Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIvanof Bay Reconaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 7-1982VIL-N 002 Ivanof RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES ROPERTY OF: Alagka Power Authority ub 34 W. 5th Ave. ee Alaska 99501 IVANOF BAY ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLD BAY NIKOLSKI FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY LOWER AND TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY IVANOF BAY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary and Recommendations 2.0 Background 3.0 Village Meeting 4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution 5.0 Energy Balance 6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 Population Projection 6.2 Capital Projects 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 7.0 Energy Resource Assessment 8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.3 Alternate Plan B 9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations Appendix Review letters and replies Page 1.1 ee PP bh bp DAAAA . NNaa = ~ «1 ~owmoao LIST OF TABLES Page Table 5.1 Energy Balance for 1982 5.2 Table 7.1 Summary of Proposed Hydro Site 7.2 Table 7.2 Streamflow Data 7.3 Table 8.1 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case 8.5 Table 8.2 Estimated Heat Recovery Costs 8.8 Table 8.3 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan A 8.10 Table 8.4 Estimated Installation Cost of a Hydroelectric System at Ivanof Bay 8.14 Table 8.5 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan B 8.16 Table 9.1 Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan 9.1 Table 9.2 Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan 9.2 Table 9.3 Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions 9.3 ii Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.4 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.3 7.1 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Climatic Background Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances Electrical Generation Facilities Fuel Oil Usage Electrical Generation Sector Energy Distribution Energy Flow Diagram Distribution of Total Useable Energy Population Projection Thermal Energy Projection Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagram iii Page 2.2 2.3 4.3 4.4 6.4 7.5 1.0. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. This study has focused on seeking potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. Opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, such as waste heat capture systems, were also detailed. Ivanof Bay is one of a few villages which does not have a central electrical generation facility. In order to establish a basis for comparison between energy plans a central generation system was designed and used as the base case. There is potential for a hydro electric generation station at Ivanof Bay and a plan to develop this resource was compared to the central generation base case and the base case scenario complemented by waste heat capture. Summary Statements Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into Ivanof Bay were considered. 1. Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by propane and gasoline. Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel electric generation. Forecasts show an inevitable increase in energy consumption in the village due to population growth. Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the village. This weakens the accuracy of technological Or economic predictions. However, the estimates relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably reliable. The feasibility of various technologies for electrical and thermal energy production was evaluated. Wood, peat, solar, geothermal, coal, were considered as potential energy resources but are not viable alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste heat recovery from the anticipated central power plant and hydro power were the basis of the alternative energy plans. The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the anticipated use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was prepared. Waste heat capture for the central generation plant was evaluated and found to be uneconomical. General Recommendations 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New techrologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. 1.2 ce 1. Significant energy savings could be realized by a village-wide energy conservation and weatherization program. Village Specific Recommendations eee ee ee eC ONMENGaAL ONS Hydroelectric power in the village is economically attractive. In addition, it saves a large volume of fuel oil. The installation of the hydroelectric facility is recommended. The installation of the central diesel electric power station is recommended. This will provide a source of economical, reliable electric power for the village. The followings steps should be taken: a. Initiate the design of a central power plant and distribution system. b. Initiate a feasibility study of hydroelectric power at Ivanof Bay. 2.0 BACKGROUND Ivanof Bay is a small unincorporated village situated in the Bristol Bay Native Corporation region. The village of Ivanof Bay was re-established in the mid-1960's when a number of families moved from Perryville. The present village occupies the former site of a salmon cannery which operated there from the early 1930's until the early 1950's. Location Ivanof Bay is located on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula. It is about 22 miles west-southwest of Perryville and 150 miles northeast of Cold Bay (Figure 2.1). The land rises rapidly to the north and east of the village but there is a low pass, Granville Portage, to the southwest. Climate There are no climatic records for Ivanof Bay. The nearest stations are Sitkinak and Cold Bay. Summary data from Cold Bay is given in Figure 2.2 but it must be remembered that extrapolation of the data will be tenuous because of the different topographic setting of Ivanof Bay. The heating degree days for Ivanof Bay are approximately 9550. Population The population of Ivanof Bay is expected to expand slowly, although if the village's intentions to install a dock are realized then the population would expand along with the economic base. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 KEY KOTLIK SAINT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK LOWER KALSKAG NEWTOK NIGHTMUTE CHEFORNAK MEKORYUK TOKSOOK BAY TUNUNAK HOOPER BAY CHIGNIK LAGOON CHIGNIK IVANOF_ BAY c°? FALSE PASS COLD BAY NIKOLSKI ATKA ST. PAUL ST. GEORGE Q MEKoRYUK 17 TuNuNak — 10 toxsoox say # E— SAINT maRYs.2 =f KALSKAG a wavergn eo : ="9,* < 1 KALSKAG 3 >. Sowers SLi t. =. GR SSn geet Sonne g Sivanor_oay 15. 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP Climatic Background Cold Bay ana ' ! bee Lea! ' bot san treat man! arn | may! sun | sue! auc! see! ocr! wov{ vec Light Conditions | 1 T T Darkness 7 2 ' 7 7 : } 34 faceted emdccief i e? : frrctpaes cia twitegne) ot — 7 tf pope by i sock tving Weather. 