Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutScammon Bay Waste Heat Correspondence & Invoices 1991State of Alaska Walter J. Hickel, Governor Alaska Energy Authority A Public Corporation November 23, 1992 The Honorable Frank Aguachak Mayor City of Scammon Bay P.O. Box 90 Scammon Bay, Alaska 99662 Subject: Waste Heat Concept Design Report Dear Mayor Aguachak: Please find enclosed a copy of the Waste Heat Concept Design Report prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority for your community. This report identifies potential waste heat end-users and provides an estimate of the amount of fuel that would be saved (in both gallons and dollars) for several different combinations of end-users. A cost estimate based on prevailing wage rates and contractor construction is also included for construction of the most feasible waste heat end-user combination. The designs presented herein are schematic in nature and should not be construed as being complete in design or function. A thorough review of content and correctness should be performed prior to use in the development of construction documents. The Energy Authority is currently in the process of reviewing the cost estimates and proposed waste heat end-user combinations to determine if a waste heat project would be economically feasible for your community. If additional information is required, a member of my staff will contact you. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Brian Gray or Steve Stassehat 800-478-7877 or (907) 561-7877 or FAX (907) 561-8584. Since d Denig- off; ahi — Director/Rural Programs SS:DDC:nk Attachment as stated ce: Mark T. Teitzel, AVEC (Without Report) PO. Box 190869 701 EastTudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Fax: (907) 561-8584 92Q4\NK3923D0C(1) State ot A !) Walter J Hicke Alaska Energy Authority 4 Public Corporation February 6, 1992 Mr. Earle V. Ausman, P.E. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Contract #2800098 Work Order #8 (Noatak Waste Heat) Work Order #14 (Tununak Waste Heat) Work Order #15 (Nunapitchuk Waste Heat) Work Order #13 (Scammon Bay Waste Heat) Work Order #12 (Pilot Station Waste Heat) Dear Mr. Ausman: We have received your final invoices dated February 3, 1992, in the amounts of $1,886.58, $1,582.33, $1,404.58, $1,650.03, and $1,550.93 respectively on the work orders referenced above. This is to notify you that these work orders are being closed out. Any remaining funds that had been set aside for these work orders will be disencumbered and made available for future work under the contract. Sincerely, , / , } f' (Ate bn Makeup David Denig-Chakroff / Director of Rural Programs cc: Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy Authority», Gary Smith, Alaska Energy Authority Don Whelan, Alaska Energy Authority Marlys Hagen, Alaska Energy Authority © PO.BoxAM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 ~Z PO. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road ~=Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 3skO Sovernor This study was prepared under contract with the Alaska Energy Authority by: Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 The accepted conclusions are: 1. A potential for waste heat recovery has been identified in the community of Scammon Bay. 7 Based on the proposed design and project cost estimate, the project is not economically feasible and does not appear to justify conventional financing. Alternate funding sources and/or revisions to the project scope will need to be evaluated. 3. The designs presented herein are schematic in nature and should not be construed as being complete in design or function. A thorough review of content and correctness should be performed prior to use in the development of construction documents. The concept-level project cost estimate for Scenario #3 is $611,168. Final review comments and responses which were not incorporated into the report have been included in Appendix A. Accepted: a Cc Z24/9u Brian C. Gray Date Project Manager LYfELI = Date Accepted: ary D. Smith Manager of Rural Projects polarconsult alaska, inc. ENGINEERS « SURVEYORS * ENERGY CONSULTANTS Alaska Energy Authority February 5, 1992 P.O. Box 19086 Anchorage, Ak. 99519-0869 Atm.: Brian Gray Rural Systems Engineer Re: Waste Heat Reports for nine Villages. Dear Brian: We are transmitting this letter as requested in response to your technical questions on the nine waste heat recovery reports prepare for AEA. The questions are from the second review of these reports by Steven Stassel of AEA. Copies of the review comments are included with this letter. There were a number of basic assumptions made during the progress of these reports. As the projects are to be constructed in AVEC power plants, the modifications and connections within the plant were to meet with their requirements. We feel that there are a number of ways to decrease the cost of these projects without major impact on the reliability of the power plants by revising