Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPelican Utilites Study 1996 Pelican ihtw£es Study Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy By: XM a HDR Alaska, Inc. August 1996 Pelican Utilities Study Prepared for: the State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 August 1996 (updated September 1996) Pelican Utilities Study Executive Summary Pelican, Alaska, population 210, is located on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska. The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) has undertaken a project to analyze the City of Pelican’s water supply and distribution system, electric supply and distribution system, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel concession. DCRA has contracted with HDR Alaska to assess the conditions of the systems (data research and field reconnaissance), estimate costs to construct necessary upgrades and repairs, and project future operating costs and estimated revenue streams to finance operation. Kake Tribal Corporation, owner of the local Pelican Seafoods cannery, owns and operates the water utility, electric utility, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel concession. The electric and water utilities are operated together as a utility licensed under the Alaska Public Utilities Commission called Pelican Utility Company. Maintenance work associated with the utilities or fuel operations, therefore, is completed by Pelican Seafoods staff or by private contractors hired by Pelican Seafoods. These utility and fuel systems serve the needs of Pelican residents and the cannery (the fuel concession serves the needs of the fishing fleet, as well). The electric utility, the water utility, the bulk fuel storage facility, and the fuel concession are well maintained, but all systems have components that need repair or replacement to bring them into compliance with state and federal regulations. The electrical utility — which consists of a hydroelectric plant (diesel generators for backup) and distribution system — requires improvements to the dam, electrical poles, and conductors. The water utility — which provides the city with drinking water and the cannery with processing water — needs improvements to its filtration and disinfection systems to meet the regulatory requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule. In addition, the water distribution lines are not insulated, so residents leave water running continuously throughout the winter to keep lines from freezing. Insulating the distribution lines would reduce the residential use rates, which would in turn reduce long-term treatment costs for the utility. The bulk fuel storage facility — which consists of seven 20,000 gallon tanks, a concrete dike, and pipes from the fuel dock to the tanks — needs a dike liner and additional storage capacity to meet regulations. The fuel dispensing concession — which serves residents and the fishing fleet — requires replacement of pipe and repairs to the fuel dock. Summary Table 1 presents these system deficiencies and required upgrades in more detail. Based on data provided by Pelican Seafoods, Pelican Utility Company, the Alaska Public Utilities Commission, and DOE, Summary Table 2 estimates future operation costs and revenue streams associated with the electric utility, water utility, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel concession. These estimates include the cost for paying for the improvements outlined in Summary Table 1. SUM-1 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Summary Table 1 Existing Systems and Required Up grades Hydroelectric Dam is not in compliance Construct bypass structure Generation with FERC requirements. to allow required volume Dam system must allow of water to flow around water to flow at 3 cubic feet | dam to creek. per second in the creek to |_protect fish. Dam face is deteriorating; | Replace dam face; dam spillway too narrow to | construct wider spillway. accommodate large rain $220,000 storms. Calculations indicate dam | Construct A-frame support could fail by sliding. system. Dam intake structure Construct new intake difficult to operate. structure. Wooden penstock is Replace penstock with $90,000 leaking. _| wood or steel pipe. Trestles supporting Anchor trestles $5,000 penstock not secure enough to resist uplift force of earthquake. Electric Poles have rot at bases; Replace old poles and $56,000 Distribution wires not strung to meet cross arms; upgrade wires codes. and transformers Water Utility Treatment and Current water treatment Construct settling unit to Distribution method — screening and remove solids in water. disinfection — is not Construct a tank so water adequate to meet regulatory | has adequate time with requirements of the Surface | added disinfectant before Water Treatment Rule serving public. (SWTR). Surface water must have adequate contact time with the added disinfectant and must be filtered. Water use rates extremely | Replace current $594,000 high because residents run | distribution system with $50,000 water continuously in the an insulated system so (tank property) winter to keep lines from residents do not need to freezing. Treating this run water continuously wasted volume of water throughout the winter. would be expensive if all treated water had to meet SWTR. SUM-2 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Summary Table 1 Continued Bulk Fuel Storage Facili Tank bottoms could have Inspect tank bottoms and leaks or corrosion. replace if necessary. Tanks $100,000 The containment dike does | Place liner in dike and $35,000 not meet regulations increase storage capacity because it is not lined and | by clearing debris from the its storage capacity is too area. small. Fuel Concession Deck stringers and cap Replace deck stringers and rails are deteriorating, cap rails. Threaded piping does not Replace piping. meet codes. $25,000 Fuel Dock $25,000 Summary Table 2 Summary of Revenues and Annual Costs (Current Dollars, inflation included) Electric Utility Summary ‘Year Projected Revenue Annual Cost, =--——=« Annual Cost, 1997 $437,278 $271,409 $233,709 1998 $454,770 $298,489 $241,959 1999 $472,960 $291,306 $250,539 2000 $491,879 $238,616 $259,463 2001 $511,554 $248,161 $268,743 2002 $532,016 $258,087 $278,394 2003 $553,297 $268,411 $288,432 2004 $575,429 $279,147 $298,871 2005 $598,446 $290,313 $309,728 2006 $622,384 $301,925 $321,018 Water Utility Summa ae : é : Capitalized _ Borrowed Money 1997 $41,600 $26,000 $101,197 1998 $41,600 $187,658 $102,237 1999 $41,600 $195,164 $103,319 2000 $41,600 $202,970 $104,444 2001 $41,600 $216,939 $111,697 2002 $41,600 $37,716 $113,157 2003 $41,600 $39,225 $114,675 2004 $41,600 $40,794 $116,255 2005 $41,600 $42,426 $117,897 2006 $41,600 $44,123 $119,605 SUM-3 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Summary Table 2 Continued Bulk Fuel Operation Summary Year ~ ee Revenue ee ae 1997 Not estimated for this study STE 808 $37, 192 1998 $19,144 $37,928 1999 $19,910 $38,694 2000 $20,706 $39,491 2001 $21,535 $40,319 2002 $22,396 $41,180 2003 $23,292 $42,076 2004 $24,224 $43,008 2005 $25,193 $43,977 2006 $174,225 $44,984 Fuel Dispensing O pet eration Summary Year _ ed Revenue : ees Cost, oe Annual Cost, 1997 Not estimated for this study $75,712 $81,564 1998 $105,780 $84,593 1999 $81,890 $87,742 2000 $85,166 $91,018 2001 $118,989 $94,424 2002 $92,115 $97,967 2003 $95,800 $101,652 2004 $99,632 $105,484 2005 $103,617 $109,469 2006 $107,762 $113,614 SUM-4 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Table of Contents Section Page ISO SIntrOdUCtION teceeseenreeerse reer ee 1 1.1 Background............. ax 1.2 Report Organization iO) EEXIStiN BS YSUOMIS 2 2- scree cess soscsceceee csc sccevecesscccsccsees ce ceseent¥e sxeseer ever enter gee sseorescseeesesererers 2.1 Electric Utility oo... cccccccccceccescseseeececseseseeseseseensescaceeescseeceeeseseaeevscsceceeeseeaeees 2.1.1 Hydroelectric Generation .. a 2.1.2, Diesel Generation. ............<...-...00..20--.<001-+0sncencesoneeroneensesu0dasa5S0016s8sSeOEUSORTSCHSay 2.1:3 Electrical Distribution .2cc. <<ecsccsccoacecszcesnsarcrseseceeseensaseeecenenos-sceseocoseeesevonencecnceeee 2.2 Water Utility we 2:3 Bulk Buel, Storage sas. cacs2cecscencen sx oscenconsecescsscace-oseesenceees connec aeaesoen SsuasiSs anes S55 SeESEE SETS 2:45 Fuell Dispensing: Concession rescpepconees cee eeerse eeesecccscecesseveestscsece yee sectescreseeseweese--eoey 3.0 Upgrade Requirements ................ 3.1.1 Hydroelectric Generation ...... 3.1.2 Diesel Generation.............. 3.1.3 Electrical Distribution . 3.2 Water Utility..... 3.3 Bulk Fuel Storage.......... . 3.4 Fuel Dispensing Concession ...........0....cccccccccccseseeseeeeseeseseeseeseseeseeseseesensesenseeeeeenees 3.5 Summary of System Upgrades .......0....0.cccccccsececseseseeseeseseeesesesesenseseeenensereaeeees 4.0 Future Operating Costs............. 4.1 Economic Assumptions AZ) Electric Otay secs rs os ces wee cacs gcses sos see sn esas ecgseses sec suseee sates e eetoes earcut ac seeeeenaeeeeooorne 4.3 Water Utility VAN Bulk FuelliStora ge ee ses xx cece ee cn croc ee conse aees ees oscee ste see rise ses ceegs css cne cocescesecseneneensneereceen 4:5 Fuel Dispensing; Concession.......................sesssoes eeorsenerssnrsoneerceneaerenonsuoesvsvsssesessss 4.6 Summary of Revenue and Costs Bibliography ............. cc ccccccccceceececescsecscsesscsessesesessescsacsesesecsecseseeseeseeeseeseseeeeseeeseaee List of Tables Table Number Page Table 1 PUC Diesel Generators ..........0..0...ccccecescescseeeseeseeeeseeseseeseeeesessenseeesensveeseeaeeeeaes 4 Table 2 Summary of System Upgrades...............-c.ccsscsssssesecsesscescscorscereresssssesssssssssessesers 12 Table 3 Electric Utility Rate Structure .......0.0.00..0cccccccccecessesscessesseseesseseceseeseeseeseeseeseeeee 13 Table 4 Estimated Diesel Generator Overhaul Schedule Table 5 Projected Electric Utility Operation Costs. Table 6 Water Utility Rate Structure.......0..00.00.... 17 Table 7 Projected Water Utility Operation Costs.............0:ccccccceceseeseeeeeetensees 18 Table 8 Projected Bulk Fuel Storage Operation Costs...........0.:.:ccceeeeeees 19 Table 9 Projected Fuel Concession Operation Costs ..... ..20 Table 10 Summary of Revenues and Costs..............:ccccccesesseseeseseeseseeseeseeeeseeseseeseeescneees 21 i 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study List of Figures Figure Number Following Page Figtire l= Pelican; sAlask ea xxcrsen csc czc ages cent vnce sss cccves one -vsvoce so oncevns soascevatereronnsurseceearesesateernsers 1 Appendices Appendix A: Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey Appendix B: Loan Application for Electric, Water, and Fuel Upgrades Appendix C: 1995 Engineers Report Appendix D: Water Service Rate Schedule Appendix E: Electric Service Rate Schedule Appendix F: Power Cost Equalization Eligibility Form Appendix G: Pelican Utility FY95 Statistical Data Appendix H: Pelican Hydro Appendix I: Pelican Drinking Water Study Appendix J: Drawing Set for Pelican Creek Hydroelectric Project Appendix K: Staking Sheets and Notes for Pelican Electrical Distribution System il 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Pelican, Alaska, is located on the north shore of Lisianski Inlet on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska. The town was founded in 1938 for fish processing and was named after the fish packer The Pelican, owned by the town’s founder. Ideally suited for fish processing, Pelican is situated near fisheries, has a protected anchorage, and has its own water supply from a nearby creek. Since 1938, fish processing and commercial fishing have remained the town’s only industries. Pelican is incorporated as a first-class city. The current permanent population is 210; since 1950 population has ranged from a low of 140 in 1970 to a high of 222 in 1990. When the cannery is in full operation, an additional 75 cannery workers are housed in dormitories. The town extends west from the mouth of Pelican Creek to a small rock knob. At this rock knob sits the cannery. Pelican Creek is the town's water supply and generates most of the town's electricity. Because of the steepness of the mountains forming Lisianski Inlet, the main thoroughfare through town is a boardwalk constructed on piling. Buildings connected to the boardwalk are also built on piling. The boardwalk provides access to almost all homes and businesses, the cannery, and the boat harbor. Other houses and the school are built on the Pelican Creek delta. Residences located east of Pelican Creek are accessed by a bridge over the creek. Additional residences and a church are located on the knob west of the cannery. The city dump is located at the far western side of the knob. Figure 1 presents a layout of the town and town facilities. Pelican's history and economy have always been linked closely to the Pelican Seafoods cannery. The cannery has changed its operation as seafood market conditions have changed. Currently, the cannery processes fish and shellfish and operates a large cold storage (freezer) operation. Pelican Utilities Company (PUC) owns and operates the town water supply and distribution system and the town electric supply and distribution system. The electric and water systems are operated together as a utility licensed under the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC). The local Pelican Seafoods cannery owns and operates a bulk fuel storage facility and a fuel dispensing concession. The sewage system, garbage collection services, and a saltwater fire fighting system are operated by the city. In 1996, ownership of Pelican Seafoods and Pelican Utility Company changed hands. The cannery, fuel operations, and utilities company are now owned by Kake Tribal Corporation. Although utility services and rates have not changed under the new ownership, the switch in ownership prompted the City of Pelican to analyze the utilities that serve its residents. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) is 1 9/12/96 FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE iF ‘St JUNEAU 2 Do PELICAN os. MH, CORPORATE BOUNDARY —. Nm mn i en a ee DIESEL GENERATO! BOARDWALK \. ; 3 RESERVOIR + PELICAN SEAFQODS CANNERY orn \. FLUME, 9 PENSTOCK & WATER yA SUPPLY LINE = = \ x POWERHOUSE — PELICAN CREEK Pelican, Alaska Utilities Study Pelican Utilities Study assisting in this effort by analyzing various aspects of system operations. DCRA has contracted with HDR Alaska to conduct the following work: e assess the condition of the electric and water utilities and the bulk fuel storage and dispensing operations. © estimate costs to construct necessary upgrades and repairs to these systems. © project future operating costs and estimated revenue streams necessary to finance operation of each component. 1.2 Report Organization This report provides the results of HDR’s assessment of utilities and fuel operations. It is structured as follows: Section 1.0 provides the context for the project and describes the organization of the report. Section 2.0 describes the existing utilities and fuel operations. Section 3.0 discusses the condition of these systems and presents major work items needed to bring the systems into compliance with current regulations. Section 4.0 presents estimates of future operation costs for the utilities and fuel operations, and it discusses the revenue stream necessary to operate these systems. Neither this section nor the report attempts to estimate the present value of the utilities or fuel operations. 2 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 2.0 Existing Systems On May 28 and 29, 1996, HDR and DCRA Department of Energy (DOE) staff traveled to Pelican to perform field reconnaissance of the electric and water utilities, the bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel dispensing concession. See Figure | for a layout of the town and study area. Tom Whitmarsh, chief engineer for Pelican Seafoods, led the tour of these facilities. Whitmarsh is responsible for the operation and maintenance of PUC and the bulk fuel storage facility and fuel dispensing concession. He has been responsible for their operation for the last 20 years. The information collected in the field was supplemented with information from studies of various system components written by consulting engineers. (See the report's bibliography.) This section presents an overview of the electric utility, water utility, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel dispensing concession. 2.1 Electric Utility The PUC electric utility consists of three major components: hydroelectric generation at Pelican Creek; diesel generation at the cannery; and the electrical distribution system. Each of these are described below. 2.1.1 Hydroelectric Generation Electricity is generated at a hydroelectric facility on Pelican Creek at the east end of town. The creek has a drainage area of 13 square miles, all located on the steep mountainside of Lisianski Inlet. The mean precipitation of the area at sea level is 160 inches. To impound the creek water, in 1940 a rock and timber dam was built at the top of a steep rock gorge. The dam is about 20 feet high, 60 feet wide, and has a spillway elevation of 146.6 feet. Because of the steep terrain of the basin, the reservoir holds water in only a 5.3-acre area and has only about 27 acre-feet of storage at normal water levels. This small storage volume contains water for only a few hours of hydroelectric generation. The headworks structure at the dam drains water into a 5-foot-wide by 4-foot-deep wood flume. The headworks structure consists of a concrete intake, trash rack, pipe, and slide gate in the west side of the dam. The headworks pipe immediately empties into the flume. With the exception of a short tunnel section about 100 feet downstream of the dam, the flume winds about 1,000 feet across the hillside above Pelican Creek to a point above the powerhouse. The flume is supported along this path by trestles of various heights and designs on rock outcrops. The flume appears stable and in good condition, and flow in the flume is about 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) under normal generation conditions. Along its entire length, the flume is partially covered with an access boardwalk to the dam. The flume ends at a penstock intake structure where the turbine penstock begins. This penstock intake structure consists of a trash rack, wood headbox, and overflow for excess water. It is located at about elevation 136 feet. The city water supply is also collected with this intake structure. It, too, appears in good condition. 