1.000 t1 ceiting/3 miles visib ity PERCENT FREQUENCY & 1 IFA Conditions Winds Mean wind speed / prevailing direction ae —[ _T_ zo) Sf sse fee | | se | set ase t eect see naw ase aw e | i § $ E10 | t { —— to — | it T 3 a ere aera lapel cle op Wind 228 knots “ENT FREQUERCY 2. re ° 8 Nc = a ep ; oe o 1p Precipitation | Maximum precipitation a Growing Degree Days obo }—1 es ee Pt D-NY Source: Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series. Figure 2.2 mS Census Year 1960 1970 1980 populs Cron hea EH Ee Opa Cir Bi A ele aa Or eae bane Number of Houses 11 The school, under the jurisdiction of the Lake and Peninsula School District serves seven students in grades K-8 with one teacher. In addition to the school, the village supports a community building and a health clinic. 2.4 3.0 VILLAGE VISIT A village meeting was held at the school with the school teacher and village council in attendance. The field team outlined the Energy Reconnaissance Program and the villagers' questions were answered. Discussions focused on the present conditions in the village and how they were limiting the growth and development of this small community. The village does not have a centralized electric generation facility. Residents mentioned that the small 5 KW diesel powered generators in use lasted only about 4 years and the expense of maintenance was high. The field team developed a plan for a central generation system and the villagers were anxious to see such a facility installed as soon as possible. One of the participants mentioned that the village was expecting a 40 KW generator on an incoming barge. (Subsequent attempts to verify this were unsuccessful.) Fuel oil prices are a real concern to the villagers. Although it was recognized that a central diesel powered utility was required, alternative sources of electrical power were discussed. The Corps of Engineers studied two potential hydro sites in the area, but concluded that neither was feasible. However, the villagers are most interested in the sites identified by the Corps and told the team of a small stream immediately to the west of the village. The streamflow was reported to vary, but there was constant flow. The stream supplied all the fresh water needs of a cannery which operated at the present village site from the early 1930's to the early 1950's, when it was destroyed by fire and not rebuilt. The field team was asked to consider the potential of the stream. 3.1 Wind was discussed but the mountains hinterland causes Severe turbulence at the village site and it was recognized that vind powered generators would be most unreliable in this setting. The majority of villagers move to the Chigniks to work on the fishing boats and in the cannery during the summer. They hope to install a dock to replace the old cannery dock to provide employment in the village through year round fishing. This would develop a cash based economy for the village and encourage the growth and independence of the community. RuralCAP field teams worked in Ivanof Bay in 1976 and assisted the villagers in weatherizing their homes. The villagers were encouraged by the success of the program. 322 4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES 4.1 4.2 4.3 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is listed, segregated by sector, in Figure 4.1. These capacities are based on actual tank sizes and on estimates where reliable data could not be obtained. The storage capacity of domestic fuel tanks and 55 gallon drums is not included in the bulk storage capacities. Also listed in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and cooking appliances, segregated by sector, being used in the village. Electrical Generation Facilities The existing generating equipment installed in the village is listed in Figure 4.2. Comments on the operation of the generators are included. The anticipated generation equipment for a central power plant is also listed on Figure 4.2. Once the central power plant becomes operational the individual generators now used would be disconnected or used for back up. Fuel Oil Usage Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the village. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used for electrical power generation is shown. 4.4 The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to waste. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where avilable, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the main report for an explanation of the estimating process. The fuel oil consumption for electrical power generation was based on an assumed central electrical power plant, with the generating equipment listed in Figure 4.2. Electrical Energy Distribution ee eer rburion The energy flow through the electrical generation sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The "pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to the generation of electrical power. Each sector in the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown. 4.2 IVANOF BAY/1982 BULK FUEL STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES OF HEATING APPLIANCES ELECTRICAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS PUBLIC GENERATION FUEL OIL 31000 16000 TYPE OF 3,5 L 3 HEATING APPLIANCE LEGEND: TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE OIL-FIREO BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION DRIP-TYPE OIL STOVE/FURNACE WOOD STOVE (GALS) STORAGE * ] OIL-FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE PROPANE COOKING STOVES WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS oar FWD *DAY TANKS AND FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ** Anticipated central generation storage Figure 4.1 ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES IVANOF BAY GENERATOR NO. OF TYPE OF TYPE OF | ELECTRICAL MENTS ON OPERATION onner ONITS paring ENGINE GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION COMMENT S):-0 aa ————— }- ~~ ee School 2 30 KW John Deere Kato 120/240V White generator is t We PVLc 1 9 KW White White Village Residents 1 4 KW Various Various 115/220V 10 5 kw Proposed Central 2 50 KW 7200V Central power system would replace Electricity Generation individual generators. Those Pacility 1 30 KW listed above would serve as individual emergency backup. Typical operation would be a single 50 KW unit with the 30 KW unit used at night. Figure 4.2 FUEL OIL USAGE IVANOF BAY/ 1982 SECTOR END USE 100 30 Space Heat 80 70 60 Waste Heat 24% Percent oO ° L ° Generator 30 Waste Heat 20 10 Electricity 8% R Residential 42 % Cc Commercial 0 % P Public 5 % Ss School 12 % E Electrical Power 41 % Generation ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE 26200 GAL = 35 20x10°BTU Figure 4.3 4.5 ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IVANOF BAY p Residential 10 % Commercial 0% Public 2% School 6 % Waste Heat 80% Generation Losses 2% TOTAL ENERGY 1430 x 10 BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 86 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5: 0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Ivanof Bay during 1982 is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types of energy consumed by the various sectors are based upon the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by the school, and the residents. Estimates based on the population, square footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated energy usage factors, were used where data was incomplete. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 4,189 MMBTU of fuel will enter Ivanof Bay in the form of gasoline, propane and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various sectors and used for transportation, cooking, heating and electricity generation. The conversion of the fuel to its end use will result in 47% or 1,974 MMBTU of energy lost as heat. 55% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual amount of energy used by each sector is listed in the last column of the ‘diagram. The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy, if a central generation system is installed in the village, is shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the quantity of energy that will be required by each sector (excluding transportation) for electric lights and appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and generation station service. Percentages listed in the figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 1715 X 10© Btus to determine the projected energy requirements for a particular end use in a given sector. These projected energy requirements do not include energy conversion losses and therefore represent the actual quantity of energy required for each end use. VILLAGE: IVANOF BAY/1982 ENERGY BALANCE A TOTA FUEL OIL GASOLINE PROPANE wooo tacan aes, [ ; ELECTRICITY ToTaL | RECOV- i BTU BTU BTU ERABLE BTU 9 TOR GAL LBS. CORDS 6 BTU 6 %e als 6 % MWH rise x 10% x 10° x10 x 108 Bry x10 fo RESIDENTIAL 11000 | 1490 | 42 44 149 | 51 8000 | 168 594 297 1213 | 55 LW . i wT u COMMERCIAL 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC 1500 184 5 9 30 | 10 73° «| 37 14. | 6 SCHOOLS 3100 | 417 | 12 24 82 | 28 167 17 332 | 15 TRICA * BEREe ATION 10600 | 1430 | 41 9 29 lo 1140 | 742 29 1 TRANSPORTATION 4000 | 500 500 | 23 ‘i ca cccatoesah 26200 | 3521 86 290 4000 |500 | 8000 | 168 1974 }1093 | 2215 |100 *station service or distribution losses Table 5.1 aunbi4 L's POP: 40 HOUSEHOLDS 9,550 HTG. DEGREE DAYS eel AMOUNT ENERGY [ee Le ROBUG F ELECTRICAL END USE Tort 1 ‘i BY SECTOR CONVERSION WASTE. HEAT DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR EMERY ue ns Ie it ill thal PA ieee TRANSPORTATION | ie i Ly DANSPORTATION Fl | GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION | TRanspoaTATION TRANSPORTATION | \ (500) (500) SUE idee ELLE PROPANE COOK ING (168) 6B) Te a RESIDENTIAL i RESIDENTIAL ( wood HEATING ee (1658) HEATING/ (896) (149) COOKING oer (594)! a COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL woe HEATING -0- = (29) (290) (29) FUEL OIL POWER POWER GEN. (3521) GENERATION ELECTRICAL i GENERATORS (1430) (82) SCHOOL(S) (332) SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ COOKING (417) PUBLIC PUBLIC (141) HEATING (184) TOTAL WASTE TOTAL Fora HEAT USABLE ENERGY (1974) eens ENERGY (4189) et i (3308) | WASTE HEAT MMe NON - RECOVERABLE (881) NOTE : NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10° stu's. MO14 ASYANS WVYOVIG DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY*® IVANOF BAY WITH CENTRAL GENERATION INSTALLED SECTOR BY SECTOR 100 90- — | _WH(2.5%) 80 7” 4 H/C (59.58) s < Ke Ww z w = a - ” z Ps Ww oO x uw oO PWR GEN hale, ee an aed WH (1.5%) SCHOOL H/C (13.18%) Oe E(1.7%) PUBLIC H/C (6.58) 0 END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 15.2 % VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 4.0 %. H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 79.1 % P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 1.7 % TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 1715 x 10° Btu % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fig. 532 6. 0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.1 6.2 Population Projection The population of Ivanof Bay was forecast for the twenty year planning period based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capital projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their own community. Historical population data from 1970 to 1980 shows a negative annual growth rate. No capital projects are planned and villagers expect future growth of the village to be slow unless more housing is available in the village. Therefore, only a 1% annual growth rate has been used to project future populations. Historical and projected populations are listed below. Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over the 20 year planning period. 7 Historical | Projected 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 48 41 45 50 55 Capital Projects Forecast The village of Ivanof Bay is small and no definite major capital projects are planned. During discussions in the community meeting, mention was made of some HUD housing units being made available to the village. However, no confirmation could be obtained from HUD or the Bristol Bay Regional Housing 6.3 6.4 Authority. Therefore, although it is recognized that future housing developments might occur, they have not been included specifically in the report. The computer programs developed for forecasting have a facility to include capital projects. When firm plans are established for specified developments the programs can be run to detail the effect on the peak demand, kilowatt hours generated and the effect on the thermal energy requirements of the community. Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Ivanof Bay during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided by the combustion of fuel. The projections were based on fuel use records and estimates of the heating requirements of the buildings. Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Ivanof Bay, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data were not available. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the main report. CMMBTUD ENERGY THERMAL POPULATION POPULATION PROJECTION IVANOF BAY 35 4 4 dans 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 _L 1 1 1982 1984 1986 1988 1998 1992 1994 1936 1998 2828 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION IVANOF BAY 1€c2 15228 1482 1372 122.2 L ot 3 1 caren. ‘ 1982 1834 1926 196% 1992 1952 1834 1936 1998 2e72 YEAR Figure 6.2 6.3 AL ENERGY TOTAL (MWH) to — co = ec) tu tu L ELECTRICAL ENERGY PEAK DEMAND (KW) BY SECTOR (MWH) PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION IVANOF BAY 45 7 42 35 38 25 rn 4. 4 Js +1. 