the piping connection schematics. Electric demand at the plants varies both hourly and seasonally. As the use of engines is entirely up to the local operator, it is difficult to determine which single engine, or which combination of engines, will be running at any one time. AVEC is also in the process of replacing aging or failed engines, and increasing the size of some plants due to demand as part of their normal maintenance. New engines are mostly Cummins engines that are more efficient. These engines produce less waste heat than the older engines they are replacing. These two factors have a major impact on the amount of waste heat available. Our analysis assumed that the most efficient engine at each plant would run continuously. Station heat requirements were based on having the engine requiring the greatest amount of supplementary) waste heat to keep the buildings warm, running continuously as shown in the builling summary sheets in Appendix A. 1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE ¢ SUITE 310 * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE (907) 258-2420 ¢ TELEFAX (907) 258-2419 polarconsult alaska, inc. February 5, 1992 District Heat Report Engine manufacturer's specification data is listed in Table I-A. Waste heat utilization simulation work sheets used more detailed heat rejection information at various loads, supplied by the engine manufacturer's. Heat loss figures input into the station heat loss section of the waste heat utilization simulation work sheets were for the engine requiring the most waste heat to keep all the AVEC buildings at 65°F. Heat content of 96,000 BTU for a gallon of heating oil was used for this report. This value was arrived at by using a gross heating value of 132,000 BTU for arctic grade diesel times an estimated efficiency of 73% for boilers. Since the report conclusions are entirely in gallons of oil saved, these assumptions are critical. The BTU content of oil varies depending on the source, blending and grades used, so results can vary plus or minus 5% due to variations in heat content. Further, oil fired equipment efficiencies vary greatly which introduces another plus or minus 5% possible variation in the results. All reports assumed that three trips would be made to each village by a skilled crew each year, to perform routine maintenance. Follows are answers to review comments for each report, as well as copies of the review comments. Sincerely Yours Earle V. Ausman wh9; WHILO9GB.DOC polarconsult alaska, inc. February 5, 1992 District Heat Report Scammon Bay Waste Heat Recovery 8. Engine manufacturer's specification data is listed in Table III-A. Waste heat utilization simulation work sheets used more detailed heat rejection information at various loads, supplied by the engine manufacturer's. Data sheet indicates water flow for 3306 at 35 gpm. 9. The LTA 10 was assumed to be running continuously, which requires 249 gallons of heating oil, or 1,167 Btu/Hr/oF to keep the building warm, which was used in the WHU spreadsheet. 10. Page 10, Section IV.A.2, length of pipeline from power plant to the elementary school should be 940 feet, not 660 feet as indicated. Figure V-1 on page 18 should read 720' of 2.5" diameter not 600' of 2.5" diameter as indicated. 13.A. The fuel line runs from the School bulk fuel facility, behind the Teacher Housing, parallel to the district heating line to the Elementary School. It continues down the hill parallel to the existing sewer line and power line and across Front Street. Spur lines run to the AVEC power plant site, and the Water Treatment bulk fuel facility. The district heating line crosses the fuel line in two spots, both on Hillside Drive. A spur line to the Armory crosses the district heating line to the Elementary School. The main line crosses the district heating line to the Water Treatment Plant. } 13.B. Length of 2.5" diameter pipeline should read 720’, not 600' as shown. 15. Transmission pipe will be mostly 2 1/2" diameter, not 3" as indicated on page 31. The pipe will run 85 feet to the tee to the City Hall, continue an additional 100 feet to the Tee to the Clinic, an additional 95 feet to the tee to the Headstart building, and an additional 440 feet to the tee to the Elementary School. The pipe runs 220 feet from this point to the Elementary School, or 130 feet to the Water Treatment Plant. 16.1. Cost for City Hall includes district heat piping from Power Plant to the City Hall. Cost for Clinic includes district heat piping from City Hall to Clinic. Cost for Head Start includes district heat piping from Clinic to Headstart, as well as stub connection with two valves and pipe caps. 17. Annual fuel usage was distributed on a monthly basis using heating degree days. A base of 354 gallons per month was used to flatten the curve and make it conform to the monthly fuel usage indicated by the operator, and common to other buried water distribution systems in rural Alaska. The water is heated to keep the water lines from freezi..... Alaska Energy Authority May 20, 1991 Mr. Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Scammon Bay Waste Heat Recovery Pre-Final Report Dear Mr. Ausman: We have reviewed the Pre-Final Report and Concept Level Design for the above referenced project and have the following comments. Please provide written responses to all review comments indicating if comment was incorporated or providing an appropriate answer/explanation with the final submittal. Ls Executive Summary, Delete * after "$611,168*" in table on page i. Capitalize "C" in “concept #3." . De Table of Contents, list of figures - Tables and glossary page numbers don't correspond to actual page numbers. Coordinate. 35 Table of Contents - Section IV.C.2-b and c are on page 17, not 16. 4. Table of Contents - Section X, Recommendations is missing (page 52) in copies. 5: List of figures: A. Figures IV-1 & 2, replace "Building" with "Plant" in "Water Treatment Building." B. Figure V-4 calls out Junior School schematic, but figure shows City Hall schematic. Coordinate. Cc Figure V-5 calls out High School schematic, but figure shows Head Start schematic. Coordinate. D: Figure V-6 calls out Elementary School, but figure shows Clinic schematic. Coordinate. [ PO.BoxAM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 SR PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 a1an motes Mr. Earle Ausman May 20, 1991 Page 2 6. 10. ll. 12. 3: 14, List of tables, add tables that show: Estimated Distribution of Fuel Oil Use at: 1. Clinic 2. Head Start 3. City Hall Page 3, Part D - “Population of 350" does not correspond to "Population of 326" in paragraph 1, Executive Summary. Coordinate. Page 5, Section III.B. - was table III.A used to calculate heat rejection figures? Appendix A indicates engine manufacturers test data was used. Coordinate also, water flow for 3306 - is it only 35 gpm? Page 7, Section III.C. - according to Appendix A, building heating summary, only 249 gallons are required to heat the Butler Building annually with the LTA 10 operating. Which number was used in the waste heat utilization spread sheet, 249 gallons or 1525 gallons? Coordinate with the WHU spreadsheet. Page 10, Section IV.A.2. - straight line distance from the power plant to the Elementary School Boiler Room is at least 750; not 660 feet. Figure V-1 shows pipe run to be 600' + 220' = 820 feet. Coordinate and identify length on figure V-1. Table IV-B, page 14 - change "Building" to "Plant." Section IV.C.2. A & C - call out figures V-4 and V-5 in corresponding paragraphs. Section V, Concept Design Drawings A. figure V-1, see 10. Also, indicate where fuel lines are buried utilities Tun. B. Figure V-2, see 10. Page 29, last paragraph - replace "engine" with "primary." Mr. Earle Ausman May 20, 1991 Page 3 15. Page 31, section VI, B.2.A. - Figure's V-1 & 2 indicate the arctic pipe will be mostly "2.5" not "3" inch diameter. Also, explain distance from waste heat module to "T" for clinic; distance from clinic "T" to Head Start "T"; distance from headstart "T" to Elementary School "T", and distance to water treatment plant. Also indicate distances from "T's" to user building entry's (show this information on figure's V-1 and V-2.) 16. Page 48, section VIII.D. - Table VIII-A: 1 For "City Hall", "Clinic" and "Head Start:" Why is it so expensive to provide a “stub connection only with two valves and pipe caps"? 2. Add to table VIII-A, a subtotal for “Construction Cost" for each building including a line item for "General Conditions". Also, show the "Project Cost" with Design, SIA, and Project Contingency separate from "Construction Cost" (use similar format to HMS Summary Sheet.) NOTE: The construction cost for a building should be constant for each scenario, any variance in freight, per diem, profit, etc. should be included in the General Conditions. 17. Appendix A, page 1, explain function of "354" in water treatment plant monthly fuel oil usage calculation. Also, replace "Building" with "Plant." 18. Appendix B.10.1 - Cummins is 1800 rpm, rather than 100 rpm. If you have any questions, please call me at 561-7877 or 261-7282. Sincerely, Leen! Show! Steven S Rural Systems Engineer SS:jd I ® 20 ® p> Q oO cae Alaska Energy Authority A Public Corporation June 12, 1991 Mike Dahl Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 SUBJECT: District Heating Report and Concept Level Design Studies for Mountain Village, Noatak, Pilot Station, and Scammon Bay. Dear Mr. Dahl: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and Steve Stassel Wednesday, June 1lth to discuss the above referenced projects. I would like to confirm our understanding of our discussion regarding the preferred method for closing out these projects: 1) PCA was directed by the Energy Authority to use a "canned" approach in the design of the heat recovery systems including the design parameters for the AVEC cooling system (including multiple remote radiators, removal of skid mounted radiators, etc.) and the location of the circulating pumps at the end-user buildings. This contributed to the total cost of the proposed heat recovery systems. 