3 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study The turbine penstock consists of 300 feet of 36-inch wood stave pipe. The pipe is almost 40 years old and has numerous leaks. These leaks are normally confined to the joints between the ends of the individual staves. The penstock is supported on trestles between the headbox and the powerhouse. An access stair to the flume parallels the penstock. Inside the powerhouse, the penstock feeds two electricity generation systems. The main unit is a 520 kilowatt (kW) Francis turbine and the second is a 100 kW pump turbine. The oversized main turbine was selected in anticipation of raising the dam height and replacing the flume with pipe to create additional head for generating electricity. Raising the dam or replacing the flume is not planned at this time. The finished floor of the powerhouse is at elevation 24 feet, giving about 108 feet of head for generating electricity. Switch gear is also located in the powerhouse. From this point, the generated power is connected to the city distribution system. About 60% of the city’s, including the cannery’s, electrical demands are met by hydroelectric generation. 2.1.2 Diesel Generation PUC operates five diesel generators for peak and backup electrical generation. The generators are located in the main processing plant at the cannery near the cold storage area. The system has a peak demand of 850 to 900 kW when the cannery is processing fish. The size, output, and accumulation of engine operation hours of each generator are listed in Table 1. These units are overhauled every 18,000 engine hours. The 285 kW unit was rebuilt last year. Switch gear for the generators is also located in the cannery buildings. Fuel for these units is stored in a 6,200-gallon tank located on the hill near the cannery dormitory. Fuel feeds by gravity to the generators. The storage tank is founded on bedrock and is located inside a low concrete fuel spill containment dike. The containment dike is unlined, holds water, and has enough capacity to hold all the fuel in the tank should a spill occur. Between the tank and the generators the piping is new welded steel, and from the bulk fuel tanks the fill line is threaded piping. Table 1 PUC Diesel Generators Generator Size Actual Output Accumulated Engine Hours 350 kW 6,300 2.1.3 Electrical Distribution The electrical distribution system consists of a main line that connects the diesel and hydroelectric generators and five service branches. The main line follows the boardwalk and serves residences and businesses. The entire distribution system consists of overhead wires on poles. The five branches serve: (1) the residences east of Pelican Creek; (2) the 4 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study school and adjacent residences; (3) the boat harbor; (4) the cannery dormitory area; and (5) the residences west of town. PUC provides electrical service to boats in the harbor upon request. The standard conductor is copper wire. All electric poles also carry telephone lines. 2.2 Water Utility PUC serves the city with drinking water and the cannery with processing water. (Water for fire fighting is from a separate salt water system operated by the City of Pelican.) From the Pelican Creek dam, water flows into a flume, then into the penstock intake structure. A fine screen at the intake removes debris from the water; no other filtration or settling occurs. From the intake, water travels in a 12-inch PVC pipe to the powerhouse. This pipe hangs on the same trestles as the hydroelectric penstock. (A tap into the end of the penstock allows water to be diverted for consumption if the 12-inch pipe breaks or needs repair.) Upon entering the powerhouse, the water is injected with chlorine for disinfection. The chlorine system has dual tanks that automatically switch when one is empty. A small on-site generator provides electricity to run the chlorinators if the electric system fails. Chlorinated water enters the distribution system at the powerhouse. The distribution system is an 8-inch PVC trunk pipe that runs from the powerhouse to the cannery. This pipe has four branches that serve: (1) the residences east of Pelican Creek; (2) the school and surrounding area; (3) the harbor and breakwater area; and (4) the cannery dormitories and residences west of the cannery. Pipe materials are HDPE, PVC, or steel. Much of the system hangs from the boardwalk or is buried either in intertidal areas or near the surface in roads, due to shallow bedrock. Little of the system is insulated to protect from freezing in the winter. Service lines are generally 3/4-inch PE pipes and are generally buried near the surface and uninsulated. System pressure is developed by the elevation difference between the flume and the structure being served, less line losses. No pumps are used. The flume is at approximately elevation 130 feet and most houses are at elevation 15 feet, giving an average system pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi). This operating pressure is at the low end of recommended system operation pressures. When one accounts for normal pressure loss from pipe flow, system pressures can drop near 30 psi. With this low system pressure, several buildings require water tanks to store water for use when system pressures drop, especially during times of large cannery processing demands. Water demands are made up of three primary components. The first component of demand is water to cool the freezer plant condensers. This demand can reach 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm). The second component of demand is domestic water for the city. This usage for spring, summer, and fall ranges from 150 gpm to 400 gpm, depending on the information cited. This rate translates to 900 to 2,600 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which is a very high use rate. The third major component of water demand is “water wasting.” Water wasting is a term given to the practice of letting water run 3 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study continuously throughout the winter to keep pipes from freezing. The use rate for water wasting has reached up to 1,200 gpm or 7,800 gpcd, even without cannery demands. Even with this level of water wasting to prevent lines freezing, last winter a main and many services froze during a long cold period. 2.3 Bulk Fuel Storage Pelican Seafoods runs a bulk fuel storage facility. The facility consists of fill-draw pipelines from the fuel dock to the storage tanks and a small tank farm. The two diesel and one gasoline fill-draw lines have been replaced recently with 2-inch welded steel with flanged couplings between segments. All pipe is wrapped for corrosion protection. Valves are located at each tank and at the pipeline ends to shut off the tanks and minimize fuel spill potential. There are no remote actuated tank valves that can shut off the tanks if a line ruptures. Fuel to fill the tanks is supplied by barge from Washington. The tank farm is located on the hillside above the town between the cannery and Pelican Creek. Site access is by an enclosed staircase with a door at the boardwalk. The door is always locked. Seven 20,000-gallon tanks are located in the tank farm. The tanks were constructed in the 1950s to replace smaller tanks in the same location. The older tanks were abandoned and left in place. Six tanks store diesel and one tank stores unleaded gasoline. All tanks sit on concrete pedestals about 18 inches above the bottom of a diked area. The tank bottoms have not been inspected for corrosion in some time. No tank leaks have been seen, and all tanks appear well maintained. These tanks are enclosed by a concrete dike anchored to the bedrock. It is unlined and collected rainwater leaks out the bottom. The accumulated debris has been cleared recently from the diked area. 2.4 Fuel Dispensing Concession The fuel dispensing concession is located at the Pelican Seafoods cannery. The concession is located on a dock at the eastern side of the cannery, nearest to town, and adjacent to the boat harbor. A small warehouse and office building is located at the end of the dock. Six diesel and two gasoline dispensing units are located at the seaward end of the dock to fuel boats. The bulk fuel filling area is also located at the seaward end of the dock. Two diesel units are located at the boardwalk end of the fuel dock; one is used to fill personal containers for residential heating fuel and one is used to fill a privately operated fuel delivery truck. Pressure to run the system is provided by the elevation difference between the bulk fuel storage tanks and the fuel dock. No pumps are used. The fuel dock operation accepts waste engine oil and waste fuels. These are burned to heat the cannery. The fuel dock operation appears in good condition. 6 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 3.0 Upgrade Requirements This section assesses the condition of the electric and water utilities, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel dispensing concession. It also provides a discussion of the upgrades necessary to bring these systems into compliance with current regulations. This condition assessment is based on a single day visit and tour led by Whitmarsh, Pelican Seafoods chief engineer, and additional reports about the systems provided to HDR. This is not a detailed assessment of the systems; instead, it is a planning level assessment of conditions. All problems may not be noted by this report, and other issues that may need to be addressed over time may exist. Presently, Pelican Seafoods owns and maintains the electric utility, water utility, bulk fuel storage facility, and fuel dispensing concession. Maintenance work is completed by Pelican Seafoods staff or by private contractors hired by Pelican Seafoods. Money for maintenance is included in the utility’s annual operations budget; money to maintain the bulk fuel storage facility and dispensing operations is included in the cannery’s operations budget. Pelican Seafoods accounts for the costs of maintaining and operating the utilities and the fuel operations separately. These costs are recouped by Pelican Seafoods through utility user fees or sales of fuel products. Large capital projects are budgeted and undertaken over multiple years to avoid borrowing money for the work and to maintain the current low utility rates. 3.1 Electric Utility The electric utility has three components as described in the previous section. An assessment of each of these components and the required upgrades to the components are described in the following sections. 3.1.1 Hydroelectric Generation Existing studies report that the hydroelectric plant rock and timber dam appears structurally sound and able to withstand overtopping during extreme events, but the face of the dam is deteriorating and needs replacement. To increase stability during extreme events, the spillway over the top of the dam needs to be widened. In addition, calculations indicate the dam could fail by sliding (Polarconsult Alaska, 1990). To correct this structural problem, a steel A-frame support system was designed for installation downstream of the dam. Pelican Seafoods crews have been working on installing these frames as time allows and summer low-flow periods occur. During construction of a spillway across the entire dam top, crews will install a new deck on the front face of the dam. According to Whitmarsh of Pelican Seafoods, the utility has spent about $87,000 to date working on these upgrades. The cost to complete these upgrades is included with the cost of the intake improvements listed below. The Pelican Creek hydroelectric plant has a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. The FERC license includes a stipulation that requires a minimum 7 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study instream flow of 3 cfs to be released into the creek below the dam. This flow is to maintain habitat for spawning salmon. The dam does not currently have such a water bypass to release the required instream flow. Recommended improvements to meet FERC licensing stipulations include a bypass structure and a new intake (Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., 1990). A new intake and water bypass has been designed and is scheduled for construction as time and low-flow conditions permit. This work will remove the existing intake and replace it with a 54-inch intake pipe and a surge chamber with a slide gate located about 30 feet away from the dam. The bypass will divert water from the intake pipe upstream of the headbox. According to Whitmarsh, construction costs associated with the remaining dam upgrades and intake improvements are estimated at $220,000. The wooden flume appeared in good condition during the site visit. Whitmarsh stated that in some sections crews had replaced rotted timbers and added braces to trestle sections. No additional work is planned. The penstock headworks appeared in good condition during the site visit and Whitmarsh stated no maintenance is required at this time. As noted during the site visit, the wooden penstock is leaking and requires repair of stave ends. The penstock is nearing the end of its design life and future replacement could be required. The penstock trestles were analyzed for earthquake loading and found to require some additional anchoring to resist uplift forces. Replacing the penstock with a 36-inch diameter wood or steel pipe has been proposed. The replacement would include new saddles to hold the pipe in place and a new walkway next to the pipe from the powerhouse to the headworks. Whitmarsh of Pelican Seafoods estimates the construction cost for this work to be $90,000. No schedule for the pipe replacement has been established. The installation of additional trestle anchoring has begun. The cost for this work is estimated by Whitmarsh to be $5,000 and is being completed as time permits by Pelican Seafoods crews. The powerhouse appeared in good order during the site visit. Whitmarsh reported that no upgrades were required with either the turbine or generator setup. Regular, routine maintenance is recommended for these units. 3.1.2 Diesel Generation As noted during the site visit, the diesel generation system appears well maintained. All diesel motors and generators are in working order and supply adequate power to meet the cannery and city needs; therefore, purchase of new generator sets is not anticipated at this time. Diesel motors are overhauled every 18,000 engine hours. This study will consider diesel overhauls a maintenance cost and not a required system upgrade. A discussion of the diesel overhaul schedule and associated maintenance costs is included in Section 4.2. The diesel storage tank for the generators needs some work to bring it into compliance with regulation. This could include replacing the remaining threaded pipes with flanged 8 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study welded steel pipes, constructing a security fence around the tank, and installing a light pole and street light at the site. The estimated cost of these upgrades would be $5,000 and work could be completed by Pelican Seafoods crews. Even though the bottom of the diked area is bedrock and does not appear to leak, a liner should be placed in the area or the bottom should be resurfaced with concrete. A liner would cost about $10,000 to install. 3.1.3 Electrical Distribution The immediate needs for upgrading the electrical distribution system include replacing old poles and cross arms and upgrading some wire and transformers on the line to the east of Pelican Creek. Pelican Seafoods crews replaced a pole in 1995 at a cost of $1,000. According to a recent report, about 18 poles in the system need to be replaced and other cross arm and wire work needs to be completed (Versyp, 1995). Whitmarsh of Pelican Seafoods estimates that the necessary pole and system upgrades will cost $56,500. 3.2. Water Utility The current water treatment method used by PUC — screening and disinfection — is not adequate to meet the regulatory requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Under the SWTR, a surface water used as a drinking water must be filtered. Filtration can be avoided if the watershed meets protection requirements, the clarity of the water meets certain criteria, and coliform bacteria in the untreated water are found at low levels. The Pelican Creek water supply may be able to meet the filtration avoidance criteria. PUC is actively pursuing this option. The water supply appears to meet clarity and coliform criteria. At the writing of this report, PUC was working with the U.S. Forest Service and the City of Pelican to establish the required watershed protection plan, but it had not yet been accomplished. Meeting filtration avoidance criteria could save the utility significant amounts of money over the long term. Under the SWTR, a surface water must also have adequate contact time with the added disinfectant. This requirement ensures the water meets removal criteria for pathogenic organisms. The current Pelican water system does not have adequate disinfection contact time to meet the SWTR. Current contact time for the chlorine used for disinfection can be under one minute for the first customer in the system. Contact times needed to meet SWTR criteria are on the order of hours, depending on the flow rate and water chemistry. To meet this criteria, some type of contact tank may be needed in the system. Water use rates for the city residents are extremely high. The primary reason for these high use rates appears to be the practice of letting water run continuously throughout the winter to prevent lines from freezing (water wasting). Treating the wasted volume of water would be expensive if all treated water had to meet SWTR criteria. If water wasting were discontinued, water mains would still be subject to freezing because they are not buried deep enough for freeze protection. 