1 —t___i ft aes | anirenimnll 1982 1984 1986 1988 1998 1gg2 1994 1896 1988 2882 YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION IVANOF BAY 122 118 1282 se er 7S L RN ee SBF eee anno sbi a ee PN mz eee wv e Pot dst L tot ttt 4 1__t ft 1982 1984 1986 1988 1993 1992 1994 1995 19938 >2220 YEAR G Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Wind Ivanof Bay is protected on the north and east sides by mountains. Sufficient wind data for a feasibility study of wind power generation at Ivanof Bay is not available. However, it is expected that much of the year the mountains would cause turbulent, irregular winds which would be difficult for use for wind generation. Wood Wood is not available as an energy source. Coal Coal deposits have been located in the Chignik Bay area, which is close to Ivanof Bay. However, no commercial activity at any of these sites is on record. The Krystal Corporation Barge may be able to deliver coal to Ivanof Bay if a dock facility is completed. Solar Ivanof Bay has at least 200 days per year with more than 90% cloud cover. Therefore, even passive solar heat would not be feasible. 7.1 Geothermal Active volcanoes are located near Ivanof Bay, but there is no thermal activity in the immediate vicinity of the village. Therefore, geothermal energy is not considered a viable option. Hydro A Corps of Engineers study conducted in 1980 identified a hydro-electric power site approximately 1 mile from Ivanof Bay. Table 7.1 summarizes the features of the site. Table 7.1 Estimated Distance from Installed Project Cost Site No. Stream Village/Miles Capacity/KW _$ Million 1 Unnamed 1 650 3.792 An unnamed stream at the western extremity of the village was investigated during the field visit. The streamflow was estimated using existing published data and the results are summarized in Table 7.2. The estimates of streamflow were used in subsequent calculations to determine the power potential of the stream. The estimated head available was 475 ft. The analysis of the potential for hydropower on this stream formed the basis for Alternate Plan B, in Section 8.3. 7.2 Table 7.2 Estimated Annual = Qs, = 1.31 cfs Estimated Jan. = Q = .77 cfs Estimated Feb. = Q = .68 cfs Estimated mean monthly Estimated Mar. = Q = .56 cfs and mean annual runoff Estimated Apr. = Q = .54 cfs using U.S.G.S. open Estimated May = Q = .82 cfs file report 76-513, Estimated June = Q = 2.0 cfs and NOAA weather data. Estimated July = Q = 2.1 cfs Estimated Aug. = Q = 2.0 cfs Estimated Sept. = Q = 2.0 cfs Q = Discharge Estimated Oct. = Q = 1.8 cfs Estimated Nov. = Q = 1.4 cfs Estimated Dec. = Q = .96 cfs Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned in a diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine cooling water, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the engine. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings and used in heaters for space heating. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Ivanof Bay. Weatherization Homes and buildings built in the Alaska Peninsula in the past have in general been poorly insulated and weatherized. Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows. Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the building more comfortable and liveable at the same time. The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the most effective way of reducing village energy usage. Technology Ranking Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that could be applied to the village. Each technology was examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and environmental impact. Please refer to the main report for the ranking methodology. 7.4 S°L Village of Ivanof Bay . T ‘ : Technology Relia- Environ- Ranking State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor Impact Weatherization* a | 1.00 Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 | Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 3 4 4 0.86 | Hydroelectric Power 5 3 4 3 4 5 0.86 Wind Energy Conversion | systems 2 2 2 2 2 4 0.43 | Geothermal Energy 3 1 1 1 3 3 0.40 Steam Power from local ; fuel,wood,coal,ect... N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Gasification of wood,coal or peat ; N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Generation via synchronous Induction* 4 3 2 3 1 4 0.63 Electrical Load Management* 4 0.68 * Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 8. 0 ENERGY PLAN 8.1 Base Case 8.1.1 General Description The base case plan for the village of Ivanof Bay is to install a central generation system. This centralized system would include the following components: 1. Two 50 kw diesel generators that would be used to meet the major power demands. 2. A 30 kw diesel generator to be used for nighttime demands and as backup. 3. Two 8000 gallon storage tanks (16000 gallon capacity) to be used for storing a year's supply of fuel. 4. A centralized power distribution system Operating at 7200 volts, single phase. This high voltage would minimize distribution losses and voltage drops in the system through the use of step-up and step-down transformers. Single-phase power of 120/240 volts would be provided to village residents. 5. Watt meters at the service entrance of all power users in order to provide an equitable billing to all customers. 6. A 12' X 20' building to house the generators and electrical equipment. 8.1.2 Base Case Cost Analysis The installation cost of the anticipated central electric power plant was estimated to be $363,000. The cost is itemized below: Generators and Equipment 64,000 Fuel Storage and Equipment 10,000 Generator Building 120,000 Labor 18,400 Shipping 11,400 Equipment Rental 40,000 Subtotal 263,800 Engineering 24,800 Project Management 12,400 Test 12,400 Contingency 49,600 Total Estimated Cost $363,000 The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 50 kw, when the growing peak demand required it. The incremental cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $1650/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $11.11/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.50/gallon. Operation and maintenance expenses were estimated at 8¢/kwh. Table 8.1 presents the itemized present value analysis of the base case for the 20 year study period. The discounted 20 year present value was $855,600. 8.1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present diesel generation 1) Community Preference: At the time of the village visit there was no central generation system. The villagers are requesting that central generation be installed to reduce their cost of electricity and increase its availability and reliability. Central generation has been assumed as the base case. The villagers of Ivanof Bay preferred not to see a diesel powered system but recognize that such a system would be necessary initially and later as a backup to alternative energy based systems. 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases releases a small amount of pollutants to the local environment, but the impact is minimal. 