2) PCA is agreeable to incorporating “draft" review comments that were omitted from the "pre-final" reports, as well as any new errors that were inadvertently included in the “pre-final" reports, at no additional cost to the Energy Authority. 3) PCA requires reimbursement for services provided to incorporate any new "pre-final" review comments that were not included in the "draft" review comments. 4) A compromise was reached between PCA and AEA that PCA will respond to the technical related questions in the "pre-final" PO. BoxAM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO. m Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Q an) review comments for the above projects, as well as to any "pre- final" review comments for Nunapitchuk and Tununak, in letter format. In addition, PCA will provide the assumed GPM and head-loss data for all circulating pumps referenced in the Reports. This information will be provided at no additional cost to the Energy Authority. These responses will not be incorporated into the "final" report. In return for fulfilling the requirements of #4 above, PCA will not be required to make any alterations to any of the Reports. In return, AEA will accept the Reports as Final, with the condition that AEA will not be responsible for any typographical errors or technical deficiencies in the reports. Please find enclosed a copy of the acceptance notice to be included with each copy of the reports. If you have any questions, please call me or Steven Stassel at 561- 7877. Sincerely, fre C. Brian Gray Project Manager Ss/ enclosure cc: Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy Authority This study was prepared under contract with the Alaska Energy Authority by: Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 The accepted conclusions are: 1. A potential for waste heat recovery has been identified in the community of Mountain Village. Based on the proposed design and project cost estimate, the project is not economically feasible and does not appear to justify conventional financing. Alternate funding sources and/or revisions to the project scope will need to be evaluated. The designs presented herein are schematic in nature and should not be construed as being complete in design or function. A thorough review of content and correctness should be performed prior to use in the development of construction documents. The concept-level project cost estimate for Scenario #6 is $1,002,315. Accepted: Accepted: Brian C. Gray Date Project Manager Gary D. Smith Date Manager of Rural Projects State of Alaska NN Waiter J. Hickel, Governor Alaska Energy Authority A Public Corporation May 20, 1991 Mr. Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Scammon Bay Waste Heat Recovery Pre-Final Report Dear Mr. Ausman: We have reviewed the Pre-Final Report and Concept Level Design for the above referenced project and have the following comments. Please provide written responses to all review comments indicating if comment was incorporated or providing an appropriate answer/explanation with the final submittal. iL: Executive Summary, Delete * after "$611,168*" in table on page i. Capitalize "C" in "concept #3." Ze Table of Contents, list of figures - Tables and glossary page numbers don't correspond to actual page numbers. Coordinate. 3. Table of Contents - Section IV.C.2-b and c are on page 17, not 16. 4. Table of Contents - Section X, Recommendations is missing (page 52) in copies. 5: List of figures: A. Figures IV-1 & 2, replace "Building" with "Plant" in "Water Treatment Building." B. Figure V-4 calls out Junior School schematic, but figure shows City Hall schematic. Coordinate. C. Figure V-5 calls out High School schematic, but figure shows Head Start schematic. Coordinate. D. Figure V-6 calls out Elementary School, but figure shows Clinic schematic. Coordinate. © PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 3X PO. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 91Q2\JD0769(1) Mr. Earle Ausman May 20, 1991 Page 2 6. 10. 1. 12. 13. 14. List of tables, add tables that show: Estimated Distribution of Fuel Oil Use at: L Clinic 2. Head Start 3. City Hall Page 3, Part D - "Population of 350" does not correspond to "Population of 326" in paragraph 1, Executive Summary. Coordinate. Page 5, Section III.B. - was table III.A used to calculate heat rejection figures? Appendix A indicates engine manufacturers test data was used. Coordinate also, water flow for 3306 - is it only 35 gpm? Page 7, Section III.C. - according to Appendix A, building heating summary, only 249 gallons are required to heat the Butler Building annually with the LTA 10 operating. Which number was used in the waste heat utilization spread sheet, 249 gallons or 1525 gallons? Coordinate with the WHU spreadsheet. Page 10, Section IV.A.2. - straight line distance from the power plant to the Elementary School Boiler Room is at least 750; not 660 feet. Figure V-1 shows pipe run to be 600' + 220' = 820 feet. Coordinate and identify length on figure V-1. Table IV-B, page 14 - change "Building" to "Plant." Section IV.C.2. A & C - call out figures V-4 and V-5 in corresponding paragraphs. Section V, Concept Design Drawings A. figure V-1, see 10. Also, indicate where fuel lines are buried utilities run. B. Figure V-2, see 10. Page 29, last paragraph - replace "engine" with "primary." 