9 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study PUC is working with an engineering firm to develop a method to meet the SWTR and to develop alternatives for modifying the distribution system to reduce water use. The upgrades recommended by the engineer have three primary features and are described in detail below. The first recommended upgrade is a settling unit at the raw water intake to remove solids during the high runoff events. A settler may be required to meet filtration avoidance criteria. The second upgrade recommendation from the engineer involves constructing a contact time tank. The recommended location of this tank is at elevation 100 feet on the knob above and to the west of the cannery. The existing water main to the cannery would be retained for industrial use at the cannery. The current treatment of this water would continue, as this treatment method meets water treatment regulations for fish processing. Just before the main enters the cannery property, however, a connection to the new tank would be made. Injection of disinfection chemicals could be at this tapping point or at the tank site. To help prevent freezing of lines, waste heat from the diesel generators could be added at the tapping point through a heat exchanger. The added heat could also reduce required contact times and, therefore, tank volumes. If PUC is not required to implement a filtration system, the utility would need a 50,000-gallon tank to treat the town's drinking water and meet the SWTR. If PUC is required to implement a filtration system, the utility would need only a 20,000-gallon tank to treat the town’s drinking water because the contact time with the disinfectant could be reduced. Filter maintenance would make this system more complicated and expensive to operate than the existing system. This study assumes that the city meets the filtration avoidance criteria and is not required to implement a filtration system. The third upgrade recommendation from the engineer is the replacement of the distribution system and services with an insulated system and booster pumps. The insulated system would begin at the new tank and be hung from the boardwalk as much as possible. Services would be insulated to the building served. Such an insulated system could eliminate water wasting for freeze protection. With such a system, residential use rates could be reduced from 1,200 gpm to 26 gpm (7,800 gpcd to 150 gpcd). Reducing the water use also reduces long-term treatment costs for the utility and minimizes the required size of the contact tank. Placing the tank at 100 feet of elevation would maintain gravity service to most of town. Booster mains would be required to serve customers at higher elevations, near the tank, or in other areas. This upgrade also would eliminate current low pressure conditions that occur within the system during peak demands. The costs for these three upgrades — intake improvements, a tank, and a new distribution system — would be approximately $370,000 (Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., 1996). This estimate does not include additional costs associated with contingencies or title 36 (Davis- Bacon) wages. The engineer’s recommend contingency cost is an additional 20% of the cost estimate and title 36 wages were estimated by the engineer to add $150,000 to the cost. If these are added in the upgrades, the water system upgrades cost would be $594,000. This cost does not include property acquisition for the tank and individual service upgrades. The tank site and improvements to it are assumed to cost $50,000. 10 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 3.3. Bulk Fuel Storage Recent work on the bulk fuel storage facility has reduced the required upgrades to two items. The first item is that the bottom of each of the 20,000-gallon fuel storage tanks should be checked for leaks or excessive corrosion. Pelican Seafoods has scheduled inspection of the tanks for leaks and corrosion during fall of 1996. Until the inspection is complete, a cost estimate of required repairs cannot be developed. However, if the cost estimate assumes that all tank bottoms have to be replaced, which could be done in place, similar projects undertaken by DOE contractors at remote Alaska tank farms indicate the cost would be about $100,000. The second item involves the containment dike. This dike requires a liner and additional storage capacity to meet regulations. Pelican Seafoods has already begun this project by cleaning the accumulated debris from the existing diked area and selecting an appropriate dike liner. Additional capacity can be obtained by increasing the height of the existing concrete containment dike. Whitmarsh of Pelican Seafoods estimates the cost of these upgrades is $35,000. 3.4 Fuel Dispensing Concession The fuel dispensing concession consists of three major components — the fuel pumps, the fuel pipes, and the dock. The fuel pumps appear in good condition and no immediate upgrades are required. The fuel pipes have not been replaced recently but appears in good condition. Replacing these pipes may be required in the future, but a replacement date has not been scheduled. Based on similar pipe replacement projects, Pelican Seafoods estimates this work to cost $25,000. The fuel dock deck stringers and cap rails have deteriorated and must be replaced immediately. Replacement is estimated by Pelican Seafoods to cost $25,000. 3.5 Summary of System Upgrades Table 2 summarizes the system upgrades discussed in this section. The costs shown are in 1996 dollars. The assumed construction year is an estimate based on discussions with Whitmarsh of Pelican Seafoods, DOE staff, and regulatory compliance needs. The year selected for construction incorporates these comments and attempts to spread the work over the next 10 years. This 10-year period was chosen to minimize spikes in capital improvement costs and to maintain constant, or at least gradually increasing, utility rates and fuel costs. The use of the term “ongoing” indicates that Pelican Seafoods has committed some level of manpower and supplies to completing this work. For these projects, the estimated year of completion is also shown. 11 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Table 2 Summary of System Upgrades Area Upgrade Estimated Construction Cost Year Electric Hydroelectric Reinforce dam, install deck | $220,000 Ongoing to 1999 Utility Generation on dam face, widen spillway, construct new intake and flow bypass. Anchor trestles. Ongoing to 1998 Diesel Generation Upgrade fuel tank. $15,000 1998 Electric Distribution Replace poles, complete $56,000 Ongoing to 2006 cross arm and wire upgrades. Water Treatment and ~ | Construct intake settling $594,000 1998 to 2001 Utility Distribution unit, construct contact-time tank, construct new insulated distribution system Acquire property for tank. _| $50,000 1999 Bulk Fuel Tank Farm Replace tank bottoms. $100,000 | 2006 Storage Extend dike walls and place | $35,000 1997 liner. Fuel Fuel Dock Replace fuel pipes at dock. $25,000 2001 Concession Replace stringers, deck, and | $25,000 1998 cap rails. 12 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 4.0 Future Operating Costs Operation and revenue generation for the utilities and the bulk fuel storage facility and fuel concession are different. The utilities are operated under regulation of the APUC, and rates for the services are reviewed by the commission. Revenues are determined by these rates and the number of customers served. Future revenues are highly dependent on the base of residences served. Operation of the bulk fuel storage facility and fuel concession depends on the amount of fuel sold in a year and the price charged for the fuel. If the fuel price is too high, customers will seek alternative fuel sources. For these reasons, this section discusses future operating costs for the utilities and the fuel operations separately. 4.1 Economic Assumptions Economic assumptions used to analyze operating costs were supplied by the DOE. For this analysis, the annual inflation rate is assumed to be 4%, and the interest rate for financing capital improvements is assumed to be 8%. It is assumed that the cost of diesel fuel will increase at the same rate as other commodities, the assumed 4% inflation rate for this study. No fuel escalation rate, therefore, will be included in this analysis. The forecast period for this study is 10 years. The population of the City of Pelican has grown from 180 in 1950 to 210 today. This represents a growth rate of about 0.38% per year. For purposes of this project, the population is assumed to grow at this rate for the 10-year planning period. This assumption estimates a population of 218 in 2006, a gain of two people every three years. 4.2 Electric Utility The PUC is regulated by the APUC. The APUC reviews and must approve any rate changes for these utilities. It is assumed these utilities will remain regulated by the APUC during the planning period. Electric rates are shown in Table 3. Services are metered except for harbor connections for transient boats. These rates were last modified in 1993. Table 3 Electric Utility Rate Structure Customer Type Customers except as listed below. $0.1510 Industrial users. $0.1301 per kWh Street lights, 175 watt vapor type. | $6.15 per light per month Boat harbor, permanent customer. | $0.1510 per month Boat harbor, transient customer. $4.00 per day The electric utility currently has about 100 service connections. The city has connections to serve city buildings such as the school, community hall, and municipal offices and for general uses like harbor and street lights. The cannery has metered connections for the individual cannery buildings and for the powerhouse. About 74 connections serve 13 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study residences. Over the next 10 years, the electric use of the city and cannery should remain constant, as no growth in these areas is anticipated. To serve the increase in residential population, an additional three services will be required in 10 years, or a new service every three years. This assumption is based on maintaining the current ratio of three people per residential electric service connection. The State of Alaska operates a program to subsidize the cost of electricity in rural Alaska communities. This program, called Power Cost Equalization (PCE), is administered by the DOE. In general, the program covers a portion of the cost of the first 700 kWh of electric use by each of the utility’s customers, except state and federal government buildings. The payment goes to the utility and is credited to the customer’s bill. The 1996 PCE amount for PUC is $1.85 per kWh. During 1995 this payment was approximately $12,000. With decreasing state revenues, this program may not continue at current levels of funding. For this analysis, it has been assumed that the PCE program will not be funded by the legislature in 1997 and beyond. PCE records show the utility sold 3,077,000 kWh of electricity to all its customers in 1995. This was made up of 704,000 kWh generated for residential customers, 119,000 kWh generated for nonindustrial customers, and 2,254,000 kWh generated for industrial customers (the cannery). Because it is assumed there will be no growth in the demand for electricity from the city or cannery, electric use by the city and cannery will remain constant at a combined 2,373,000 kWh per year over the study period. Residential use is projected to increase with population growth, or at an estimated 0.38% per year. At this rate, the demand for electricity from residential customers will be approximately 731,000 kWh per year at the end of the 10-year study period. The yearly cost of operating the electric utility was estimated from a 1995 “Engineers Report” and the 1995 PCE records for the utility (Pelican Seafoods, December 1995). Utility operating costs from 1995 were used for this study, because 1995 represents the most recent full year of data available. The PCE data divides costs between fuel and non- fuel costs. The PUC records indicate the electric utility non-fuel costs are about $85,000 a year, whereas the PCE data indicates these non-fuel costs are about $100,000 a year’. This study uses the average of these costs, or $92,500 per year. Based on this data, the 1996 base year operating costs are approximately $198,000. This cost includes operation and maintenance of the Pelican Creek dam, flume, penstock intake, and the hydroelectric powerhouse and a yearly fuel cost of $106,000. This does not include periodic diesel generator overhaul costs described as follows. The diesel generators were not running during the site visit. The generators appear in good condition and well maintained. As stated earlier, one diesel engine with 18,000 hours of running time was rebuilt last year. The overhaul of this unit was completed by ' 1995 PCE records show non-fuel costs to be about $160,000. According to Tom Whitmarsh this included about $60,000 in capital improvements to the dam, flume, and distribution system. This analysis subtracts the capital costs from the non-fuel operating costs to obtain an estimate of the electrical system operation costs. The capital costs are accounted for in the upgrade costs as described in Section 3.0. 14 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Pelican Seafoods staff at a cost of $27,000. Whitmarsh stated this cost was higher than budgeted, and he felt a more reasonable estimate for future overhauling of generators would be approximately $20,000. Other than routine maintenance of the generator sets, no other work on the diesel generators is required or anticipated. An estimate of the overhaul schedule for the diesel generators was made for this study by calculating the hours each diesel generator runs in an average year and dividing this amount into the remaining hours each generator has before it is due for an overhaul. This schedule was based on the kilowatt hours (kWh) generated with the diesel generators in fiscal year (FY)1995. FY 1995 was selected as an average year because the cannery was operating normally and electric generation and utility operation data was available. During FY 1995, 1,120,000 kWh were generated with the diesel generators. The peak month of electric demand required 270,000 kWh of diesel generation. To generate this amount of kWh, the 400 kW unit would have to operate full time. This month of constant operation would result in the accumulation of 720 hours of operating time on the 400 kW diesel engine. For the purposes of calculating the overhaul schedule for the generators, it was assumed the 400kW unit would only operate during this month. The next highest period of diesel generation demand in FY 1995 was a five-month period that required an average of 130,000 kWh of diesel generated electricity. For the purposes of calculating generator use, it was assumed this demand was met by operating either the 285 or 275 kW units full time for each of these months. To distribute the load evenly it was assumed each unit operated half time. This operation scenario would accumulate 1,800 hours a year on each engine. The remaining period in FY 1995 was a six-month period that required an average 30,000 kWh of diesel generation. To meet this demand, the 100 kW unit would have to operate about half time during those six months. This operation would accumulate about 2,200 hours per year on the 100kW unit. Using these estimates for the number of hours the diesel generators operate each year, and assuming an engine overhaul is required every 18,000 hours, an approximate overhaul schedule was developed for the five diesel generators. This schedule assumes the 300 kW unit is operated as many hours as the 400 kW unit. The schedule presented in Table 4 is for estimation purposes in this report only. Table 4 Estimated Diesel Generator Overhaul Schedule Generator | Accumulated Hours Assumed Approximate Size Engine Hours Remaining Annual Engine Years Before Overhaul Use in Hours To Overhaul ema NU pecan UT RTE gee 20 285 kW 3,144 14,856 1,800 8 275 kW 7,017 10,983 1,800 | 6 100 kW 10,747 | 7253 2,200 | 3 15 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Using Table 4, years during the 10-year study planning period when diesel generator overhauls will be required were estimated. These years are 1999, 2002, and 2004. The diesel overhaul cost has been increased to account for inflation and added to the yearly estimated operation cost for that year to develop a total required operations budget for that year. The cost is included in Table 5. Revenue generated to operate the electric utility comes from the sale of electricity. An estimate of the electric utility revenue was made based on PCE records and the APUC rate table. Assuming the city buildings and the school remain non-industrial customers and the cannery demand remains constant, the yearly revenue of the utility would be approximately $418,000 in 1996 dollars. The revenue, in 1996 dollars and assuming no change in the electric rates, would be about $422,000 at the end of the 10-year planning study. For the 10-year planning period, the cost to operate the utility will increase for two reasons: (1) Inflation will increase the costs of wages, materials, fuel, and labor to operate the system. This study estimates the inflation rate to be 4%, although this rate will vary over the study period. (2) The utility will bring the hydroelectric facility into compliance with FERC licensing requirements, overhaul diesel generators, and upgrade the distribution system. This analysis assumes these improvements will take place throughout the 10-year planning period. A summary of the yearly projected operation and maintenance costs for the electric utility is presented in Table 5. “Capitalized” costs represent borrowing no money to construct the upgrades. The entire cost would be paid by rate increases in that particular year. “Borrowed capital” represents borrowing the entire cost of the improvements in 1997 and finishing construction in 2006. The loan is for 20 years at an 8% interest rate. In both cases, the cost of rebuilding the diesel generators is assumed to be paid for by utility revenues collected during the year the overhaul is completed, as discussed earlier. All costs shown in Table 5 account for inflation. For comparison, the 1996 operation costs are approximately $198,320 per year. Peaks in the capitalized cost column represent the construction of capital improvement projects. Table 5 Projected Electric Utility Operation Costs Current Dollars, inflation included 1997 |____1997] Yearly Cost [Capitalized $271,409| $298,489 [$233,709] Yearly Cost _|Borrowed Capital| $233,709 $241,959 Yearly Cost {Capitalized $268.411 A Yearly Cost [Borrowed Capital| $278,394| _ $288,432 $298,871] $309,728] $321,018] 16 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 4.3 Water Utility The PUC is regulated by the APUC. The APUC reviews and must approve any rate changes for these utilities. It is assumed these utilities will remain regulated by the APUC during the planning period. The current rate structure of the water utility is listed in Table 6. All services are not metered and all customers