8.4 DIESEL - ELECTRIC . INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST S DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST 1982 1983 24.3 24.3 16.8 17.5 6.9 720 48.0 48.8 48.0 48.8 48.0 47.3 1992 1993 24.3 24.3 24.7 25.6 i) 7.9 56.8 57.9 56.8 57.9 42.3 41.8 1982-2033 3357.2 1652.5 1652.5 1984 24.3 18.2 7.1 49.6 49.6 46.7 1994 24.3 26.6 8.0 58.9 58.9 41.3 IVANOF BAY PLAN 1 BASE CASE 1985 24.3 18.9 7.2 50.4 50.4 46.1 1995 24.3 27.6 8.1 60.0 00.0 40.9 Table 8.1 1986 24.3 19.7 7.3 51.3 51.3 45.5 1996 24.3 28.6 8.2 61.1 61.1 40.4 1987 24.3 20.4 7.4 52.1 52.1 45.0 1997 24.3 29.7 8.3 62.3 62.3 40.0 NOTE: 1988 24.3 21.2 a) 53.0 53.0 44.4 1998 24.3 30.8 8.4 63.5 63.5 39.6 1989 24.3 22.1 7.6 53.9 53.9 43.9 1999 24.3 31.9 8.5 64.7 64.7 39.2 1990 24.3 22.9 7.7 54.9 54.9 43.3 2000 24.3 33.1 8.6 66.0 66.0 38.8 1991 24.3 23.8 7.8 55.8 55.8 42.8 2001 24.3 34.3 8.7 67.3 67.3 38.4 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's TOTAL 486.0 494.3 156.0 1136.3 1136.3 855.6 8.1.4 ii) Noise: ‘The exhaust stacks from the generators produce a considerable amount of noise. The installation of effective mufflers would reduce the noise level to a tolerable level. iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impact. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is no impact on vegetation or soils. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: All leases and permits are in place. Base Case Technical Evaluation The anticipated operation of the central diesel electric, power plant in Ivanof Bay is expected to conform to the following: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well proven, well understood technology with a successful history in rural Alaska. Backup generation allows maintenance operations on the generators to be performed without major power interruption. Occasional system downtime is expected for distribution system maintenance. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. 8.6 3. Availability. There are no indications that spare parts will become difficult to obtain in the future. The availability of fuel to the power plant depends on the reliability of transportation to the village. 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.2.1 General Description The Alternate Plan A for Ivanof Bay is the installation of a waste heat recovery system installed at the anticipated central electric power plant, with the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 50 kw generators. 2. <A distribution sytem consisting of pump, piping and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return it to the power plant. 3. Heating equipment installed in the school and community center buildings, to provide space heating. 4. A control system that automatically regulates the supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any surplus waste heat to the engine radiators. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water heat recovery system. ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY Costs Project Location Generators (kw) Estimated total kwh generated Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate Percent of On-Line Capacity Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery Percent Jacket Water Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Main piping 250 feet x $120/ft. 2. Heat Recovery Equipment 3 Circulating Pumps 4. Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware 5 Contingencies (30%) 6. Base Cost 7. Project Management (5%) 8. Engineering (10%) 9. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 10. O & M COST 11. Recovery Efficiency Table 8.2 Ivanof Bay 50,50,30 85,000 kwh/yr 50,50 10 kw 20% 3300 Btu/min 41% .082x10© BtuH -043x10© BtuH 30,000 21,700 6,500 17,200 22,600 98,000 4,900 9,800 112,700 1.39/MMBtu 4432 Btu/kwh The installed cost of the heat recovery system was estimated to be $112,700. ‘The system value was amortized over a 10 year period. The cost of fuel oil normally used for space heating, which was offset by the captured waste heat, was $11.11/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil cost of $1.50/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were calculated to be $1.39/MMBTU waste heat captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The discounted net benefit of the system was a negative $32,200. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from existing generators for sale to major consumers. 1) Community Preference: The villagers of Ivanof Bay recognize that the installation of waste heat will improve the efficiency of fuel use in the community. Installation of the waste heat capture system will require local expertise and should provide a number of jobs during the construction phase. The system should operate with minimal maintenance although one part time person would be required until the system has been tested and initial minor problems have been solved. 8.9 oc . ~ Oo DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 24.3 16.8 6.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 oOoOoCOoOWw ooocoonN 1983 24.3 17.5 7.0 48.8 48.8 47.3 oooow OOCOOwW NOTE: 1984 24.3 18.2 7.1 49.6 49.6 46.7 1984 13.8 8.4 -5.4 4.9 IVANOF BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1985 24.3 18.9 7.2 50.4 50.4 46.1 1985 13.8 8.7 -5.0 -4.5 1986 24.3 19.7 7.3 51.3 51.3 45.5 1986 13.8 9.1 -4.7 -4.1 1987 24.3 20.4 7.4 52.1 52.1 45.0 1987 13.8 9.4 -4.4 -3.7 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 1988 24.3 21.2 fo 53.0 53.0 44.4 1988 13.8 9.8 -4.0 -3.3 1989 24.3 22.1 7.6 53.9 53.9 43.9 1989 13.8 10.1 -3.7 -2.9 1990 24.3 22.9 Val 54.9 54.9 43.3 1990 13.8 10.5 -3.3 -2.5 1991 24.3 23.8 7.8 55.8 55.8 42.8 1991 13.8 10.9 -2.9 -2.2 IT*8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1992 24.3 24.7 7.9 56.8 56.8 42.3 1992 13.8 11.3 -2.5 -1.8 TOTAL DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS TOTAL PLAN COST 1993 24.3 25.6 7.9 57.9 57.9 41.8 1993 13.8 11.7 -2.1 -1.5 1982-2033 3357.2 1652.5 -13.3 1665.8 1994 24.3 26.6 8.0 58.9 58.9 41.3 1994 13.8 12.1 -1.7 -1.2 IVANOF BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1995 24.3 27.6 8.1 60.0 60.0 40.9 1995 13.8 12.5 -1.3 -0.9 1996 24.3 28.6 8.2 61.1 61.1 40.4 1996 13.8 13.0 -0.8 -0.5 Table 8.3 (continued) 1997 24.3 29.7 8.3 62.3 62.3 40.0 1997 13.9 13.5 -0.4 -0.2 NOTE: 1998 24.3 30.8 8.4 63.5 63.5 39.6 1998 13.9 14.0 0.1 0.1 1999 24.3 31.9 8.5 64.7 64.7 39.2 1999 13.9 14.5 0.6 0.3 2000 24.3 33.1 8.6 66.0 66.0 38.8 2000 13.9 15.0 1.1 0.6 2001 24.3 34.3 8.7 67.3 67.3 38.4 2001 13.9 15.5 1.6 0.9 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's TOTAL 486.0 494.3 156.0 1136.3 1136.3 855.6 TOTAL 248.8 209.8 -39.0 -32.2 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in the thermal pollution from the radiators. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. iii) Water Quality: There would be a minor impact if a major leakage occurred in the coolant system. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None. v) Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during the installation of the distribution system and will be restricted to the village site. vi) ‘Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed that the village will make the necessary arrangements for the right of way requirements for the distribution system. 8.2.4 Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation Operation of the waste heat recovery system in Ivanof Bay, in conjunction with the central power plant, is expected to conform to the following expectations: 1. High Reliability. The system utilizes simple, reliable components that are readily available “off the shelf" from a variety of sources. 