91Q2\JD0769(2) Mr. Earle Ausman May 20, 1991 Page 3 15. Page 31, section VI, B.2.A. - Figure's V-1 & 2 indicate the arctic pipe will be mostly "2.5" not "3" inch diameter. Also, explain distance from waste heat module to "T" for clinic; distance from clinic "T" to Head Start "T"; distance from headstart "T" to Elementary School "T", and distance to water treatment plant. Also indicate distances from "T's" to user building entry's (show this information on figure's V-1 and V-2.) 16. Page 48, section VIII.D. - Table VIII-A: Ls For "City Hall", "Clinic" and "Head Start:". Why is it so expensive to provide a “stub connection only with two valves and pipe caps"? 2: Add to table VIII-A, a subtotal for "Construction Cost" for each building including a line item for "General Conditions". Also, show the "Project Cost" with Design, SIA, and Project Contingency separate from "Construction Cost" (use similar format to HMS Summary Sheet.) NOTE: The construction cost for a building should be constant for each scenario, any variance in freight, per diem, profit, etc. should be included in the General Conditions. 17. Appendix A, page 1, explain function of "354" in water treatment plant monthly fuel oil usage calculation. Also, replace "Building" with "Plant." 18. | Appendix B.10.1 - Cummins is 1800 rpm, rather than 100 rpm. If you have any questions, please call me at 561-7877 or 261-7282. Sincerely, Hhesn Ls nek Steven Stasse| Rural Systems Engineer SS:jd 91Q2\JD0769(3) MEMORANDUM Date: 11/15/90 To: Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. From: Brian Gray Rural Systems Engineer Alaska Energy Authority Re: Scammon Bay Waste Heat Recovery Draft Report We have reviewed the Draft Report and Concept Level Design for the above referenced project and have the following comments. Consider this your notice-to-proceed to pre-final design. Incorporate all relevant comments prior to obtaining cost estimates. Please provide written responses to all review comments indicating if comment was incorporated or providing an appropriate answer/explanation with the pre-final submittal. i. Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 1 - Revise to say that the cost of heating fuel varies between $1.15 to $1.75. 26 Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 3 - Provide an explanation of the concepts investigated either here or in the introduction. 3. Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 4 - Revise to say oO’ "Project cost ... for Concept #3 are as follows". 2 kk 4. Executive Summary page 2, paragraph 5 - Revise to say Western Alaska. eCKe 5. Table of Contents - Capitalize "Heating" on VIII-B. oe 6. Section I-A, paragraph 1 - See comment #1. 7. Section I-D, paragraph 1 - See comment #4. added indicating which generator was assumed as the = / 8. Section III-A, paragraph 1 - A statement should be lead unit for the purposes of the calculations. 9. Section III-B - The Program Notes in Appendix A indicate that the engine manufacturer’s test data was used not the engine specs listed in Table III-A. Coordinate. 10. 11. Section III-C, paragraph 2 - A statement should be added which clearly identifies which combination of heat loss figures was used in the waste heat utilization simulation worksheets. Section III-D, paragraph 1: A. Will one of the remote radiators be adequate to meet the heat rejection requirements of any one of the three generators? B. Figure V-3 shows unit #3 (which is described as being not in use currently) connected to the heat recovery piping. Is removal of the skid-mounted : Nod) radiator and connection of unit #2 included in the work at the power plant? 3 Section III-D, second paragraph on page 9 - Add "for the new heat exchanger module" after "district heating electrical systems." Section IV-A-1 - From Figure V-1 it appears that the high school could be connected to the power plant with an approximately equal length of piping as the elementary school. Was the high school considered as a potential waste user and if not why? Section IV-A-2: A. Change "extended" to "extend." B. Section I-C-2 mentions soils information as part of the field data gathered yet the report makes no mention of local soils conditions. Are local soils compatible with burying hot distribution piping? Also, the report should indicate any possible buried utilities along the proposed route of the heating piping. Figure V-1: A. Provide a north arrow. B. Identify the proposed waste heat user buildings shown near the elementary school. Figure V-2 - Indicate where the various pipe sizes occur. 