97 0.90 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 500 111 111 111 111 111 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 654.2 666.8 446.8 521.2 667.0 3592.1 ,. .. ' .. ' . ' ~-·· .l