8.12 2. Safety. A well maintained system has a low hazard potential. 3. Availability. All components needed are available immediately. The system is relatively easy to implement. 8.3 Alternate B 8.3.1 General Description The Alternate Plan B for Ivanof Bay is to install a 40 KW hydroelectric power plant on the stream that is on the western edge of the village. The dam will impound a reservoir. Because of the low flow requirements for the project the dam would be designed to back up sufficient water to maintain 1.3 cfs throughout the year. Major components of the plan include: a 40 KW turbine-generator power plant with a net head of 455 feet; a diversion structure (sheet pile); 1400 feet of 8 inch penstock. 8.3.2 Alternate B Cost Analysis Table 8.4 presents the itemized, cost of installing a hydroelectric system in Ivanof Bay. The initial capital cost of the hydro system was estimated to be $734,000 in current dollars. 8.13 ESTIMATED HYDRO COSTS Project Location Ivanof Bay Average Annual Flow (cfs) 1.3.cfs Total Head (ft) _ 475 ft Transmission Line Length (miles) ___ 0.03 mi Road Length (miles) None CALCULATED VALUES Net Head 455 ft Generator Unit Rating (kw) 40 kw Energy Available @ 30% Plant Factor (kwh/yr) 105,000 kwh/yr Penstock Diameter (inches) 8 in MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Power House 50,000 2. Turbines, Generators, Valves, & Switchgear 40,000 3. Diversion Structure (Sheetpile) 150,000 4. Water Way (Penstock) 1400 ft X $50/ft 70,000 5. Transmission Line 10,000 6. Mobilization and Demobilization 150,000 7. Contingencies (30$%) 141,000 8. Base Cost 611,000 9. Project Management (5%) 31,000 10. Test and Energization (5%) 31,000 11. Engineering (10%) 61,000 12. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST os 734,000 Table 8.4 8.14 The hydro project is planned for completion in 1984 and is expected to have a useful life of 50 years. Table 8.5 presents an itemized present worth analysis of the plan for the 20 and 53 year study periods. discounted present worth of the plan is $905,700 and $1,631,700, respectively, in 1982 dollars. 8.3.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan Summary 1) 2) Community Preference: The village meeting focused on the potential for hydro electric power as the primary alternative to diesel. The low O&M and reliability of the system are important considerations. Also, there is the potential for excess power production which would be available for either local commercial developments or possibly resistance heating. Installation of a hydro facility would provide several jobs locally during the construction phase and a part time position for a person to operate and maintain the system. The community is strongly in favor of a feasibility study to determine an accurate cost and fully access the potential of the proposed installation. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a slight 8.15 The @ KB a DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 24.3 16.8 6.9 48.0 ooo ooo 48.0 48.0 1983 24.3 17.5 7.0 48.8 ooo ooo 48.8 47.3 NOTE: 1984 24.3 ar wo ry w Woo Own 60.2 56.7 kkk IVANOF BAY PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B 0 2.0 0 3 26.3 3 28.5 28.5 28.5 5.4 5.5 5.5 33.9 34.0 34.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 55.1 53.6 52.1 ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.5 1988 24.3 wo nr w WC o 8 rPaM 60.4 50.6 1990 24.3 nN an wo w rh wo Won 60.6 47.8 1991 24.3 ar wo Ww ny Foo POW 60.7 46.5 LT°8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST 1992 1993 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 26.3 26.3 28.5 28.5 5.9 6.0 34.4 34.5 60.7 60.8 * 45.2 43.9 1982-2033 3213.1 1631.7 1631.7 1994 24.3 wo w rm DC now 60.9 42.7 IVANOF BAY PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B 1995 1996 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 26.3 26.3 28.5 28.5 6.1 6.2 34.6 34.7 60.9 61.0 41.5 40.3 Table 8.5 (continued) 1997 24.3 wo w nm PAC onwn 61.1 39.2 NOTE: 1998 1999 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 26.3 26.3 28.5 28.5 6.3 6.4 34.8 34.9 61.1 61.2 38.1 37.0 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's 2000 24.3 Dr wo w rm o1ay oc orn 61.3 36.0 2001 24.3 wo wi nr wma oo Onn 61.3 35.0 TOTAL 486.0 34.2 49.9 570.1 513.5 106.6 620.1 1190.2 905.7 ii) iii) iv) vi) improvement in air quality because the diesels will be relegated to a back up role. Noise: Levels will be almost eliminated except when the diesels are run for testing or when operating in their capacity as a backup to the hydro. Water Quality: No impact. Fish and Wildlife: The small diversion dam will not have an appreciable effect In Ivanof Bay the stream is inhabited by trout but there are no sea run species because of steep waterfalls at the coast. Terrestrial Impacts: Will be associated with the road construction to the diversion dam site, the diversion dam construction (assumed to be rock crib type), the penstock route, powerhouse and transmission line to the village. These impacts would be kept to a minimum, however, until a feasibility study is undertaken these effects cannot be detailed. Land Use and Land Ownership Status: The village would either expand its land selection to include the site and corridor or the necessary permission would have to be sought from state and federal agencies. 8.18 8.3.4 Alternate Plan B Technical Evaluation A hydro electric power plant operating in Ivanof Bay is expected to be: 1. Highly Reliable. A possible power shortage could occur if a dry season causes low flow. Safe. A well maintained system will present little hazard to operators or village residents. Availability. Constructed using conventional well established construction practices. Replacement parts would be difficult to obtain at the remote Alaska site. 8.19 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 _— IVANOF BAY Energy Source Diesel and Waste Heat Present Wort Non-Electrica IVANOF_BAY Base Case] Alternative FL BIernaEIVE Energy Source Diese Diesel and Waste Heat Hydro Present Wort [$1,652,500] $1,652,500 | $1, 631, 700 Non-Electrical Benefits | s[|—_(13, 200)" ota indicates a negative benefit. 9.1 Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 oe "Energy Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Plan 3 Cost Year (kwh/yr. ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) ~ 1982 ——«<B 6, 180 , 7 . 