17. Ss 18. E Figure V-4: A. Correct the spelling of "G undfos" and indicate io the estimated GPM, head, and tor horsepower for \ — the pumps. B. Section IV-C-2-a indicates that the building is heated by a pot-type heater and proposes Ke installation of a baseboard loop. Revise floor plan and schematic as required. Of Figure V-5 & V-6 - Correct the spelling of "Grundfos" and indicate the estimated GPM, head, and mo yvV ~ horsepower for the pumps. 19. Figure V-4: A. Correct the spelling of "Grundfos" and indicate c the estimated GPM, head, and motor horsepower for O\ the pumps. the equipment schedule indicates that it is not pe The system schematic shows an expansion tank while 20. Oe Oo (re few yf? , - we (23. 2 24. Oe prc required. Coordinate. Section VI-B-1-b-5 - Add "primary" prior to "heat exchanger" and add "pumps," after "piping,". Also, replace "Engine" with "Primary" in the first line of the fourth paragraph on page 29. Figure IX-2 - Add months to the horizontal axis similar to Figure IxX-1. Section X - See comment #4. Appendix A, Page 1, Power Plant Heat - There is no indication on the Building Heating Summaries that an additional 2 ACPH has been added. Also, it does not appear that the infiltration value used in the worksheets is even close to 24 ACPH. Revise as required. Appendix A, Page 1, User’s Monthly Fuel Oil Usage - In the Water Treatment Building calculation change "125" to "354." Appendix A, Program Notes - The reference here should be to Table III-A, not Table III-B. 26. Appendix A, Waste Heat Utilization Simulation Worksheets - The following comments apply to the worksheets for all concepts: A. Revise units under generator data to "(BTU/HR) /(KW)" not KWH as indicated. B. Hourly heat demand variation appears to be incorrect. Per our telephone conversation of 10/26/90 we will need to see an example calculation which clearly demonstrates that the y V/ revised heat demand does not significantly affect the amount of heating fuel displaced. Otherwise, the heat demand values will need to be revised in accordance with the values transmitted previously. yh c. Under Building Data the fuel use for the piping 27. ral O28: loss should only appear for the particular building(s) being analyzed under that concept. It appears that addition of the three city buildings only amounts to an additional 659 equivalent gallons of fuel oil delivered. Upon formulation of cost estimates concepts 2, 3, and 7 should be closely evaluated to determine which is the most cost effective option. The additional piping required for concept #3 may not be economically justifiable. Provide color photographs in the final report. SCAMBGM1 Stote of Alaska y Steve Cowper Governor » | Alaska EFnargy Authority A Public Corporation TELECOPY CANCHORAGE Teltecopy Phone No. (907) 561-8584) (JUNEAU Telecopy Phone No. (907) 465-3767) TELECOPY SENT TO: Gacle A Vemawn NAME OF COMPANY: Ce laces nx, = Ly A\ a be De COMPANY ADDRESS: Ame TELECOPY PHONE NUMBER: _2@> 6 —2 + | SENDER: Ba mien Corea. TELEPHONE NUMBER: Ziel -729<- CHARGE CODE: INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE NUMBER OF PAGES SENT: = DATE SENT: Note? (se /F— TF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THIS TELECOPY PLEASE CALL: (907) _ 261-7240-Anchorage €907) 465-3575-Juneau =. wae SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Hee tt te - PO. Ox AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 3 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor React )=Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT *% # 5 wie SEND ek NO REMOTE STATION I. D. | START TIME DURATION | #PAGES COMMENT a 9072582419 | 11-15-90 10:26 3°21" 5 TOTAL 0:03'21" 5 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 State of Alaska DN Steve Cowper. Governor Alaska Energy Authority A Public Corporation TE) EP EGiO) Py (ANCHORAGE Telecopy Phone No. (907) 561-8584) (JUNEAU Telecopy Phone No. (907) 465-3767) TELEcoPY sEnT TO: tearle Avseman NAME OF COMPANY: cla 3 gies Tn COMPANY ADDRESS: Anclh. TELECOPY PHONE NUMBER: 25% -24|9 2 SENDER: \Aenrlen Grau TELEPHONE NUMBER: Z(G) 7294 CHARGE CODE: NUMBER OF PAGES SENT: Ss INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE DATE SENT: Wi \Ss/PFo IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THIS TELECOPY PLEASE CALL: (907) 261-7240-Anchorage (907) 465-3575-Juneau SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: _S/g #etoir Ba. Waste. H ver or pew) ¢ — Mend é PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 x PO Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 MEMORANDUM Date: 11/15/90 To: Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. From: Brian Gray Rural Systems Engineer Alaska Energy Authority Re: Scammon Bay Waste Heat Recovery Draft Report We have reviewed the Draft Report and Concept Level Design for the above referenced project and have the following comments. Consider this your notice-to-proceed to pre-final design. Incorporate all relevant comments prior to obtaining cost estimates. Please provide written responses to all review comments indicating if comment was incorporated or providing an appropriate answer/explanation with the pre-final submittal. 1. Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 1 - Revise to say that the cost of heating fuel varies between $1.15 to $1.75. 2. Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 3 - Provide an explanation of the concepts investigated either here or in the introduction. 3. Executive Summary page 1, paragraph 4 - Revise to say "Project cost ... for Concept #3 are as follows". 4. Executive Summary page 2, paragraph 5 - Revise to say Western Alaska. 5. Table of Contents - Capitalize "Heating" on VIII-B. 6. Section I-A, paragraph 1 - See comment #1. Ts Section I-D, paragraph 1 - See comment #4. 8. Section III-A, paragraph 1 - A statement should be added indicating which generator was assumed as the lead unit for the purposes of the calculations. 9. Section III-B - The Program Notes in Appendix A indicate that the engine manufacturer’s test data was used not the engine specs listed in Table III-A. Coordinate. 10. i 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Section III-C, paragraph 2 - A statement should be added which clearly identifies which combination of heat loss figures was used in the waste heat utilization simulation worksheets. Section III-D, paragraph 1: A. Will one of the remote radiators be adequate to meet the heat rejection requirements of any one of the three generators? Bis Figure V-3 shows unit #3 (which is described as being not in use currently) connected to the heat recovery piping. Is removal of the skid-mounted radiator and connection of unit #2 included in the work at the power plant? Section III-D, second paragraph on page 9 - Add "for the new heat exchanger module" after "district heating electrical systems." Section IV-A-1 - From Figure V-1 it appears that the high school could be connected to the power plant with an approximately equal length of piping as the elementary school. Was the high school considered as a potential waste user and if not why? Section IV-A-2: A. Change "extended" to "extend." B. Section I-C-2 mentions soils information as part of the field data gathered yet the report makes no mention of local soils conditions. Are local soils compatible with burying hot distribution piping? Also, the report should indicate any possible buried utilities along the proposed route of the heating piping. Figure V-1: A. Provide a north arrow. B. Identify the proposed waste heat user buildings shown near the elementary school. Figure V-2 - Indicate where the various pipe sizes occur. 1755 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Figure V-4: A. Correct the spelling of "Grundfos" and indicate the estimated GPM, head, and motor horsepower for the pumps. B. Section IV-C-2-a indicates that the building is heated by a pot-type heater and proposes installation of a baseboard loop. Revise floor plan and schematic as required. Figure V-5 & V-6 - Correct the spelling of "Grundfos" and indicate the estimated GPM, head, and motor horsepower for the pumps. Figure V-4: A. Correct the spelling of "Grundfos" and indicate the estimated GPM, head, and motor horsepower for the pumps. B. The system schematic shows an expansion tank while the equipment schedule indicates that it is not required. Coordinate. Section VI-B-1-b-5 - Add "primary" prior to "heat exchanger" and add "pumps," after "piping,". Also, replace "Engine" with "Primary" in the first line of the fourth paragraph on page 29. Figure IX-2 - Add months to the horizontal axis similar to Figure IX-1. Section X - See comment #4. Appendix A, Page 1, Power Plant Heat - There is no indication on the Building Heating Summaries that an additional 2 ACPH has been added. Also, it does not appear that the infiltration value used in the worksheets is even close to 24 ACPH. Revise as required. Appendix A, Page 1, User’s Monthly Fuel Oil Usage - In the Water Treatment Building calculation change "125" tonts5a5" Appendix A, Program Notes - The reference here should be to Table III-A, not Table III-B. 26. Appendix A, Waste Heat Utilization Simulation Worksheets - The following comments apply to the worksheets for all concepts: A. Revise units under generator data to " (BTU/HR) /(KW)" not KWH as indicated. B. Hourly heat demand variation appears to be incorrect. Per our telephone conversation of 10/26/90 we will need to see an example calculation which clearly demonstrates that the revised heat demand does not significantly affect the amount of heating fuel displaced. Otherwise, the heat demand values will need to be revised in accordance with the values transmitted previously. Ce Under Building Data the fuel use for the piping loss should only appear for the particular building(s) being analyzed under that concept. 