are charged a flat rate. These rates were last modified in 1980. Table 6 Water Utility Rate Structure Customer Type Rate Residential, 3/4 inch or less diameter, utility su month Residential, 3/4 inch or less diameter, owner supplied service. r month Commercial or nonresidential, 3/4 inch or less diameter service. $10.40 per month Residential or commercial. service greater than 3/4 inch. | $500.00 per month The water utility currently has 93 service connections: 15 of these connections serve city buildings such as the school, community hall, and municipal offices; five connections serve the cannery; and the remaining 73 connections serve residences (Polarconsult Alaska Inc., 1996). Over the next 10 years, the number of city and cannery connections should remain constant, as no growth in these areas is anticipated. To serve an increased number of people, an additional three services will be required in 10 years, which equals a new service every three years. This assumption is based on maintaining the current ratio of 2.9 people per residential water service connection. Revenue from the water utility is generated from the sale of water. An estimate of the water utility revenue was made based on the customers served and the APUC rate structure. In discussions with Pelican Seafoods regarding the number and sizes of the services, Chief Engineer Whitmarsh stated that the cannery has six services larger than 3/4 inches in diameter. Three of these are only used half the year. This means the cannery has an equivalent of 4.5 year round service connections. The service connection to the school is also greater than 3/4 inches in diameter and operates the entire year. The service connection to the harbor also may be greater than 3/4 inches in diameter. Using this information, 5.5 or 6.5 service connections are greater than 3/4 inches in diameter, depending on the actual size of the harbor service connection. Assuming (1) all city buildings represent commercial customers with services 3/4 inches in diameter or less; (2) there are 73 residential service connections; and (3) there are 5.5 or 6.5 service connections greater than 3/4 inches in diameter, the yearly revenue of the utility is approximately $40,000 - $46,000. The yearly cost of operating the water utility was estimated from the 1995 “Engineers Report” (Pelican Seafoods, December, 1995). Utility operating costs from 1995 were used for this study because they represent the most recent and complete data available. The “Engineers Report,” provided by PUC, discusses the labor and material purchases for operating both the water and electric utilities. PUC operates the utilities jointly, but the report accounts for costs to operate each utility separately. The report separates the data 17 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study into three categories: water utility, electric utility, and capital project costs. Capital projects are those projects required to bring the utility into compliance with current regulations. These include dam upgrades, transmission pole replacements, and other projects, as discussed in Section 2.0. Based on the “Engineers Report” data, operating costs for the water utility were approximately $25,000. This report will use the 1995 value as the base for 1996 operating costs. It is important to note that this cost does not include operation and maintenance of the Pelican Creek dam, flume, and penstock intake. headbox, or the hydroelectric facility powerhouse. These costs are included in the operation of the electric utility. For the 10-year planning period, the cost to operate the utility will increase for several reasons: (1) Inflation will increase the costs of wages, materials, and labor to operate the system. This study estimates the inflation rate at 4%, although this rate will vary over the study period. (2) The utility will undertake the capital improvements to bring the system into compliance with the SWTR. This analysis assumes these improvements will be undertaken over five years and begin in 1998. (3) The upgraded domestic water supply system will be somewhat more expensive to operate than the existing system. The exact amount of the increase in operation costs will depend on the type of upgrade selected. This analysis assumes that the new treatment system will increase the operation cost by 20% over the current costs and that this cost will begin at the completion of the upgrades in 2001. Table 7 presents a summary of the yearly operation and maintenance costs for the water utility. “Capitalized” cost represents borrowing no money to construct the upgrades. The entire cost would be paid by rate increases in that particular year. “Borrowed capital” represents borrowing the entire cost of the improvements in 1997 and finishing the construction in 2001. The loan is assumed to be for 20 years at an 8% interest rate. All costs shown in Table 7 account for inflation. For comparison, the 1996 operation costs are approximately $25,000 per year. Peaks in the capitalized cost column represent the construction of capital improvement projects. Table 7 Projected Water Utility Operation Costs (Current Dollars, Inflation Included Year {1997 [1998 Yearly Cost |Capitalized $26,000 $187,658 Yearly Cost |Borrowed Capital |$101,197 $102,237 Year 2002 Yearly Cost |Capitalized $37,716 [Yearly Cost |Borrowed Capital _|$113,157 4.4 Bulk Fuel Storage 2001 $202,970 |$216,939 $104,444 |$111,697 2003 |2004 2005 |2006 $39,225 |$40,794 |$42,426 S128 $114,675 ]$116.255 [$117,897 |$119.605 Pelican Seafoods currently operates the bulk fuel storage facility and the fuel dispensing concession jointly. The same staff is used to operate the bulk fuel storage facility and sell the fuel at the concession. The fuel dock concession operates with a full-time attendant in the winter and a full-time and a part-time attendant in the summer. In the winter, the dock 18 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study is open five days a week, and in the summer it is open seven days a week. Bulk fuels are delivered monthly in the summer and bimonthly in the winter. Fuel deliveries occur at any time of the day and result in overtime wages paid for most deliveries. According to Pelican Seafoods, in 1995 (January to December) the fuels concession sold 34,414 gallons of unleaded gas, 133,865 gallons of number 1 diesel, and 300,268 gallons of number 2 diesel. When this report was written, Pelican Seafoods had not totaled fuel sales for 1996, but estimated that gas and number | diesel sales in 1996 would equal sales in 1995. However, Pelican Seafoods estimated that number 2 diesel sales in 1996 would fall below 1995 sales. Pelican Seafoods attributed this drop in sales to a reduction in the amount of number 2 diesel fuel purchased by the fishing fleet. To estimate the yearly cost of operating the bulk fuel storage facility, staff hours needed to manage the operation, operate the storage facility, and bill customers were estimated. The estimates are based on conversations with Pelican Seafoods’ Whitmarsh. These estimates were then multiplied by an estimated hourly wage and salary multiplier to cover employee benefits. These estimates were then added to miscellaneous expenses to cover electric charges, postage, and other supplies. Using this method, the estimated 1996 operation costs for the bulk fuel storage operation is about $18,000. For the 10-year planning period, the cost to operate the bulk fuel storage facility will increase for two reasons: (1) Inflation will increase the costs of wages, materials, and labor to operate the system. This study estimates the inflation rate at 4%, although this rate will vary over the study period. (2) Operation of the fuel storage facility will include bringing the system into compliance with the bulk fuels storage regulations and other required capital improvements to the system. This analysis assumes these improvements, including replacing the fuel storage tank bottoms, will occur throughout the 10-year planning period. A summary of the yearly projected operation and maintenance costs for the storage of bulk fuels is presented in Table 8. “Capitalized” cost represents borrowing no money to construct the upgrades. The entire cost would be paid by increases in consumer fuel prices in that particular year. “Borrowed capital” represents borrowing the entire cost of the improvements in 1997 and finishing the construction in 2006. The loan is assumed for 20 years at an 8% interest rate. All costs shown in Table 8 account for inflation. Peaks in the capitalized cost column represent the construction of capital improvement projects. Table 8 Projected Bulk Fuel Storage Operation Costs Current Dollars, inflation included Yearly Cost {Capitalized $54,808 ; Yearly Cost |Borrowed Capital $37,192 $37,928 $38,694 $39,491 2003 2004] 2005 $22,396 $23,292 $24,224] $25,193 Yearly Cost_|Borrowed Capital $41,180 $42,076] $43,008] _ $43,977 19 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study 4.5 Fuel Dispensing Concession The fuel dock concession, jointly run with the fuel storage facility, currently operates with a full time attendant in winter and a full-time and a part-time attendant in the summer. In winter the dock is open five days a week, and in the summer it is open seven days a week. To estimate the yearly cost of operating the fuel dispensing concession, staff hours needed to manage the operation, operate the system, and bill customers for the fuels sold were estimated. The estimates are based on conversations with Whitmarsh, chief engineer for Pelican Seafoods. These estimates were then multiplied by an estimated hourly wage and salary multiplier to cover employee benefits. Estimates were added to an estimated miscellaneous expense to cover electric charges, postage, and other supplies. Using this method, the estimated 1996 operation costs for the fuel dispensing operation is $73,000. For the 10-year planning period, the cost to operate the fuel dispensing operation will increase for two reasons: (1) Inflation will increase the costs of wages, materials, and labor to operate the system. This study estimates the inflation rate at 4%, although this rate will vary over the study period. (2) Operating the concession will include undertaking capital improvements, such as repairing the fuel dock and pipes. This analysis assumes these improvements will take place throughout the 10-year planning period. A summary of the yearly projected operation and maintenance costs for the fuel concession is presented in Table 9. “Capitalized” cost represents borrowing no money to construct the upgrades. Increases in the selling price of fuel would pay for an upgrade in that particular year. “Borrowed capital” represents borrowing the entire cost of the improvements in 1997 and finishing the construction in 2006. The loan is assumed to be for 20 years at an 8% interest rate. All costs shown in Table 9 account for inflation. Peaks in the capitalized cost column represent the construction of capital improvement projects. Table 9 Projected Fuel Concession Operation Costs (Current Dollars, inflation included Year | 1997 1998] 2000 2001 Yearly Cost [Capitalized $75,712| __ $105,780 $81,890 eles $118,989 Yearly Cost [Borrowed Capital] _$81.564[ __$84.593 $87,742] $91,018] $94,424 Year | 2002| 2003 met 2005| 2006) Yearly Cost [Capitalized | $92,115] $95,800 $99,632| _$103,617| $107,762 Yearly Cost [Borrowed Capital] _$97,967[ _ $101,652 $105,484] $109,469] $113,614] 4.6 Summary of Revenue and Costs Projected revenues and annual costs are presented in Table 10. The annual costs include capital expenditures and operation and maintenance costs. They are presented in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. Electric utility revenues are projected to increase at 4% to match inflation. This assumption was made because PUC often has modified electric rates to account for increasing operation costs. Water utility revenues, however, are projected 20 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study to remain constant because PUC has not modified the water rates since 1980. The methods used to calculate revenues and annual costs show that the electric and water utilities are projected to generate revenues that are in excess of annual costs. The reason for the large difference between revenues and annual costs was not investigated by this study. No estimates of revenues from the bulk fuel operation or the fuel concession have been made for this study. Table 10 Summary of Revenues and Annual Costs (Current Dollars, Inflation Included) Electric Utility Summary ‘Year Projected Revenue _ Annual Cost, 1997 $437.278 $271,409 $233,709 1998 $454,770 $298,489 $241,959 1999 $472,960 $291,306 $250,539 2000 $491,879 $238,616 $259,463 2001 $511,554 $248,161 $268,743 2002 $532,016 $258,087 $278,394 2003 $553,297 $268,411 $288,432 2004 $575,429 $279,147 $298,871 2005 $598,446 $290,313 $309,728 2006 $622,384 $301,925 $321,018 Water Utility Summary oVear Projected Revenue __ Annnal Cost, _ aS ee Se 8 Se _Borrowed Mone: 1997 $41,600 $26,000 $101,197 1998 $41,600 $187,658 $102,237 1999 $41,600 $195,164 $103,319 2000 $41,600 $202,970 $104,444 2001 $41,600 $216,939 $111,697 2002 $41,600 $37,716 $113,157 2003 $41,600 $39,225 $114,675 2004 $41,600 $40,794 $116,255 2005 $41,600 $42,426 $117,897 2006 $41,600 $44,123 $119,605 Bulk Fuel Operation Say 1997 Not estimated for this study $54,808 $37,192 1998 $19,144 $37,928 1999 $19,910 $38,694 2000 $20,706 $39,491 2001 $21,535 $40,319 2002 $22,396 $41,180 2003 $23,292 $42,076 2004 $24,224 $43,008 2005 $25,193 $43,977 2006 $174,225 $44,984 21 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Table 10 Continued Fuel Dispensing Operation Summary Year : _ Projected Revenue Annual Cost, > _ Annual Cost, : : : eS Capitalized = Borrowed Money 1997 Not estimated for this study $75,712 $81,564 1998 $105,780 $84,593 1999 $81,890 $87,742 2000 $85,166 $91,018 2001 $118,989 $94,424 2002 $92,115 $97,967 2003 $95,800 $101,652 2004 $99,632 $105,484 2005 $103,617 $109,469 2006 $107,762 $113,614 22 9/12/96 Pelican Utilities Study Bibliography Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning. January 1983. Community profile of the City of Pelican. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning. March 1996. Community profile of the City of Pelican. Bayliss, Randolph, P.E. October 30, 1993. “Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey.” For Pelican Utilities Company. Pelican Seafoods. April 26, 1996. Loan application to the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy, for electric, water, and fuel upgrades. Pelican Seafoods. December 1995. “Engineers Report: 1995 Repair and Maintenance Budget Report; Labor, Fringes, and Material Purchases.” For Pelican Utility. Pelican Utility Company. February 14, 1980. Water service rate schedule. For the State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission. Pelican Utility Company. September 24, 1993. Electric service rate schedule. For the State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission. Pelican Utility Company. September 24, 1993. Power cost equalization eligibility form. For the State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission. Pelican Utility Company. July, 8, 1996. “Pelican Utility FY95 Statistical Data.” Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. July 1990. “Pelican Hydro.” For Pelican Seafoods. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. June 1996. “Pelican Drinking Water Study.” For Pelican Seafoods. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. No date. Drawing set for the Pelican Creek hydroelectric project. For Pelican Seafoods. Versyp, C.W., P.E. January 1995. “Pelican Electrical Distribution System Upgrade: Staking Sheets and Notes.” A report from a consulting engineer to Pelican Utility. BIB-1 9/12/96 Appendices A through K Appendix A Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey Randolph Bayliss, P.E. Environmental Engineer 119 Seward Street #10 Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907) 586-6813 Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey Pelican Utilities, Inc Table of Contents 110) General Information.........ee.-- 2 2.0 Water Use........ee- clallelelsteliciioletolelele 3 3.0 Watershed.....ccccccce let etellevolaisleres 4 4.0 Mreatment sieeiel cleleisicielsrciciels| sielelaletelsiele|lIll/0 5:0 RECOLdSIlcs «e1e\ es sicicie ce ccle c/s) oe slelelelols s 6.0 Discussion. ...escccccces siohelsrelersyeier enn © Map 1 TMCS Ofia s cane eee es Sees ee ee 8 7 Map 2 Watershed, USGS Quad.........---- 8 Photo 1 Pelican, False Color Infared..... 9 Map 3 Pelican, Aerial Photo.......----- 10 Sketch 1 Water System Layout......---+-+-+--- 11 Photo 2 Reservoir and Town.......--++. osama nna Photo 3 Flume and Treatment Building..... 12 Photo 4 Spillway..... Mialelelspsiciekel =i siielel sie eeker ten LS Photo 5 SSreens s 6 see's eae ewe ee 4 se ea aln ele LS) Photo 6 Treatment Building..........----- 14 Photo 7 Sign. ..cccccccescccsscecsccccece> 14 Photo 8 Cha er Et Cao a ee 6 ile ew iwi 15 Photo 9 Boardwalk... ..eceseseseccces acess 15 Photo 10 Downtown Pelican.......--eeseeees 16 Photo 11 Cooling Water Discharge......---- 16 Appendix ADEC Sanitary Survey........----- 7 Summary: Pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines, I conducted a Sanitary Survey of the Pelican Utilities public water system in September and October 1993. 2, RANDOLPH BAYLI f “v9 SF oN PROFESSION 2N Actaher 1993 Page 1 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Pelican: village, pop. 135, on Lisianski Inlet, in NW part of Chicagof I., Alex. Arch.; 57°57’- 30’’ N, 136°13'30’" W; BGN 1960; (map 9). Var. Pelican City Named for a fishing boat The Pelican owned by Charles Raatikainen, a founder of the town. The corporate name of the town is ‘Pelican,’ although it is frequently called “Pelican City.” In 1943 there was a can- nery, a small sawmill, a school, and a hotel here. A post office was first established here in 1939 (Ricks, 1965, p. 50). 1.0 General Information A complete Sanitary Survey Form developed by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been attached as an Appendix. Certain items of special interest follow as narrative. 