7 1983 87,480 55.78 55.78 55.78 1984 88,750 55.89 61.97 67.83 1985 89,990 56.01 61.56 66.90 1986 91,200 56.25 61.40 66.12 1987 92,400 56.39 61.14 65.37 1988 93,580 56.64 60.91 64.54 1989 94,750 56.89 60.79 63.85 1990 95,910 57.24 60.68 63.18 1991 97,050 57.50 60.48 62.55 1992 98,190 57.85 60.39 61.82 1993 99,330 58.29 60.40 61.21 1994 100,500 58.61 60.30 60.60 1995 101,600 59.06 60.33 59.94 1996 102,700 59.94 60.27 59.40 1997 103,800 60.02 60.40 58.86 1998 105,000 60.48 60.38 58.19 1999 106,100 60.98 60.41 57.68 2000 107,200 61.57 60.54 57.18 2001 108,400 62.08 60.61 56.55 _———- _—__—_—_—_— > Table 9.3 presents the plans for the village, in rank of recommended preference. The recommended action appropriate to each alternative is listed as well. Table 9.3 Energy Plan Alternative Recommended Action lalate eenenpeteaineseninseneninens nes apen eee ee Alternative B - Hydro Initiate a feasibility electric Power study including stream gauging. Estimated cost of feasibility study at 73,000 - $75,000 Base Case - Operation of Anticiated Central Power Plant ernative - Waste Heat ot economically feasi Capture Additional Recommendations Weatherization No resource assessment or -building insulation feasibility study -building envelope indicated; immediate action infiltration required to bring Energy -improved combustion Audit and/or weatherization program to this community. COO aM CO CNIS Community. _ The results of the economic analyses show a minor economic advantage to Alternative A over the 20 year Planning period and to Alternative B over the expected life of the proposed hydro system. Because the costs of the hydro development and waste heat capture system are so close to each other more detailed investigations will be required before one of the two alternatives will show a distinct economic advantage. The villagers' preference was inclined towards hydro electricity because it would reduce their dependence on imported fuel oil. 9.3 APPENDIX. See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report: RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VILLAGES OF Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. MEMO TO THE RECORD ALASKA | suavsect ACRES' and NORTEC's ENERGY RECONS sy PKD pare 4/6/82 POWER —TELECON_WITH DIANA_RIGG, DNR, DIVISION OF SHEETNO.__1or_y AUTHORITY | PARKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY prosect ENERGY RECONS Diana Rigg called with a personal communication which she will follow with a letter. Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites of historical or archeo projects. They are: Chignik Lake Atka | _———atkasook Ivanof Bay Nightmute Stebbins Newtok New Chenega She recommends that if feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study. Reply to Telecon with Diana Rigg, DNR, Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology, dated 4/6/82. Receipt of the letter is acknowledged; but no reply is necessary. MEMORANDUM .« State of Alaska DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO ERIC YOULD, Executive Director DATE: April 16, 1982 Alaska Power Authority FILE NO: Q ee ‘BECE!YVED TeLePHone no: 276-2653 FROM. REED STOOPS APR 2 2 1982 SUBJECT: DNR Comments: APA's Director Draft FY 82 Energy ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Reconnaissance Reports The Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to review these draft energy reconnaissance report. Ivanof Bay: There are no known cultural resources sites on the National Register of Historic Places, nor are there sites determined to be eligible for the National Register. Examination of Division of Parks records indicates there is a low potential of such sites occurring in the subject area; however, it is the responsibility of APA to verify this statement. Should cultural resources be found during the construction, we request that the project engineer halt work which may disturb such resources and contact the Division of Parks immediately. Should there be any questions, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676. Newtok, Nightmute, Stebbins, and New Chenega: The Division of Parks is concerned that the impact of the projects on cultural resources has not been included in the reconnaissance studies. In order for the Alaska Power Authority to meet its responsibilities per 36 CFR 800, cultural resources must be addressed under consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Division of Parks therefore requests to review the feasibility reports for the proposed projects if they are initiated. Chignik Lake: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power and a central power plant are feasible alternatives to the present power base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS in the vicinity of Chignik Lake and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility reports for the proposed hydroelectric power unit and for the central power plant, if they are initiated. Atka: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power is a feasible alternative to the present power base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS that are in the vicinity of the village and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility report for the proposed project, if it is initiated. Reed Stocos 2 April 16, 1982 Atkasook: The reconnaissance study discusses the potential use of coal from local sources as a viable and feasible project. No specific locations were identified by the report. Over 30 cultural resources sites are listed on the AHRS as being within the general vicinity of Atkasook; these sites and others may be impacted should any coal be mined in the area. The Division of Parks would like to review any future plans that involve coal mining in the vicinty, should definite plans be initiated. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Reply to the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development letter dated 4/16/82. The cultural resources of the respective sites will be addressed in any feasibility studies, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 reais OF : NPAEN-SL-8 31 MAR igg2 REGEIVED APR ~ 2 1982 Mee Eric Yould 334 West 5th Avenue ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Anchorage, Alaska 9950] Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comprehensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower ana boat harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are available. We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are most familiar with; however, some of the ccmments May apply to the other reports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for various communities. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Loran Baxter of my staff at 552-3461. Sincerely, 1 Inc] . headers eS As stated Chief, Engineering Division Comments Page 7.1 is inconsistant. The lack of wind data is sted in the first Paragraph, then details of specific average annual wind speed versus height is given in the next paragraph. Then a comment that a site with wind in excess of 12 mph is a good site is followed by the statement that wind energy is expensive. We suggest that this be reworded for clarification. Page 7.3 - 7.4. The write-up under the heading "Assumptions" is contradictory. The statement is made that “Weather on the Aleutian Islands varies greatly from one island to the other..." but is preceded and followed by statements stating that weather on Amchitka is comparable to that on Shemya, and that Atka's weather is comparable to that on Adak. Page 8.7. Mobilization and Demobilization costs of $50,000 appear low. Chignik Lake: Pages 7.1] and 8.13. Location of hydropower site is inconsistant. Page 8.14. Average power of 114 kW assumes 100 percent efficiency. “Energy” Available" is wrong based on 30 