27. It appears that addition of the three city buildings only amounts to an additional 659 equivalent gallons of fuel oil delivered. Upon formulation of cost estimates concepts 2, 3, and 7 should be closely evaluated to determine which is the most cost effective option. The additional piping required for concept #3 may not be economically justifiable. 28. Provide color photographs in the final report. SCAMBGM1 polarconsult alaska, inc. LET Y 1503 West 33rd Avenue e Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 258-2420 to Ak. ENezay Avtioerry WE ARE SENDING YOU attaches (] Under separate cover via FAX (907) 258-2419 ER F TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO neh23-la0 J . Sonn or‘e.> - ae Weaere— teat UN 2 8 1990 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITKe following items: C) Shop drawings O Prints {J Plans OC Samples CO) Specifications (J Copy of letter (1 Change order oO _ Copies DATE NO DESCRIPTION _ \ Dearpr Bepeer oF :. Lever Desian “’ “Seanron Bay Distwct Heat Zerpoer + Concert THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: C For approval (J For your use (J As requested ror review and comment (1) C) FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO Fie —— () Approved as submitted C Resubmit copies for approval C) Approved as noted CO) Submit copies for distribution C) Returned for corrections ( Return corrected prints 19. _~—— [) PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify oe IS NE D2 us at once. L6-Feb-y, W/O ASSIGNED PROF ENGR SUPFORT OF RURAL FIRJ MULTI-DISCIPLINE fe ASHSAFASESEROCEA $46R0aad. FOLARCONSULT ALASKA, EN #2680U56 — AMEND #1 10 ALD S62, Qua & EXT DATE INC. FUNDS AVAILABLE DATE INVOICE # AMOUNT PAID W/O # re fu we ee Gi Gt te tn cn on @oooan NNN Toon ouuuo 1@ 12 1a 1a 2S204. AA 6166. aa 622. AA E6QA. aa ZAWUAAY, Ar 12321. AB ~ Ss te by cn Ss Ss PENDING 1a re SS. AQ 18364. @@ 49/15/88 12/15/89 @3/12/69 23/16/89 11/3@/88 26/14/89 24/87/89 21/17/92 Q7/83/89 @5/13/89 @6/21/89 @6/11/89 Q6/27/91 12/11/69 2/21/98 6/25/98 6/27/91 12/11/89 @3/89/98 25/21/92 12/11/9@ 12/11/89 @3/A9/92 Q5/81/92 &9/28/98 Q2/03/92 12/11/89 Q3/29/98 @5/@1/9% 26/21/98 12/11/89 23/29/52 @S/21/9R 26/21/98 CANCELLED UNKNOWN *® UNKNOWN* ZBWUAGE-3 281189 W61169-S W/O CLOSED @2219-1 “UNKNOWN " W/O CLOSED @32990-WO#7 W/0#7-@501592 7-@621928 A3A99A-WOHS W/O0#8-25219 8-292998 POL@20392-A WIAIIA-WOHO W/O#9-@5019@ 9-86219@ Q3AIIA-WO#H 14 W/O#1A-SA19a 18-862192 oa fu ry - s i 23204. UA 6166. aa Seu, WA ty us —~ Oo oF wos cr cf 17916. 9@ 1382. 33 698. 77 2979.72 4861.67 S@6. 63 1886. 58 7265. 14 1687. 89 13@1.97 7662. 14 14@@. 39 1383. 47 AMAA. WA 18321. 8a 7241.28 2505. @6 1255. aa 2989. 66 13@1.97 BW. a2 12364. 22 2783. 66 13@3.47 2. as a. Ua Q. V2 a. uu Q. a G. aa G. aa @. BA @. aa Q. aa Q. aw 98648.a@ 12/11/89 ii 11 Q3/29/9a Al @5/201/9@ 11 09/26/92 1 @1/31/91 lz 9766.88 12/11/69 12 @3/289/9a le 5/21/52 le 05/28/98 lee FENDING 4/22/91 9888. @@ 12/11/89 23/29/92 @s/eissa 25/26/92 FENDING 3/26/91 14 9812.08 12/11/89 14 @3/29/9@ 14 25/21/92 14 @9/z8/9a 14% PENDING 23/23/92 5 9429.@@ 12/11/89 is @3/05/90 S @s/e@1/9a 1s 29/26/50 1S* FENDING @2/&@3/92 QSAIII-WO# 11 W/O#11-S@19ea 11-8621 9MREV W/O 11/JAN91 MSAISGA-WOH 1S W/O#12-Salsv 12-@621 9UREV FPOLO42291 Q3VIGO—-WO# 1 W/G#13-Se@159a 13-@763QREV FOL@32691 14-@34a99a W/0#14-S5213928 14-@7@630REV POLWZO392-E Q3A9IA-WO#1S W/O#15-SQ192% 15-723 30REV FOL@ZA392-C 15635@. 82 TOTALS TO DATE *ALL INVOICES RECEIVED IN ACCOUNTING FER S, 19 w f 3596. 84 398Q. 57 659. 63 1614.76 3596. 64 35672. 42 967.83 1552. 93 3546. 64 3673. 30 1217.83 1652. @3 ’ 9646. aa 6251.16 2278.59 1618.76 a. au 3766. Ua 6189. 16 2516.76 1558. 93 Q. ae 9888. Ae 6341.16 2667. 86 1658. a3 @. aa 9812. aa 6215.16 2549. 32 1562. 16 Q. 2d 9429. a2 7895. 33 3239.41 1404. 56 @. aa 2. a2 @. ad a. uw @. aa a. aa Q. Bei @. a2 REC..VED olarconsult alaska, inc. ia 2 198i INEERS « SURVEYORS ¢ ENERGY CONSULTANTS AUESKA ENERGY i THe WIT Y Alaska Energy Authority March 28, 1991 P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Re: Contract AEA 2800098, Work Order 13, Scammon Bay Waste Heat. Dear Mr. Brian Gray: Please find enclosed with this Invoice 15 copies of the final report for Scammon Bay. This brings the Scammon Bay contract to a close. Invoice # Labor Expenses Total 04/90 Invoice $2,856.67 $690.17 $3,546.84 05/90 Invoice $3,665.00 $8.30 $3,673.30 09/90 Invoice $1,017.83 $0.00 $1,017.83 Due This Invoice $1,330.50 $319.53 $1,650.03 Expended to Date $8,870.00 $1,018.00 $9,888.00 Contract $8,870.00 $1,018.00 $9,888.00 Remaining $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Labor hours on the project were as follows: Personnel Ausman Moore Dahl Tech. Total Rate $72 $72 $50 $40 Hours 04/90 Invoice 11 10 26 1 48 05/90 Invoice 27 3 27 0 7 09/90 Invoice 20 2 23 0 45 _ This Invoice 10 2 15 20 AY Vencor « POL BYOES_ Originator Sincerely Yours eclectiMAg Director BS4 Ex D _. Earle V. Ausman Godel iors 24/5 z 9VHOSSB.DOC Cc. . Bg 1.9 3¢0 / ZV 280009f | BG... _ r ic. F 1 823309 1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE e¢ SUITE 310 ¢ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE (907) 258-2420 e TELEFAX (907) 258-2419