1.1 History and Background Pelican was founded as a company town. Pelican Seafoods Inc selected this site just before World War II for two reasons: 1) it was a good port; and 2) it had year-round clean water for generating hydroelectric power and processing fish. Pelican still is a company town. The seafood plant contains both the Post Office and the General Store, the only one in town. Pelican is a boardwalk town, one of a half-dozen such towns in Southeast Alaska. There are no roads to Pelican and there are no roads in Pelican either. A boardwalk built on pilings allows for bicycles, ATVs, motor bikes, and foot traffic. See photos 9 and 10 on page 15 and 16. The only active vehicles in town are the fire truck, a fuel truck, and a truck for power pole maintenance. At high tide, saltwater rises beneath the boardwalk and under most of the houses, also built on pilings. The water mains and most house connections are flooded by saltwater twice a day. 30 October 1993 Page 2 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey 1.2 Climate and Setting It rains in Pelican. Annual precipitation averages 127 inches, which includes 120 inches of snow. The day I was there, it rained ten inches, a record. For Alaska, the winters are mild, the lowest temperature being -3 degrees Fahrenheit. Low rain clouds, snow flurries, and fog restricts air access to Pelican. Normally, several float planes arrive each day with scheduled mail, freight, and passenger service. But in bad winter weather, Pelican may go without air service for a week at a time. The Alaska state ferry provides service about twice a month. The glaciers receded a short time ago, in geological terms, to expose Southeast Alaska. Streams flow through narrow valleys with steep gradients. The soils are shallow or non- existent and poor in nutrients. The hillsides support stands of western hemlock and Sitka spruce. See photos 2 and 3 on page 12. Chichagof Island has the second greatest population of brown bears in the world. Sitka black tail deer and furbearers also abound in the region. Although beavers are known to live in the area, no beavers are believed to live in the Pelican Creek watershed. eS Pelican’s Population on Water Service HOUSES. ce cccccccee aisi/e\is alleles |silelicle siieis/e) | |. Cabins crererstcloioleleloleleleloleloierele/ele}sielereloieler oft ApaveEMent’s 5 sis/s\c <'10/</sfeo0 sie el e/oleia seers | 5 wath, 14) units Bunkbodees, Chiretsscccsuseenseceses S58 Beds Public or Commercial Buildings..... 24 Service Connections..............-. 98 Estimated population served........ 250 (average year-round) 2.0 Water Use Pelican water supply volume is said to be "marginal." When the seafood plant is operating several processing lines in the summer, say crab and salmon, there isn’t enough pressure for the houses on the hill behind the plant. The plant also uses drinking water to cool their refrigeration units. A four-inch pipe runs wide open to discharge cooling water. See photo 11 on page 16. The seafood plant is also served by two other 4-inch lines, a 3-inch line, and a 2- inch line. The seafood plant will shut down operations for a few hours to allow nearby uphill residents to fill small storage tanks and jugs. 30 October 1993 Page 3 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Other supply problems occur in winter, when the seafood plant is not operating. In Pelican, there’s no soil to protect house connections from cold stress. Residents leave their taps running to keep house connections from freezing. According to records, the flows range as follows. Pelican Water Volumes Normal Water Flow........... 450 to 650 gpm Lowest Flow........ ce ecccccce 300 gpm Highest Flow (winter 1993).. 1,050 gpm During the winter 1993, no seafood processing was underway, so the water use was about 6,000 gallons per day per person. The low flow occurred during the summer when the seafood plant was not operating. Pelican measures water fow with an Omega FPM513 "Accum-U- Flow" totalizing meter. At the time of the survey, flow was about 700 gpm (1 MGD.) Because of the "marginal" supply of fresh water, Pelican has developed a fire fighting system using saltwater. The intake and pump are located on the main harbor float. Record Setting Rainfall and Turbidity By coincidence, on the day of sanitary survey, it rained ten inches, a record for Pelican. The drinking water turbidity also set a record: 3.5 NTU. By the next day, the turbidity had fallen to less than one NTU. This was the only day in the history of Pelican turbidity monitoring that the turbidity had exceeded one NTU. 3150 Watershed The dam was constructed about 1940 and the reservoir elevation is about 130 feet above sea level. See map 2 on page 8, photo 1 on page 9, and photo 2 and 3 on page 12. The pressure meter at the turbine usually reads 47 psi. No roads, structures, or habitations exist in the watershed. No human activity takes place except for the occasional weakminded and misguided hunter. This hunter is occasional because the only unlocked access (see photo 6 and 7 on page 14) is brutal bushwhacking straight uphill through thorns and brambles, with other more productive hunting spots in nearby places at sea level. The watershed is owned and managed by the Forest Service. 30 October 1993 Page 4 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey 4.0 Treatment A single bottle gas chlorinator feeds into the water main. See photo 8 on page 15. Service is interrupted whenever the bottle is changed or whenever the power is out. The 150 pound bottle is changed about monthly. In 1992, there were about 30 power outages, with median durations of 3 to 5 minutes and a maximum of 35 minutes. The rate is set by rotameter after checking the downstream chlorine residual. Four to six pounds per 24 hours will usually keep the residual at 0.2 ppm. I observed operator testing of the chlorine residual and later checked the reagents. No problems were noted. The first service connection is about 140 feet from the treatment building. See map 3 on page 10. Using the typical flow according to Pelican Utility records, the contact time is about 46 seconds. 5.0 Records Sa Bacteria I reviewed all the routine total coliform testing of the treated water system from 1990 to the present. Because of weather disruptions in airplane shipments to the laboratory and other problems, the monitoring frequency was not always complied with. Missing Samples Of the samples taken, no total coliforms were detected, although three incidents of "other bacteria" growth on the membrane filters were reported. In the period between 1981 and 1989, seven positive coliform samples were reported. As of the Sanitary Survey, no coliform test results were available for the raw water. 2N Actober 1993 Page 5 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey 6.0 Discussion 6.4. Water Use Volume Anomalies The typical water use rates, according to the Pelican Utility records and flow meter, range from 450 to 650 gallons per minute, or about 0.8 MGD at mid-range. The normal chlorine consumption rates are about 4 to 6 pounds per day. These rates are set to keep a residual of about 0.2 ppm. Since 5 pounds of chlorine gas will produce about 3.6 pounds of hypochlorite ion, the volume of water to yield a 0.2 ppm hypochlorite residual would be 2.17 MGD or 1,500 gallons per minute. This is three times what is indicated by the flow meter. These calculations assume no chlorine demand, which is reasonable considering the clarity and lack of color in this water. Pelican Water Use Rates Method Gal/Min MGD Gal/Day/Capita Meter 550 0.80 3,200 Calculated 1,500 2.17 8,700 Whether you believe the flow meter or the flow calculations, Pelican’s water use is excessive either way, and not explained by seafood processing uses. According to the flow meter, when the seafood plant is shut down during the summer when freezing pipes are not a problem, the "consumption" is still 300 gpm or 1,700 gallons per day per capita. This is over ten times the normal textbook design factor 150 gpcd. Leaks in the water mains would be suspected. 6.2 Turbidity Review of turbidity equipment, operator testing techniques, and turbidity records indicated that turbidity is not a problem for Pelican. Other than the one record-setting incident on the day of the survey, the turbidity had never exceeded one NTU. Pelican uses a Hach Model 2100A turbidimeter. During the Sanitary Survey, the operator standardized the meter and tested the turbidity at 3.5 NTU, the highest reading on record. The meter had calibration problems in the 1 to 10 NTU range. I took a sample at the same time and had it analyzed by Montgomery Laboratories, a Juneau lab certified by ADEC. The Montgomery labs reported 1.7 NTU. 30 October 1993 Page 6 of 17 pelican Sanitary Survey Pelican Utilities Map 1 LOCATION 10 (MT. FAIRWEATHER A-i) Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey: Pelican Utilities Watershed RANDOLPH BAYLISS, PE. "Belioan Utilities, Inc Scale: 1 Inch = 1 Mile ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER P.O. Box 110 Watershed Area = 12.9 Sq Mile 119 SEWARD STREET #10 Pelican, AK 99832 uy JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 USGS Quad Sitka D-7 907-586-6813 QAPP 90-01 Approved by ADEC 10/24/90 Operator: Thomas Whitmarsh Public Drinking Water Sanitary Survey: P e li ean U CiGa es W a t ers h e d Owner of Facility Pelican Utilities, Inc P.O. Box 110 Pelican, AK 99832 RANDOLPH BAYLISS, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER 119 SEWARD STREET #10 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 907-586-6813 QAPP 90-01 Approved by ADEC 10/24/90 Scale: 1 Inch = 1 Mile False Color Infared Aerial Photo (Red Denotes Active Vegetation) Operator: Thomas Whitmarsh Industrial Residential Commercial Public Public Use Area Multiple Use Under Construction Vacant Structure Generator Poner Poles Transmission Lines (above ground) Transformers Street Lights Transformers/Street Lights Earth Station Radio Tower Townsite Boundary Survey Line Land Status Line Lot Line Water Line Hydrant Water Tanks Fuel Storage Telephone lines generally parallel” © electric transaisston lines. Sanitary Survey Pelican Utilities Sketch 1 SYSTEM LAYOUT PELICAN SEAFOODS ENGINE Room DIST) BUTOM SYSTEM TURAL (DU FORM CAMPLE Locanion) SERVICE CONNECTION PELICAN UTILITY, HYDRe Evecrric POWER HOUSE (sovRee WATER TOTAL COLI FORA Sammie woearto. OISTRIBUTION LINE . LasT SERVICE CONMECTION Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Photo 2: City of Pelican and Boat Harbor at Left Water Reservoir at Bottom Center Photo 3: Water Reservoir at Upper Right, Flume and Pipes, Water Treatment and Hydropower Building in Bottom Center, First Water Service Just to Left of Treatment Building 23 September 1993 Photographs by Randy Bayliss 30 October 1993 Page 12 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey d Photo 5: Flume and Screens, at Left for Hydropower, Screen at Right for Drinking Water 23 September 1993 Photographs by Randy Bayliss 30 October 1993 Page 13 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Photo 6: Water Treatment, Hydropower Building, Only Access to Reservoir: through Building, up Stairs behind : . PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY Photo 7: Sign in Front of Water Treatment Building (the Alaska Department of Health regulated Public Water Systems prior to 1971) 30 October 1993 , Page 14 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Photo 9: The Main "Street" in Pelican: Salmon Way; Water Main Buried in Intertidal Land below Boardwalk 30 October 1993 Page 15 of 17 Pelican Utilities Sanitary Survey Photo 10: Downtown Pelican with Pelican Seafoods at Left Water Main (8" dia) Buried in Intertidal Below Boardwalk Photo 11: Prime Water Use: Cooling Water Discharge 4" Pipe from Pelican Seafoods Refrigeration Unit 30 October 1993 Page 16 of 17 STATE OF ALASKA PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SANITARY SURVEY SURVEY DATEt PWSIDt WATER SYSTEM INVENTORY INFORMATION 0 | 9 | a | 9 | 3] Sgn 2 Date of last System Cl Regi istris Pee eee NL a ome 3 No. of Service Connectionst Residential Pop.t Non-Residential Pop. Statust . 94 200-250 - 14) Active Name of Water Supplyt : Le lhe Pelican Utility, Inc. Addressee Owner Name Same Mailing Addresst Owner Address P.O. Box 110 City, State and Zip Codet Telephone City, State and Zip Code Telephone Pelican, AK 99832 907 735-2204 Plant Location (it aitlerent tan maiing address) #1 Salmon .Way cee eel including substitute and temporary) Crea uaiiceton ad evel) Oate Issued Date Expires Telepho' eve & IIT Treatm endin Thomas Whitmarsh {735-2204 | 735-2268 pews CF Bieteib ooo 12/31/93 William Strahm | Level I Distribution] 1991 12/31/93 Bill Paddock | Level I Distribution} 1991 12731793 Owner Typet | Service Categoryt | Date system initial an Recent Modifications Seasonal Operation Datest (stg) (s.t9.) operation in current contigurationt Dake: 2 SF RS 1940 i n.a. DEC Approved? _Y N Is the system in monitoring compliance for the following parameters: Is the system monitoring daily and reporting monthly for: YES NO NA YES NO NA Coliform oa xD e] Turbidity a ie a Inorganic (including nitrates) Qa x (a) Disinfectant Residual a o Qo Radionuclide a D oa (For systems avoiding filtration) CT Value (s1.¢.) oa x e) voc Qa x Qa Fluoride Oo a x Pesticide Qo p:¢) a Are disinfectant sampling points varied throughout system? oa x a TTHM a R Oo If no, explain: If no, explain: at seafood plant Samples taken at time of survey by surveyor Survey performed by I Agency ate turbidity, pH Randolph Bayliss P.E. | EPA 10/93 Received by Date COMMENTS © Yes CNo Were structural deficiencies noted during this survey? Tt Indicates items required by federal regulation * Indicates critical items needing immediate correction WHITE — FILE YELLOW — DATA ENTRY PINK — WATER SYSTEM Page of SURVEY DATET PWSIDt SURFACE WATER SOURCES || 92] b |3 | b [3fol q A separate sources form must be filled out for each surface water source in the PWS. 12 | 2 Statust e) Active Source |Ot Source Name or No.f Pelican Creek Source Type “9 Surface Physical Address . FilyOraw Pelican Creek ® Seasonal Operation Datest Start Nis ajc End Water Purchased From Water Sold To Treatment Objectivet Treatment Methodst . . (19) D #0) gas chlorination Storage (Gal.) Raw Water Pump Capacity or Gravity Flow (GPM) 1000 LATILONG @ig) 57° 57 ' 20" N[ACCURACY + 136 12'39"W . Type of Watershed (s1.¢) 7 mountain forest Average Daily Production (GPD)| Design Daily Production (GPD) 1,500,000 Meridian "| Range Intake Type (1.9) box Section | Borough | Subdivision Block Lot Watershed Area (acres) Has there eological survey of the area? 8,260 Y N Date: Sources of Potential Pollution in watershed deer; bear; hunters SURFACE WATER SYSTEM INSPECTION RESULTS no n/a unk Turbidimeter nett Calibration x) C © 1.1s the intake screened to prevent entry of debris? Make/Model Serian enna Date HO 2. Are the screens maintained? HACH Standard daily 1s10 &) O 0 CO. 3:1s animal activity controlled within the vicinity of the intake? 2100A 1.0 WTU kJ 4. Does water treatment meet turbidity standards during any increased turbidity events? i] oO oO oO 5. Are waters entering the reservoir or source free from sources of industrial, domestic or other types of pollution? If no, describe on continuation sheet. 6. Are intake works properly protected against ice buildup and sittation? 7. Is human activity restricted in the watershed? 8. Is intake inspected frequently? Date: Gaily 9. Is raw water pumping capacity adequate? 10. Is standby or auxiliary power available? 11. If standby or auxiliary power is available, is it in operable condition §—§ -_——___}$—___ and well maintained? 12. Is there a raw water sampling tap? 13. Is the water disinfected? 14, Is the water filtered? Measurement oo00 Oo0000 woOooo RA OOORRR &] ADDITIONAL INFILTRATION GALLERY INFORMATION 15. Is there a lid over the gallery? 16. If so, is the lid watertight and locked? 17. Is the collector in sound condition and maintained as necessary? FILL AND DRAW 20. How often is this tank filled? nea. [I O0 O] 21. How long does it take to fill tank? TURBIDIMETERS n.a. 18. Is turbidity monitored? 19. Are turbidimeter(s) calibrated with primary standards following _| 22 Can water be retreated after somnoe? manufacturers recommendations as to frequency and method? “— Re COMMENTS: t indicates items required by federal regulation * indicates critical items needing immediate correction WHITE—FILE YELLOW—DATA ENTRY PINK—WATER SYSTEM Page. of WATER TREATMENT DATA One water treatment form must be filled out for each plant in the PWS. SOURCE ID SURVEY DATEt PWsiDt GEaGLagEEGHAL Sources freated by station Physical Address Pelican Creek Salmon Way Lat-Long 57° 571924" Date Online Daily Output (GPD) Schematic of plant readily available and 136 13'06" 1940 1,500,000 up-to-date Y DISINFECTION s nO nya unk #cle_all disinfection types used: O 35. Is there a chlorine tank wrench next to or on the cylinder? (cas a2 Sodium hypochlorite Calcium hypochlorite lodine = a ng rey ant Houde caazee ee gaskets? y Ozone Chlorine dioxide Bromine Other: 3} [ 38. Can the temperature in the chlorine storage area be reliably 1. How many chlorine stations are maintained? mralreaines: aboveis0) deg) Ust &J 339. Is the cylinder storage area kept cooler than the chlorinator one equipment area at all times? CO © ©) 40. Does the operator take the proper precautionary measures at es no na unk all times? (rubber goves, eye protection, mask, protective dothing) Ce [ 2. Is indine disinfection practiced? (+19) O 41. In the event of an emergency, are there gas scrubbers installed? G 3, Is the disinfection equipment operated and maintained property? 42: Has the operator had chlorine gas safety training? Ct [ 4. Are critical spare parts on hand? (ag) INSTRUCTOR: DATE: (2 C5. it hypochiorite is used, are dilutions being made in the proper manner? Gt O OO 6.Are disinfectant residual measurements being made and recorded at the entry point and within the distribution system? (+19) COMMENTS: (complete) Ct OF +7. is there a detectable disinfectant residual being maintained (4. spare pump, extra head, extra throughout the distribution system? gasket Ct CF) CL C) °8. 1s there a disinfectant residual of at least 0.2 mg/l at the entry point Gn started daily OCl at hydro this a to the distribution system? week 9. Are proper residual test kits available and well stocked? CC G3 O 10. For systems avoiding filtration, are adequate records kept to |16- 2 at hydro; 4 at PSI determine CT values? (219) 17. manual feedback oO G 11. For systems avoiding fitration, is there backup power with auto stat. |19. each power outage, change bottles up and alarm; or auto shut-off if disinfection residual goes below .2mgn? | 32+ PSI O & CO OC *12:1s there sufficient contact time between the disinfection pointand | 33. PSI first point of use? oO Ct 13. Is there an auto switch-over for disinfection units to prevent a break in disinfection? a oO 14. Are backup disinfection units on-line and operational? CO O OD. 15:1s there an adequate quantity of disinfectant on hand? eee) 16. Is disinfectant properly stored? CS 17. ls disinfectant feed proportional to water flow? Gt 18. Are disinfection units hooked up to flow switches that prevent the addition of disinfectant when no water is flowing? G& 19. Have there been any interruptions in disinfection in the past year? If so, describe on continuation sheet. 