percent plant factor. Table 8.5. This table shows the hydropower project dispiacing all the diese] generation until 2000. However, the Peak-demand projection on page 6.4 ranges between approximately 85 kW in 1982 to about 125 kW in 2000. Based on the streamflows shown on page 7.2 and the data presented on page 8.14, the hydropower system could not produce more than about 80 kW in December, 65 kW in January, 60 kW in February, and 50 kW in March. The peak deinanas would likely fall during this period and not during the summer when most of the village moves to Chignik Lagoon. Page 9.1 . The feasibility cost estimate of $35,000 to $45,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Cold Bay: The hydropower potential for Cold Bay referenced from the Corps' 1980 reconnaissance study has been found to be overly optimistic; therefore, the data should not be used. False Pass: We concur with their findings that hydropower does not appear feasible. Ivanof Bay: Table 8.5. The table shows the hydropower system will displace all diesel. Based upon load and streamflow assumptions, it would not. Page 8.15. Mobilization and Demobilization costs appear low. Page 9.1. The feasibility study cost estimate of $25,000 to $35,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Nikolski: The findings, as reported, agree with the results of the Corps' study. We feel that wind generation is the most promising alternative to diesel generation. The White Alice site may not be the most feasible location because of its distance from town. Although it is protected from corrosive salt spray because of its elevation, a wind energy conversion system may be affected by the other structures within the installation. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek may be a better site. The report neglected to mention if the WECS installed on the Chaluka Ranch has been repaired and placed in service and if it is performing satisfactorly. If a diesel enlargement were recommended to cope with substantial expansion of electrical demand, a salvaging of White Alice units could be pursued as an option if appropriate government channels can be identified. St. Paul: The reconnaissance study did not consider the impact of the Proposed expansion of the fishing industry being considered by the local community. This could substantially alter the report Findings. Galena: In a letter dated 9 June 198] (copy Previously furnished to your office), dtr water Engineers stated that they felt that a storage project with a 100 to 300-foot dam may be feasible. The Corps will be taking a second look at this site this summer to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. Gustavus: The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelectwic power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip and public meeting is tentativély scheduled for mid-day. We will be installing a streamgage this summer. New Chenega: The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.wW. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development. Reply to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, letter dated 3/31/82. Atka p. 7.1 (draft) Statements concerning wind resoures have been clarified. Pp. 7.3-7.4 (draft) Because of the lack of climatic data from the Aleutian Islands, it is necessary to extrapolate data from the nearest recording station. However, variability in the local climate means that all extrapolations are conservative. p. 8.7 (draft) Cost estimates for mobilization and demobilization have been adjusted to reflect Anchorage prices for equipment rather than those quoted from Adak. Chignik Lake p. 7.1 - 8.13 (draft) The distance has been corrected. 8.14 (draft) The energy available value has been corrected. Table 8.5 (draft) The table presented in the final report illustrates the use of diesel powered generators when there is a projected short fall. p. 9.1 The feasibility study estimates have been addressed especially in light of the comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Cold Bay The hydropower data was included as part of the resource assessment and was the determining factor for our not including an alternative plan which was based on hydro. False Pass No comment necessary. Ivanof Bay Table 8.5 The hydropower scenario calls for the construction of a small dam and creates a reservoir. Without extensive field work, it has not been possible to show that this would be inadequate to meet the estimated demand of the village. Pp. 8.15 Mobilization costs have been increased. Pp. 9.1 Feasibility study figures have been increased especially in light of the comments and requirements of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above, Nikolski The White Alice site was considered because excellent foundations exist and the site is removed from the influence of Salt spray. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek has been reconsidered and discussed with representatives of the village. The result has been the suggestion that the bluff site is a viable alternative and marginally less costly to develop because of a shorter transmission distance. However, this is largely offset by anticipated foundation problems at the bluff team was in the village. The diesel set from the White Alice site was purchased by the utility; however, its condition was uncertain and the engine was being stored outside. St. Paul As the role of the National Marine Fisheries in the Pribilofs is curtailed, the future of the islands' economies is uncertain. The proposed boat harbor has not been funded, as yet, and no to its effect on the local economy and power requirements. Therefore a scenario including the possible development of such facilities was not included. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iN REPCCRERERTO: Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 BEc (907) 271-4575 “CEIVED Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 9 APR 334 West 5th Avenue 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: l. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. 3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following: Page 2 (a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. (b) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instrean Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. 1. Mammals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. be Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. (b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type. The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: l. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. 2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified. Page 3 Ze The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ‘These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, peter lorrtr Field Supervisor Reply to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter, undated. Environmental work to fulfill the information requirements detailed by FWS is included in the estimates for feasibility Studies. PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 |