20. Is the operator trained to use and conduct monitoring of disinfectant property? TRAINING: GAS CHLORINATION SAFETY 21. Are there chlorine warning signs clearly posted? 22. In the event of a power outage, is there emergency lighting available? 23. Are lighting and fan switches located outside chlorine room? 24. Is a manifold provided to allow feeding gas from more than one cylinder? 25. Is the chlorine room accessible from outside door only? 26. Is the door hinged outwards with panic bars? 27. Is there a window for viewing the chlorine room? *28. Is there an exhaust fan located near floor and an intake vent located near ceiling? *29. Is there a chlorine gas leak alarm present? “30. Is there a SCBA? 31. If so, is SCBA stored outside the chlorine room? 32. Is the operator trained in the use of a SCBA? *33. Is an ammonia leak bottle available for detecting chlorine leaks? 34. Are tanks chained to the wall or otherwise secured? _ 000 OOO klk) fklwbd RIGO) O000 OO0000 - 0000 WHITE—FILE YELLOW—OATA ENTRY PINK—WATER SYSTEM of Page. DISTRIBUTION DATA What are water lines made of: Distribution Lines How many services are metered? Number of Fire Hydrants out of yes na unk 1. Are pressure and flows adequate throughout the system at all times of the year? Gd 2. Are there any distribution materials used that should not be in contact with drinking water? If yes, explain on continuation sheet. 3. Is there a leak detection program? 4. Was Asbestos/cement pipe used in the system? L] 5. If so, has asbestos analysis been done? O 6. Is either raw or finished water metered? OO 7. Is there a routine main and dead end water flushing program? Ct *8. Are pressure tanks, check valves, blow off valves, water meters, etc. oO O O Hk O &2a Oo maintained and operating? OO ats system adequately protected from freezing? If no, explain on continuation sheet. 10. Are heat exchangers used? C4 11. If yes, is potable glycol used? 12. What type of heat exchanger(s) fl bl n.a. 13. For circulating systems, what is the temperature of the water le~ving from and returning to plant? n.a. PUMPS, PUMPHOUSES AND CONTROLS SURVEY DATEt PwsiDt MONITORING Results of operator demonstration(s) (s..¢) Turbidity: Disinfection Residual: pH: Temperature: Fluoride: List facilities/equipment for testing Hach Model 2100A Turbidimeter Hach Model 21988 Chlorine Test Kit yes no n/a unk OO © °25. Are testing facilities and equipment orderly and maintained? &) 26. Do reagents have an unexpired shelf life? CJ 27. Are records of test results being maintained and kept at plant? TOTAL COLIFORM RULE CJ 28. Does the system have at least 4 extra bottles or bags for repeat samples in the event of an unsatisfactory coliform sample? *29. Is a total coliform rule (TCR) sample siting plan available for review? *30. Does the TCR sample siting plan meet the minimum requirements? (s1.9.) FOR SYSTEMS AVOIDING FILTRATION WATERSHED OR WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM *31. Is there a watershed/wellhead protection program? (s.9.) AAO O Type of Pump(s) Purpose nea. O "14, Are pumps in good operating condition? O O 15. Are pumphouses clean and orderly? *16. Is electrical wiring maintained property? oO CJ 17. Are there stand-by generators? 18. Are stand-by generators tested? 19. Are there spare pump parts? (s1.¢.) CROSS CONNECTIONS Bao 20. Is there a cross connection control program? OOG 21. If so, is it adequate? Gt U0 22. Is there scheduled testing of backflow prevention devices? Gi © +23. Are backflow prevention devices installed at all appropriate locations? (s1.9) (4 24. Is the operator trained in cross connection control? Training: Date: COMMENTS WHITE—FILE YELLOW—DATA ENTRY PINK—WATER SYSTEM EIB) *32. Does the watershed/wellhead protection program meet the minimum requirements? (3.1.9) *33. Is the watershed/wellhead protection program being carried out? MANAGEMENT 34. Are routine operation and maintenance records being kept? 35. Are routine maintenance schedules established and adhered to for all components of the water system? 36. Are plans of the water system available and current? &] C0 37. Are there any local ordinances that hinder safe operation of the system? If yes, describe on continuation sheet. 38. Is there a fee schedule? If yes, describe on continuation sheet. 39. Are all facilities and activities free from safety defects? 40. Does the system have a workable emergency plan for the following situations? (Cicie # yes) & &]) Oo { HEIO Fire Chemical contam. Bacterial contam. Freezing Chlorine gas leak Power outage Flood Lack of water 41. Are supplies and maintenance parts inventories adequate? C1 C0 © 22:18 the financing and budget satisfactory? 43. Are there sufficient funds for training personnel? 44. Are there sufficient personnel? oO 45. Are sufficient operation and maintenance records being kept? 46. Are complaints logged in and responded to? 0 © 47. Have any major complaints been received since the last sanitary survey? If yes, list on continuation sheet. O00 7 5 HERR ARE 48. What are the most frequent complaints? of Page. Appendix B Loan Application: Electric, Water, and Fuel Upgrades ca [R} ae) a APR Z° 1996 Pelican Seafoods Inc. DIVISION AF EWERGYIOCRA P.O. Box 110 Pelican, Alaska 99832-0110 U.S.A. (907) 735-2204 Fax: (907) 735-2281 WHX 956-16VHF/4125 SSB 4/26/96 Mr. Percy Frisby, Director Division of Energy State of Alaska Department of Community And Regional Affairs 233 West Forth Ave.. Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska S9SOL1-23541 Subject: Loan Application Dear Sir: Enclosed is a loan application to upgrade the electric, water and fuel infrastructure for the City of Felican. Based on phone conversations with Andrea Antoine, we are sending the financial statements directly from the Seattle office under a separate cover letter. Sincerely, Thomas Whitmarsh Chief Engineer FUI Acquisitions/FPelican Seafoods, Inc./Felican Utility, Inc. Qecsives Ve A APR 29 1996 — Pelican Seafoods Inc. DIVISION MF ENERGY/OCRA Suite 200 1216 Pine Street Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 224-7470 FAX: 224-7488 April 25, 1996 State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 West Fourth Ave., Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 - 2341 Gentlemen : Please accept this letter as certification for Tom Whitmarsh to be the contact person for our application for your power project fund loan program. This letter also covers Pelican Utility, Inc. and PUI Acquisition Corporation. If further information is needed, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, ORulLeod, Daniel R. Wilcox Pelican Seafoods, Inc. / Pelican Utility, Inc. President c.c. Tom Whitmarsh [R &CEeIVE D APR 2 2 1996 DIVISION OF EWERGY/DoRY 4/23/96 LOAN APPLICATION Division of Energy Fower Project Fund (AS 42.45.010) 1. Borrower Eligibility (a) Legal name of Applicant PUI Acquisitions, Inc./Pelican Seafood, Inc./Pelican Utility, Inc. (All companies are under the same ownership and management) (b) The Applicant is an Independent Power Producer 2. Authorization Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the company president authorizing the contact person to apply for this loan. The lack of time prevents this from being a certified copy. A certified copy of the letter will be sent directly from the Seattle office of the company. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is requiring an upgrade of the hydro electric system including reinforcement of the dam on Pelican Creek. The FERC requirements are included in the license to operate. This is FERC Project Number 10198. The Environmental Protection Agency is requiring an upgrade of the water system at Pelican to meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The water utility is operating under an EPA Administrative Order (Docket No. 10-96—-0007-SDWA) which requires this work. The Fuel system for the town is not under any current government “mandates, but needs to be upgraded to reduce the potential for oil spills. The fuel system is vital both for the electric utility and for the viability of the town. The electrical transmission system for the town is also not under any current government mandates but is also substandard. The hydro control upgrade will help to improve efficiency and reduce the use of diesel fuel. EeCsIVE APR <9 1996 DIVISION OF EWERGY/OCRA 3. Contact Person Thomas Whitmarsh Chief Engineer PUI Acquisitions, Inc./Pelican Seafoods. Inc./Pelican Utility, Inc. Hox 110 Pelican Alaska 99832 907 735-2204 4. Applicant's Officers Daniel R. Wilcox, President/Treasurer/Secretary Tsunemi Taneda, Vice-President Michael Danaher, Assistant Secretary on Advisors or Consultants Mr. Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907 258-2420 &. Loan Amount and Terms $982,431 7. Project Description (a) Provide an overview of the project for which the loan is requested, describing what the project is, where it will be located, why it is needed or what benefits it will provide. This project is to upgrade the power, fuel and water infrastructure for the City of Pelican. The work will involve upgrading the dam on Pelican Creek which is the source of the hydroelectric power for the town and the source for the water fadkea: oom, eECEeIVE APR 29 1996 DIVISION MF EWERGY/DCRA the dam rehabilitation project and construction has started on rebuilding the dam. Upgrading the controls for the hydro will maximize the use of the available water resource. This would include aie head level. control and automatic switching of electric heating for public buildings and residences to displace oil fired heating during off peak electrical usage when excess hydro generating capacity is available and water is going to waste over the dam. The wood stave penstock which feeds the hydro turbines is about 55 years old and will need to be replaced. The Electrical transmission lines in town are in need of substantial work to repair deterioration and to bring them up to code. The Fuel system in Pelican consists of (7) 20,000 gal tanks with pipelines to the oil dock. The tanks are about 40 years old and need to be cleaned and inspected to determine their condition. The secondary containment area needs to be sealed to properly contain a fuel spill. The vertical fuel tanks need restraints to help them withstand an earthquake. Two thirds of the fuel lines have been recently replaced, but the last third of the fuel lines and the valves on the oil dock should be considered for replacement. (The fuel system is the only part of the project that is under the ownership of Pelican Seafoods, Inc., but it is logically connected to the utility company because of the fuel requirement for the diesel generators.) The water system currently does not meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The major problem is due to the short contact time for the disinfectant before water enters the distribution system. The engineering consultant noted above is currently working on an engineering study of the water system to bring the system into compliance with the regulations. The City of Pelican was founded around a fish processing plant and cold storage. In February of 1996 the seafoods plant stopped operating. The Operating Engineers of the seafood plant still continue to operate the electric and water utilities and the fuel system. Management is attempting to sell the operation either as a unit or separating the utilities from the seafood plant. hy the utilities are separated, either the city or another entity might be involved in their operation. Regardless of the ownership, the work needs to be done, and having the financing settled would help eliminate a large uncertainty for any potential acquirer. These infrastructure upgrades are vital to the continued viability of this town. The work involved in these construction projects would help with the unemployment that resulted when the seafoods plant shut down. (b) Provide a project schedule including the planned start R ECEeIVE/)) APR 29 1996 DIVISION © EWERGY/DCRA completion of significant project tasks. The hydro dam rehabilitation project has already started. This project is dictated by the weather and the flow of water over the dam. The project is currently behind the schedule imposed by FERC which calls for completion in November of 1996, The delays were due to late approval to start construction by FERC and due to wet weather which slowed construction in the summer of 1995. The current projected completion date is the summer of 1998. The penstock leaks and the metal joints between staves are eroding away. The wood staves are deteriorating where in contact with the metal parts. Tt is not in immediate danger of failure, but the leaks get worse each year. The penstock should only take a couple of months to replace. The work could be scheduled for any time the manpower is available, assuming the fish processing Plant is not operating, but the dam repair is the priority and should be done first. The schedule for the transmission line upgrade is dependent on the operation of the cold storage to some extent. If the plant does not operate than the best time for the repair is in the summer when the weather is best and construction will not interfere with the operation of the school. If the plant goes back into operation, then the spring or the fall would be better, because the plant needs the power from the hydro electric plant for full capacity operation. This work could be started in the summer of 1996. The work could take several months. The work on the fuel system could also be started in the summer of 11996 .. We have been exploring options for sealing the secondary containment area and arranging to have the tanks cleaned and tested. The work on the secondary containment can be done any time and could take a couple of months. Replacing the fuel lines, cleaning and inspecting the tanks would have to be coordinated around the fuel usage by the town and the fishing fleet. This work will also take up to a couple of months. The water system engineering study is scheduled for completion at the end of June 1996. At that time we will have a better idea of what options would provide the best solution taking into account the uncertain economic situation. Ltqjweid tbe) difficult to determine a schedule until the study is completed. The improvements to the hydro control system could be started any time and could be done in stages if necessary. No engineering has been done on this phase of the project, so it is difficult to determine a schedule. (c) Provide a budget covering the expected total cost of the project, broken down by major task or cost component, and identifying all sources of funding and the amount of funding from each source. [PR SCEIVE D) APR 2 9 1996 "DIVISION ne EWERGY/DCRA EXPECTED COSTS Hydro dam rehabilitation: $246,060 Upgrade hydro controls: $%25,280 Fenstock Replacement: $103,172 Electrical Transmission Line Upgrade: %%56,488 Fuel System Upgrade: $51,431 Water System Upgrade: Estimate -— #5900,000 for a large tank to extend the contact time for the disinfectant. Hopefully the engineering study that is currently under way will result in a less expensive alternative. (d) Leveraged Lease Financing Arrangement if used. This project will mot be constructed under a leveraged lease financing arrangement. 8. Technical Feasibility (a) Provide information on design and engineering for the project, including drawings and specifications as appropriate. from which the Division can determine that the construction plan is technically sound. The plans for the hydro upgrade have already been checked by the engineers at FERC and should not need to be re-examined. These plans are available if necessary for the loan application approval. The plans for replacing the 330 foot long penstock have not been finalized, but preliminary studies in previous years have produced a cost basis for certain types of pipe. There will be no new construction involved in the transmission line upgrade just the rehabilitation of the existing power poles, cross arms and services. The exact requirements will be determined by an inspection by a_ professional engineer with experience in electrical transmission line work. The operating engineers are conducting a study of the best method to deal with the fuel system and will confer with the consulting engineer to determine the best option for a cost effective upgrade to the fuel system. The water system plans have yet to be formulated, because a study of the system is currently ongoing. The State of Alaska, DCRA (Division of Energy) is funding an engineering study of the utilities and the fuel system in Pelican to determine what would be necessary to put the systems into good condition for a possible take over by the City of Pelican. The results of this study will should provide the technical and soso amin feneihilitu infarmation that is required. The study is SQ LLEM swegerre perry Fm - ore ees SS as *anuaneu yINS 4O Sadunos 4O adunos ay} A}T}UaPT pUue *szsS0D “awnNsuOD UT SaseasduT atqeuoseauun BbutTsned znoyRImM szqgap 239aefoud ayy $O T1e Aedau 03 B4un_ny |YyQ UT QUeDTTdde ay OF SIQeTTece aq TIT anuesras ZuaTITYJNS FEY |Pe4}ZSUOWAaG (2) -azetd ut 3nd st uoT_yNTOS YyYITYM Uo PUuadap [It apesbdn wayZsdts suajzem ayy $0 ast pazradxe ay "Sueadc GZ-OZ saay_OUe uO} sSaUTI Tans Ppue syuez aYyQ $O ABST] PaQIAadKa |YyQ PUuszKSe PTNOYsS uVOTPeERPTTTGQeyau wa jsdAs Tany ays *sueac OZ-GT ~ayoUue 40, uatedau pooh UT wWa3ZsSAS ay erAeaT PTNOYS Sutedau auTT voTsstwsuesy ayy “SuPadc OZ 4043 poo6B aq prnoys sfTo4ujzuoD papesBdn ayy *sueat ooT—-osg 40 @sTI PazIadxa ue aney PrTnoys 430}3sSuad pue wep ay} 03 sSapesbdn ayy *uoTANT [Od TezZUeWUOUTAUS #O Sa dueYyr |@Yy3 S2Npau pue Ajzayes aaocudwt pue sauntte, Arduabsauwa ewos uO uMOpP 34ND T[TITM Sty *SjzuawautTNbas AuojzetnBbas Yuesunrd YIM adueTTdWwOD O3UT SunzdnN4aZseazuT ayQ ynd TIT szrafoud assays * pauaptsuoz aq oste prnoys saamod 6butyead pue dny2eq 4O}s Suo}Ze4aUuab [asatp YueTtITspS SBuow yO UOTZPeETTSERSUT ayy *STO4QUOD ITZPeWORNe atdwts Aytute,; YyyIM asn yead 4450 GButunp Y3eayY AT4uzZr2BTa pPue 4wamod oupAy ssazxa Aq paretdstp aq prno2 sHutpttng ,etuaptsau pue 2TTQqnd wo}, Butzeay 40}; pasn fan, fTasatp AT TeuoTRITpPpy *uotze4uauab = suamod 40, saa zem artqetreae ayz 40 asn ay @ZTwTxew OF STO4ZUOD TaAaT Peay 4$O VOTZPETTSRSUT AYR BPNTIUT asn Tan} aonpau oj sapeuidn *saznpoud ARTIT#N ayQ swamod pazesuausb T@SaTp ayy O03 A@ATReETAasA samMod OupAYyY 40 abejUarduad ay} aseaudsut TTT Yyr2tTYymM wep ayQ wou, abexeay saazem arnpau [Tt sapesubdn ayy "@sTT Ppaqrvadxe s_32afo04ud ayR apes pue £s3502 Tan} Butpntrout ‘s}zs0D adueUa}ZUTeW puUe sUOTPe4adoO yenuue uo 3 2AfoOud ay $0 ZIedWT PpazZrAadKa |yR aReRS (q) *Apn3s papuny 83e3S ay 4O JZued se Pasaptsuo2 aq [Tt™ saatzeusaq{e Butdueuty *}z3afoud ajZatdwoo ay a0} Butpunj ButyZsanbau st -Juy fsuotzZtTstNbsIy IMd (#3 AyTitqrseay ~etoueuty "6 “Duy *spoojeas uedt{Taqg Aq paumo Ajzuadoud uo paze x0, ave 4D0pP Tanys BYR PUe sHUeR Tans ay, “AEM $O 2YUBtT4 AZTTITIN © UT PazedOT Aue umMOZ YBnoO4wYyQ sSauUT,T uoTSsTWwSsUe4Q aut *AQTIT#N 4azem ay} a0 AQTSSav,AN PUue a duatusaugg $O SazeITHTP4aQ pue uoTPeuaush uamod waoO}p PUSWAaSeS asn pueT e Sey Auedwor ARTIT3RN ayL *ueITTag 40 AQTQ ay AQ pauMO mou AjZuadoud uo =pazerO,T aue asnoy samod oupAy pue 420RSUAad ‘awnNTy ‘wep ayy, *dtysuaumo puert pue @asn puerl *ZIedWT TeEPUEWUOUTAUS UO UOTPeEWIOFSUT SPTADAG (q) VUOQ/ASUINI su MOISIAIO 966) 6 7 dV Gaamontl eCEeIVE APR ¢ 9 1996 DIVISION [© EWERGY/OCRA directed to determine the utility tariff structure that will be needed to finance the construction and the ongoing operation of the utility and fuel system. It is likely that the water system will not be financially viable based on the potential revenues that can be expected. (d) Identify the legal authority under which the applicant Plans to collect the revenue to repay the loan. The Pelican Utilities operate under the rules and regulations of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. (e) Identify all viable alternatives for financing the project other than the Power Project Fund. Describe efforts made by the applicant to seek project financing from other sources, and describe the results of such efforts. For the water system upgrade, it may be more appropriate for the city to take over the system and fund the capitol costs of the improvements through grants rather than low interest loans. The applicant has been financing the projects thus far using the revenues generated by the utilities, the fuel system and funding based on the operation of the Seafoods plant. Because the operators worked for both the seafoods plant and the utility, the labor cost in the past was divided and the utility revenues did not need to support a staff just for the utility. Because of the loss of population in the town due to the shut down of the seafoods plant and the loss of the largest user of electricity we do not have good figures yet on what the expenses and revenues of the utilities will be with the seafood plant shut down. With the management trying to sell the plant, there has been no effort to find other sources of funding. (f) Describe how the Power Cost Equalization program, if eliminated, would affect the repayment of this loan. The answer to this question will have to depend on the state study. Currently electric power rates are $.153/KWh and hydro power represents 70-85% of generated power. 10. Permits State the status of any proceedings undertaken by the applicant to obtain certificates or other authorizations from any federal, state or legal agency necessary to begin, complete, and operate the project. The company currently has all of the necessary authorizations to work on these projects except for a hot work permit for work on the fuel lines at the oil dock. ECszIVE APR ¢ 9 1996 DIVISION OF EWERGY/DCRA 11. Eimancial Statements Attach financial statements of the applicant and any other party or parties acting as guarantor of the loan for the most recent two years; these financial statements must include balance sheets and profit-loss statements and must be certified by an independent certified public accountant. Also attach a copy of the related management reports. Because of the recent changes in the situation in Pelican with the seafood plant shut down and the ownership of the facility in doubt, financial records for the past two years will not be of much use. The financial statements will be sent under a separate cover letter from the Seattle Office. The study by the state will provide financial data from the City of Pelican under the situation whereby the City of Pelican would take over’ the ownership of the electric and water utilities and the fuel system. 12. Qwners Business History In the case of a borrower other than a government entity or a cooperative, provide a business history of any person or entity owning or controlling 10 percent or more of the applicant’s stock of business. The Pelican seafoods plant, fuel system and utilities have been in operation for about 55 years. The current owner purchased the Pelican Seafoods, Inc. facilities in 1989 from the original owner and purchased the Pelican Utilities in 1990. Appendix C Engineers Report: 1995 Repair and Maintenance Budget Report; Labor, Fringes, and Material Purchases PELICAN BEAFOODS GROVE! CYMA Le § a et 900 ow $20 00 Sti } e000] aa 973.40 1240.00] 78.50% Eras [0.00] SS es Pp sxtas won ry roa aa (eae y © Install new supports for crab plant transformers (E 8m) _ 372.05 Replace bad cross arm and steps on pote by beck comer of cok storage Power line satety a WeNncy ase 3 170,973.03; 23.84% Appendix D Water Service Rate Schedule JUN-24-96 MON 11:40 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO, 9072760436 P, 08/10 APUC Ne._221 Pirst Revision cheat et 28 erArAWMeIIN ——| fo EGE (0) Concetiing _Oviginal get No, ___28 AUG i. isu é ; | State or AJaska Public Utilities Com:iss‘on — {_ 7 —_ : = SCHEDULE NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RATES Residential unmetered water service supplied through Pelican Utility Company distribution line of 3/4" or less diameter: j i $5.60 per month per residential living unit. Residential unmetered water service supplied through customer's distribution line of 3/4" or less diameter: $5.00 per month per residential living unit. Commercial and other nonresidential unmetered water service supplied through distribution line of 3/4" or less diameter: $10.40 per month per commercial unit. Residential or commercial water service supplied through service } line larger than 3/4" in diameter: $500.00 per month. Supplement No. 1 Toritt Advice Ne. 2. Effective: Issuod by: ‘COMPANY, President Title: . 10/10 JUN-24-96 MON 11:40 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 PA . i” ApuC Ne. 221 First Revision ___ Sheet No. 29 t 1960 Canceuing MAR 4A ; Le Original Beer eg ee State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission | 7 PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY SCHEDULE NO, 2 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES A charge equal to the actual cost of all laber and materials expended in furnishing the service, plus 30% thereof for over- head and supervision will be charged for all special services i mentioned in Rule 9 hereof except for connections, disconnections i \ and reconnections, for which the charge will be a flat rate of ' $25.00 for each connection, disconnection or reconnection. Tr Supplement No. 1 FEB 4 4 tbo Tariff Aavice NO. 2. Ertective: _ = im ma issues py: \_ PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY / Appendix E Electric Service Rate Schedule JUN-24-96 MON 11:38 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 P, 04/10 APUC No. 24 28th Revised Sheet No. 32.2 Cancelling R Ec EI Vv ED 27th Revised Sheet No. 32.2 aT SEP 2 4 1993 _ State ot Alaska Public Utilities Commission PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/Pelican Plant SCHEDULE NO. 1¢ Applicable to: All customers in the Pelican boat harbor. Character of Service: Continuous - Alternating current, 60 cycles, single phase, at standard voltages. Characteristics depend upon available circuits. Rates: For permanent stall holders. All sales of power $-.1510 per KWH Connect charges per SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES (Schedule No: 2). Connect charge will be assessed each time a customer moves his boat to a new stall. Rates: For transient stall holders. Fees to be paid in advance at the Pelican Utility, Inc./Pelican Seafoods Company office. Fee for connection: $10.00 Daily charge after first two days: $4.00/day Power Cost Equalization - See Sheet 32.3 N Tariff Advice 42-24 Effective: September 24, 1993 ——w—————“Yesued by: PUL Acquisition COEpOrAtiOn By: OSes =. WA AR Title: General Manacer JUN-24-96 MON 11:37 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 P, 02/10 APUC No. PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/Pelican Plant |$ 24 Eighth Revision Sheet No. 32 isi e oe Seventh Revision Sheet No JUL 9 9 1993 State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission SCHEDULE NO. 1A T RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND ALJ. OTHER SALES EXCEPT FOR c S. Sco 1D_UNDER_ SCH: 18 Ge Applicable to: All consumers in Pelican service area except industrial, power used for street lights, and C power to boat stalls at the Pelican boat harbor. c Character of Service: Continuous - alternating current, 60 cycle, either single or three phase, at average standard voltages. Characteristics depend upon available circuits. Rates: All sales of power $ .1510 per KWH POWER COST EQUALIZATION These rates are eligible for power cost equalization in an amount per KWH identified on Tariff Sheet No. 32.3 SCHEDULE NO. 1B T INDUSTRIAL AND STREET LIGHTING Applicable to: All consumers in Pelican service area (including sewer plant if installed,) using more than 10,000 kilowatt hours per month, and street lighting. Tariff Advice 42 Effective: August 1, 1993 Issued by: PUI Acquisition Corporation By: ab Vouk Title: General Manager FAX NO. 9072760436 P, 03/10 pacman oe el aad AK PUB UTIL COMM JUN=24-96, HON 11:38 8th Shoot Mo, % . Cancelling RECEIVED ith Revision - Bee Sheet Wo, at ——— 4, Dec 26 1008 , ° State of Alaskée — PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/Pelican Plant ubli¢ Utilities Commie STRIAL AND LIGHTING (Con't) acter of Service: | $ Continuous - alternating current, 60 cycle, either single or three phase, at average standard voltages. Characteristics depend upon available circuits. Rates: All industrial sales of power $.130L/XWH TI Street lighting for City of Pelican only: Each vapor light of 175 watts : $6.15 /nonth Each incandescent light of 300 watts $10.26/month 1 NE lights of other power are installed, the charge .for either type will be in proportion to the above Traces. POWER COST EQUALIZATION “ these rates are eligible tor power cost equalization in an amount per KWH identi fied on Tariff Sheet No. 32-3 Pursuant to U-84-68 (5) May 9,. 1985 Torte A Gvice MO. Effector : Issued byt By« JUN-24-96 MON 11:38 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO, 9072760436 APUC No. 247 12th Revised Sheet No. Sees) wanceliing lith Revised Shect No. 32.3 | PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/Pelican Plant residents shall be determined under AS 29.60.020. of not more than 790 kilowatt-hours per month. _ Division of Energy: Schedule ECE Amount All 1.85¢/KWH The following conditions apply to Power Cost Equalization (PCE) eligibility. i. Except for public schools, customers that are classified as state or federal offices or state or federal facilities are not eligible for PCE. 2. Customers that are classified as local community facilities are elig- ible for PCE, calculated in the aggregate for each community served by the utility for actual consumption of not more than 70 kilowatt-hours per month for each resident of the community. The number of community 3. Customers not listed above are eligible for PCE for actual consumption ii_apprepriations are susficient for payment in full, the amount of Power Cost Equalization to be credited to the bills of all eligible customers is as c follows beginning with the tenth billing period (April 1996) for FY96 as defined by the State of Alaska's Department of Community & Regional Affairs, P, 05/10 RECEIVED APR 12 1996 State of Alaska Public Utilities Commission ” treet 0 Cabs at ta Wade (areseal) Al ania sede st SS JUN-24-96 MON 11:39 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 P, 06/10 APUC No. 24 Third Revised Sheet No. 32.4 Cancelling second Revised Sheet No. 32.4 PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/PELICAN PLANT POWER COST EQUALIZATION NOTICE APPLICA Notice given to all customers eligible for equalization under the Power Cost Equalization Program for each period in which equalization is received. NOTICE TO CUSTOMER For the current billing period, the Utility will be paid under the State of Alaska’s power cost equalization program (AS 42.45.100) to assist the Utility and its customers in C reducing high cost of generation of electric energy. Your total electrical service cost $s Less State Equalization $ Your Charge $ = Tariff Advice 43-24 Effective: September 19, 1993 Issued by: PUI Acquisition Corporation , By? oe £. Wire Title: Vice President JUN-24-96 MON 11:39 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 P. 07/10 APUC No. 24 4th Revised Sheet No. 33 Cancelling RECEIVED 3th Revised Sheet No. 33 SEP 2 4 1993 wtate of Alaska Public Utilities Commission PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY/Pelican Plant SCHEDULE NO. 2 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND C GES Connection or Disconnection Charge: (1) During business hours; $20.00 (2) During non-business hours: $30.00 Meter Test Fee (at consumer’s request) (Refundable if meter proves inaccurate beyond 2%). Includes shipping and handling $30.00 Electrical Inspection Fee (at consumer’s request) $30.00 | Service Call-out - for service interruptions caused by consumer/’s equipment $30.00/hour ot (one hour min) Bad Check Charges - per check Redeposited checks $5.00 Cc Checks which can not be redeposited $15.00 e Tariff Advice 42-24 Effective: September 24, 1993 ssued by: quisition Corporation By: oe 5ucs a \RaQanrn Title: General Mansnae JUN-24-96 MON 11:39 AK PUB UTIL COMM FAX NO. 9072760436 P, 08/10 APUC No. 24 ORIGINAL _. ‘Sheet No. 24 in Cancelling RECEIVED FEB 17 1984 sheet Ne: State of Alaska Public Utilities Commissio+ PELICAN UTILITIY COMPANY 7 SCHEDULE SC N PURCHASE & SALE RATES FOR QUALIFIED COGENERATION & SMALL POWER PRODUCTION FACILITIES AVAILABILITY Available in all Company service areas. Applicable to qualified co- generation and small power production facilities of no more than 100 KW established by this tariff. CHARACTER OF SERVICE Single or three phase service as available, 60 hertz, at Company standard voltages. MONTHLY RATES Power sales supplied by Company to the customer in order to meet its electric requirements will be priced at the applicable retail rates. i The rate to be paid by the Company to the customer for metered KWH supplied by the customer to the Company is as follows: NON-FIRM POWER, 8.2 CENTS PER KWH This rate will change concurrently with fuel cost rate adjustment factors and general rate revisions. APR = 9 iSe4 Tariff Advice No, _ 36 Etective: Issued by: PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY By: — <Reil 2 L 1 Tite: General Manaaer Appendix F Power Cost Equalization Eligibility Form T iu 212 2U2ea°* | 16-Y6 : Ud + ULNA UIV Ur CYCNUI gui — STATE OF ALASKA? 28itetheu: Department of Community and Regional Affairs Prone:(907) 269-4600 Division of Energy Fax: (907) 269-4645 SENT BY‘ DCRA. DOE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FYS5 (AS 42.45.110) UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 9i /_o/; / 9S to _O! / 31/95 No. of Days 3! Pege 1 of 2 Meters Read (Date) | of 3! /4S BINs Mailed (Date) = / 7! 9S Utility Neme Strest Address 1 0 0x 110 Reguiatad: Yes >< City, State, Zip _ res Ad o222 Phone No.(707) 73S ees Contact Name = Cc : Fax No. (907) 7,35 -Z222/ Section A 1, Community Population 24o Date Population Certified by DCRA _/Z //5 / 2. No. of Customers: Residentiad (33 Commercial = _ Community Facilities (2 Faderad/State Facilities ~~ © ~ Unbilied Customers Total, = 2 30 Section B Generation Typa intemal Comb. Hydro Other (Fuel: Diesel) | (Fuel: , Total 1, Total KWH Generated 130 OR0 20,480 [0 £60 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) LO 951 sce | coal 3. Total Fuel Cost LLAS/. 27 4. Total Non-Fuel Expenses: ¢ /0_.277- // Section C 1, Total KWH Purchesed: __~ © - Purchased From: N/A 2. Station Service (Powe ieeenieey (KWH) {SOO 3. Peak Demand: (kw) 423 4pm 4, Total KWH Sold two: Resident! bY. a_ /25 95 / Community Faciities “UZ tate Facdities_— © ~ Unbilled KWH -O- Tous 20/5/2. 6. Gross Billed Revenuas to Customers: Residential F905. ¢4 font S092, Community Facilities __/ 70. */ __ Federal/Stata Faoiities__—- O — Total 526.5 Section D 1. Prica of Fuel used by to datermine PCE Rate: ¢/-0/ jgal Date Rata Aprv. 5) 1 18S 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: 94/37 /ged Purchowe Dave ff / 9S 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH 0 ozo Residential KWH: (2)(3) BS 670" “3S e7o © Commercial KWH: (2)(3) Zo &30 Community Feciiities KWH: (4) W2 = 4 - Total Eigible KWH: 2 ta & Zi Section E: Certification Division of Energy Use Only 1 hereby certify that the information | AK8AS Vendor No: submitted to the Division of Energy in | Accounting: : ast t of LE 1 ty Tse, Apor. eemeee AIC Calculated Payment: Adjustment: Disbursed Amount: —— PCE Vendor No: Biting Period Cade: IBS we pe u Me gui sit <Vec* SON BY DURA. DOE + (710-90 7Ud + UURA UIV UF CYC -STATE OF ALAS AS eee Department of Community and Regional Affairs — ?hena:1907) 269-4600 Division of Eneray Fax: (907) 269-4646 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY95 (AS 42.45,110) UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 72/ Of i 7S No. of Days 28 Page 1 of 2 Meters Read (Date) Bills Mailed (Date) O2 7 OF Utility Name Aglicen ality Company. —_ Street Address _ Oo. Kw {10 i Regulated: Yes City, State, Zip __~% 1 $37 Phone No. 27) 735_- zzpe ContactName _ je fi Neale. Fax No. (297) ma S5 222 Section A 1. Community Population 240 Date Population Certified by DCRA | Z/ / br 2. No. af Customers; Residential = $0 Commercial 3S Community Feeltities 1 Z Fadorai/State Facilities —© ~ Unbilled Customers_—- © ~ Total 22 Section B Generation Type Intarnal Comb. Hydro | Other | | (Fuel: Diesel) (Fual: yy Total 1, Total KWH Generated S4ugo 12080 _ — _ |_{90560 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) 4 3. Total Fuel Cost a 4, Totel Non-Fusi Expenses: 3 FABS4 56 Section C 1. Totel KWH Purchased: _ ~O — Purchased From: N A 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption): (KWH) 2G! 3. Peak Demand: (KW) SRS 2-02-95 (2/004 4. Total KWH Sold to: Residentinl_SORU{ __Commorcisi_{O3 O¢S _ Community Faciities 10392 Federal/State Fecilities __ - >— Unbilled KWH -O- Total FO (2&2: 8. Gross Biled Revenues to Customers; Residential RT Rot. 14 Commercia___ [|O. S 227 Community Feciiiies — \S@ Federal/State Facilities ea ee eee ee eee Za Tt Section 0 1. Price of Fusl used by to determina PCE Rate: ¢/.2/ gol Date Rate Aprv. S_//_) 9S” 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: 6/3 7igel Purchase Date 2/22) 9S 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rata: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Tatal KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH -O204 : Residential KWH: (2)(3) aBsso AdzXSO Commercial KWH: (21(3) b%00 / b300 Community Facilities KWH: (4) 10248 10 242 Total Eligible KWH: SO sug sO S42 Section E: Cartification Division of Energy Use Onty | horeby cardty that the informatio. | AXSAS Ves Miu: TEVSSOCS submitted to the Division of Energy in | Accounting: : Se 2 A995 of of __rtility) Beant LEN Af ae Appr. for Payment: CU “Tee im in participation with the’ Power Cost} A/C _21753029-95 -40981679-77210/ "A ppr_52728:95 _ Equaii jon program is true and correct PPr tha best of my kno Calculated Payment: 1OALt Adjustment: mom Disbursed Amount: CStis PCE Vendor No: PUCO47 Loc Code: 001 Billing Pariod Code: B45 B. {x 2.3 61 ikea Tie SENT BY: DCRA. DOE : 7-16-96 : 22:04 : DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- YU7 2/4 Luzz:F 4 STATE UF ALASKA > 2ite'Move Department of Community and Regional Affairs Phone:i907) 269-4500 Division of Energy *#*!_ (907) 269-4645 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY95 (AS 42.45.110) UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 72 / 7. Meters Reed 4 (Date) Utility Name —fafican Uuhty Comneny (2 / “2 No.of Days 2: Page 1 of 2 Bills Moiled (Date) o/s Street Address POD {oO Reguistad: Yes X No City. State, Zip_' : : : Phone Noi 227) 725. 220% Contact Name gery house Fax No. (707) 729. 228/ Section A . 1. Community Population 24D Date Population Certified by DcRA 2 1S) 74 2. No. of Customers: = Residential "3! Commercial S77 Community Feciities 2 Federal/State Facilities — > — Unbilled Customers_— 2 ~ Tota = Section B Generation Type Internal Comb, Hydro Other (Fuel: Diesel) | (Fuel: ) Total 1. Total KWH Generated VELL 250 52 £00 —-h~ sau 260 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) oi 30S” 3. Toted Fuel Cost fe 26.77 4, Total Non-Fuel Expenses: $ a Z 220 Section C 1. Total KWH Purchased: — — O- Purchased From: Nh 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Cansumption): (KWH) “4/4 7 3. Peak Demand: (KW) {50 2 -/ 7-25- £100 fr 4, Total KWH Sold to: Residential lp dD 29 l Commercia__ “FOTO Community Fecilittes __- /O/2.2 __Federal/State Facilities _—O — Unbilled KWH =—9>= Total ¢ 5. Gross Billed Revenuse to Customers: Resident 9292.42 —_9292. 9% ___commureis__/ 7343.85 ___ ISELS y Facilities «SS 7-9 7 Federal/Stata Fecilities_— O— tow FRITS. T+ Section D 1. Price of Fuel used by to determine PCE Rate: $_.. >’ /gal Date Rate Aprv. F183 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: $/4./37/gal Purchase Date 3 / 20/25” 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rates] —s- Rete #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Prasent PCE Rate ¢/KWH sOi20) zs | Residential KWH: (213) 35/55 _/ Se —ss/ss Commercial KWH: (2)(3) 6300 6305 Community Feollities KWH: (4) 10 i177 JO 617 Total Eligible KWH: ST S57¢ _S/S7 Section E: Certification . Division of Energy Use Only | | hereby certty that a intormation | AKSAS Vendor Na: Pi Aic "217%3029-95-40981870-77210- Appr $2728-95 a 8 Calcutated Payment: th Adjustment: Disbursed Amount: 166254 PCE Vendor No: PUCO47 Loc Code: 001 Billing Period Coc tis SENT BY :DCRA. DOE : 7-16-96 : 22:04 : DCRA DIV OF ENXERGY~ wus z/4 Z Sa Headless ee ee tert Department of Community and Regional Affairs Phone:(907) 268-4600 Division of Energy Fex: (907) 269-4645 ‘se sag POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY95 a - (AS 42.45.110) UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 04 / 6) / 9S to OY/ 30/95 No.of Days 20 remiilens Meters Raad (Date) * / 2) / FS Balls Mailed (Date) = // ) 25. Utility Name Pelican Usfilty Company a ch ht tT oI SL Streat Address __ 0 . Reguiated: Yes =X No City, State, Zip ah, caer AIC ELER Phone No.{707) 73S - 2204 Contact Name e@cry’ cate Fex No. (907) Z35_-- 2231 Section A 1, Community Population 24+ _ ate Population Certified by DCRA {2 1S | 1(P4- 2. Na. of Customers: Residential |7& Commercial 3 S_ Community Feciities | & Federal/State Facilities —O7 Unbilled Customers_—2— Totst 22S Section 8 Generation Type sees (Fuel: Dissei) Total 1. Total KWH Generated {A520 253,920 _ — 73 ole 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) 226 3. Total Fuel Cost 4. Total NonFual Expenses: $ /3 357. /9 | Section C 1, Total KWH Purchased: _—D~ Purchased mA hte ; 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption): (KWH) _/ 4 | 3, Peak Demand: (KW) SS #-//-95 ¢ pm | 4, Total KWH Sold to: | Residential 66799 Commercial 179 902 Cammunity Facilities LO, L Federai/State Facilities Os Unbitied KWH =0= Totd_ ASC XG 5. Gross Bled Revenues to Customers: Residential 277. 98 Commercial 2397.83 Community Facilities Se Fedaral/State Fackities_—~O ~ Total 35 202.32 Section D -. 1. Price of Fuel used by to determina PCE Rate: ¢_/-O/ igat Date Rate Apr. S/ | / 25 2. Most Recent Fusl Purchase Price: £73 7iget Purchase Date 2 1/3/95 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Race et / Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH ,ozod Residential KWH: (21(3) SES a ers eS Commercial KWH; (2)(3) faz = Z7 Z Community Facilities KWH: (4) _/0 /67 V Seep = 70126 Fim Total Eligible KWH: EST A SST SB: Section €: Certification Division of Energy Use Only { hereby certty that the information | AKSAS Vendor No: somite wt Dison of Egy | Atcomeng, ——-RACBSIS —S= TES — of of FE ee nn een a pe tn a an) ‘ IC. | Appr. for Payment: Otfn—- SS /2Y/GS in participation with fower Cost | A/C _21753029-96-20981670-77210 © Appr 52728-95 _ Equalization program is true and correct Apr Calculated Payment: AT LO. Ad@uatment: oc eee ee ee SENT BY: DCRA. DOE 7-16-96 : 22:05 : DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- Mud 2/4 LuzE-= © -STATE OF ALASKA > 2222S Department of Community and Regional Affairs Prone:1907) 269-4500 Division of Energy Fex; (907) 269-4645 HECEIVED POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY95 pos 1998 (AS 42.45.110) 7“ UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT ae Billing Period S_ Sif s/s 98 w_&/ 3!) FS No. of Days _ sf ne of 2 Moters Read (Date) \_ fo it Ll i “Fs Bas Mailed (Data) & ae! “it eS Les Utility Neme Pelican, Utility Company — —— = Street Address TO S© t Reguisted: Yes No City, State, Zip Phone No. gon) Fas Fas- Sree Contact Name __; A Fax No. (707) 275 -2Z8! Section A 1. Community Population 240 Date Population Certified by OGRA !2/ 1S / Fe 2. No. of Customers: Residental | &¢ Commercial 3S Community Facilities 2 Federal/State Facilities —© ~ Unbillad Customers__~2 —__Totei o aS Section B Generation Type Internal Comb. Hydro Other (Fual: Oleseil | (Fuel: ) Total . Total KWH Generated 44u0 263 S20 | 262, 40 2 1 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) 3 one . Total Fuel Cost 78 oF 4. Total Non-Fuel Expenses: $. /| 868.20 A, Bee Section C 1, Total KWH Purchased: Q___ Purchased From: NA 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption): (KWH) _/°7% =! — 3. Peok Demand: (KW) 580_ 5-31-45" 4. Total KWH Sold to: Residentis! 1088 Gommercia__ (82 921 Community Factities 213M Federai/State Facilities —O — Unbitled KWH Tote! 242 ‘ae 8. Gross Biled Revenues to Customars: Residential TUS, 32 Commercit__ 24 BRO. 8° Cammunity Facilities 232. O8 Federai/State Facilities © ~ Tote ~ 20 Section D 1. Price of Fusi used by to determine PCE Rate: ¢_/.2/ igal Date Rate Apry. 5S /_/ PS” 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: $1.97 /gai Purchase Date _S/2 24 9S 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: mes #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH Residential KWH: (2)(3) ae f Ble 2250 Commarcial KWH: (213) _bZzSer Weise e—__— 25% oO Community Facilities KWH: (4) ee 12d Total Eligible KWH: form _ { Section E: Certification | hereby certify that the intormation submitted to the Division of Energy in tot pasta | of cual AKSAS Vendor No: P Accounting: in participation with the/Power Cost ization progrem is true and correct the ba s fi é Disbursed Amount: PCE Vendor No: P' Billing Periad Cade: Zs. Bole SEMT BY :DCRA. DOE : 7-16-96 : 22:05: DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- WU 274 BUZZI= i “STATE GF ALASKA ? St2 ina Department of Community and Regional Affairs Phone:907) 263-4500 Division of Energy ‘Fax! (907) 269-4645 SOWA. eH ag POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY95 {AS 42.45.110) moma oe eae! SURA UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Vo { 20O/ == No. of Days wo Page 1 of 2 Bills Mailed (Date) )O Billing Period / Meters Read (Date) Utility Name = —__ Pelican Utility Comosny __ Strect Address ¥ entises | Liot Regulated: Yes No City, State, Zip “> a) AiC AS722 Phone No( 227) 735 - 220% Contact Nemes 2 Cf Noe 2 Fax No. (_727) “739 - 222! Section A malin 1. Community Population 249 Date Popuistion Cartified by DCRA {2 / {Ss 2. No. of Customers: Residential 24 Commercial ZS Community Faciiities | 2 Federai/State Facilities ~ > ~ Unbilled Customers_— O~ Tow 24 G Section 8 Generation Type Internal Comb. Hydro Other (Fuel: Diesel) (Fuel: ) Total zed 229 av aaa 1. Totet KWH Generated 26 S40 2677 720 =-4o- 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) Aa can : 3. Total Fuel Cost 2976.74 4. Total Non-Fuei Expenses: 3.12 557.2% Section C 1. Total KWH Purchased: __— “> —_ Purchased From: Xp 2, Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption): (KWH) ‘649 3, Peak Demend: (KW) 725 3-29-45 pe 4, Total KWH Sold to: Residential S2s5/F Commercia__ 200 2%6 Community Facilites 73+ Federal/State Facilities _—2 ~ _ Unbiled KWH —o- Total £60 753 S. Gross Billed Revenues t Customers: , i 72 Resident N12 42 commercial __2le 00."” Community Feciities // 7. SS Federai/State Faciiities__— — Total SS 226./8 Section D 1. Price of Fuel used by to determine PCE Rate: ¢_!.D! /gel Date Rate Aprv. SD // / 35° 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: ¢Li2 Tigel Purchase Date 3 1/7 / 9S 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rete #1, Rate #2 Rate #3 Tote! KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH slits Residential KWH: (23(3) 214isv BIGVES Commercial KWH: (21(3} 130% 29% Community Facilities KWH: (4) 7225, mis Total Eligible KWH: 4ss5S6 45554, Section E: Certification Division of Energy Use Only | heveby certty thet the information | AKSAS Vendor No: submitted to the Division of Energy in | Accounting: Ci weet MWayRS a i. oti) | 1G ,{ of __ utility) = ; Dac. | Appr. tor Payment: ee RG in participation with the Cost { A/C _21753029-95-40981670-77210 ___ Appr_62728:95 _ Equalization pragram ia true and correct Appr. tothe Bast of my kngwiedge. Calculated Payment: 927.24 Adjustment: APY. 2 ISAS IS Disbursed Amount: WBS si PCE Vendor No: PUCO47 Loc Code: 001 Billing Period Code: E 2G 1) Got SENT BY :DCRA. DOE : 7-16-96 : 22:06 : DCRA DIV OF E\ERGY- wus 2/4 Luz: TATE CF ALASKA 9 Sturm ; 5) Anonorage, AK 99501-2341 Department of Community and Regional Affairs — Phone907) 269-4500 Division of Energy Fax: (907) 269-4646 HECE vou sire 1 1995 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY96 Us ‘ (AS 42.45.110) ceyiston OF E:.EAGY. SCRA UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period “7 / 3)! (Sto _7/ 2! } 35° No.ofDays =! Page 1 of 2 Meters Read (Datel Bills Mailed (Date) 7 -) 1a Utility Name Street Address Reguiated: You mad No City. Stata, Zip Phone No.2 27) 725. 220% Cantact Name Fax No. (227; -25 - 228° Section A i 1. Community Populaten __ 240 _____D ete Population Certified by OCRA 21/51 9¢ 2. No. of Customers: Residential {7° Commercial “2 Community Facilities | 2 Federat/Stote Facilities ~ ©— Unbilled Customers — > ~ Total 2 7 Section 8 Generation Type Internal Como. (Fuel: Diesel) s Total 1. Total KWH Generated ipi 220 324 Ugo 426 +00 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) 3747 aie —— ee 3. Total Fuel Cost 10,470. lo 4. Tatal Non-Fuel Expanses: _ /3 246. 37 Section C / 1. Total KWH Purchased: _— O- Purchased From: af A 2. Station Service (Powerhouse are fom — 3. Peak Demand: (KW) 737 pulls 12. 4. Total KWH Sold to: Residentid_S7229 Commercial 295 SS. é Community Facilities F832 fedora stase Facilities Unbilied KWH Totai__ 369 37// §. Gross Billed Revenues to Customers: ef Residential _ 99 2 Oo __Commerciat, sae BS a SIM i Community Fa ae hte a Federal state Facilitias__~ © — Total Section 0 1. Price of Fusl used by to determine PCE Rate: ¢_/-2/ gai Date Rate Ap. 5 / | / 8S 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: $f. gal Purchase Date 7 127/95 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH 6173 al Residential KWH: (2)(3) Lett < Kos Commercial KWH: (2)(3) 630% psne Community Facilities KWH: (4} 7524 7 S2 Tatal Eligible KWH: a as 726 Section E: Certification | hereby certify that the information submitted to the Division of Energy in | Accounting: of of __ytility) | Appr. for Payment: A HAC... | ac Z in participation with the Rower Cast Equalization program is true and correct | Calcuiated Payment: 432.31 of my knowigdge, Adjustment: Catt, 75> Vic pDS-Fle f) Disbursed Amount: 79/0G PCE Vendor No: pucos7 ___loe Code:___01 Billing Perjod Code: SOE ee ee ecole . a 43 ae: 2 SENT BY :DCRA. DOE ‘ 7-16-96 : 22:06 : DCRA DIV OF ENERGY— gud 274 2uzzF Y _STATE CF ALASKA * Stetina Department of Community and Regional Affairs —Phene:9071 268-4600 Division of Energy Fax: (907) 269-4645 RECEIVED POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY96 SEP 19 1995 (AS 42.45.110) -- UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT DIVISION CF ENERGY/OCRA Billing Period % / Of! 9S to 9 / 3/ / 9S No. of Days Sif Page 1 of 2 Meters Read (Date) 2 / S/ / 40 Bills Mailed (Date) 7) | PS — od — mind ees Utility Name Street Address City, State, Zip Contact Name Section A 4. Community Population Be 2 Oita Date Population Certified by OCRA |Z) (5 / Ge 2. No. ot Customers: Residential !AX Commercial 3S Community Facilities /2 Federal/State Facilities “2 - Unbilled Customers_ ~© - Total i 24S” Section B Generation Type Interna’ Comb, (Fual: Diesel) . Totat Tota! KWH Generated l 3! 200 ail ( 40 mae . Fuel Used (Gallons) Zi a . Total Fuel Coat dl 0.8 4. Total Non: “mg a: 9 173. a2 Section C ; 1, Total KWH Purchased: —O- 2 Statian Service (Powerhouse Cc. b: 3. Pea Demand: (KW) ee aes 4. Total KWH Sold pint Regulated: Yes Phone No.7) 735 Bs 2 Fax No. (947 )_73 5 eT eno ay “a nD 100 prn b6 sei _3/7 Teen Fociiities ——2/Q1_ _ Federni/State Facilities *, Unbilled KWH___— =~ Fotal.. a 3ro.cdT S. Gross aed avenues to Customers: ic ctmalsiel Hf 2/3. 3 jerai/State Facitities —2 = Teh Section D an Sin at Pl oneal fey trslenmalnns PGR ches sho / jqai Date Rate Aprv. rSup a 2. Most Recent fuel Purchase Price: ¢L/27igei Purchase Date 2/2 19S 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 “ Rate #2 Rate #3 Tota! KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH 0173 Residential KWH: (21(3) B1474/7 31979 Cammercial KWH: (2)(3) ribo” Community Facilities KWH: (4) Totol Eligibla KWH: Section E: Certification 1 hereby certify that the information Division of Energy Use Only AKSAS Vendor Na: Accounting: __('. Appr. for Payment: Alc c in participation with the Power Cast Equalization program is true and correct Calculated Payment: 944,25 Adjustment: { ote 74D WAS IQ Disbursed Amount: ZOR. 4G PCE Vendor No: PUCO47 Loc Coda:. 904 Billing Period Code: 2/9 8. 9 2j12G61 SLIBASY SENT BY:DCRA. DOE : 7-16-96 : 22:07 DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- gud Zid ZUZZ+ FLU ~STATE GF ALASKA ? mesic inae "' —Bepartment of Community and Regional Affairs Phone:1907) 269-4500 Division of Energy Fax: (807) 269-4645 KECEIJED st POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM -FYg96 BECEIVED OCT 1 1995 (AS 42.45.110) I i UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT eee DIVIS:ON OF ENERGY/DCRA Billing Period 9) Of / 9S to 9 / S0/7S No. of Days __ SAMSON SE Estey. cn: Matera Read (Date! 4 129 | LFS Bills Mailed (Datel {O77 // 1_~ WL SAIBS Utility Name Street Address Reguiated: Yas _ Clty, State, “ip Phone No.| (901) “Contact Name” “Fax No. te ZAS .. 2d 2p Section‘Ae oe ee i ent er ime Sy Population melt. {> na Date Population Certified by DCRA mz 11S /9 1s 94 2, No. of Customers: 2 "Residential 194 Commeroial “3SS__ Community Facilites 2 3 Federal/State Facilities, - — Unbilled Customers ~O- Total 2: _Genersition Type TT Total KWH Generat re 2 Fuel Used (Gallons) ‘otal K KWH Purchased: es 72 * Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption}: — TRB teers : 3. eee ie Demand: (KW) oma 4:0 Section’D nae" 1. Price of Fuel used on determine PCE Rate: ¢ a. OL gal als Rate Aprv. = rt 8S 2, Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: 41-/27igai Purchase Date PZ) __ 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate#t , , Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH -O204 Residential KWH: (2){3) v 29 “So Commercial KWH: (2)(3) we (27 Community Facilities KWH: (4) Total Eligible KWH: if 3 i] sq ~ Te Oo9 Section E; Certification | hereby certify that the information submitted to the Divigon, of Energy in Calculated Payment: Ss $92.2 Adjustment: Disbursed Amount: SIG FA vziU6 + UCRA DIV OF CACKUI~ wus 2f4 ZUZZ +711 _STATE GFE ALASKA@ Stitt ce Department of Community and Regional Affairs — Phone:8071 269-4600 Division of Energy Fax: (907) 268-4645 Ee “ei JEc POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY9g “ECs! /E0 (AS 42.45.110) NOY +> (995 UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 107% | / 98 to {0 / 2! ; 4S No. of Days Ti Meters Read (Date)! / aS Bills Mailed (Dater 7 3 9S Utility Name _ Pelican Utility Company ~ A Street Address fe \O Regulated: Yes ~ No Clty, State, Zip“ Tevneaay !¢ GAZ22 phone No.297) 2735 _ tet ec Contact Name ety Noate. Fax No. (407) FA RTS Wl, Section A ; Ls / 1. Community Population 240 Date Popuiation Cartified by OCRA /2/ {>i 9¢ 2. No. of Customers: Residential 2OR Commercial 2G Community Facilities | 2 Federal/State Facilities ~ 2 Unbilled Customers “> ~ Tota 255 = 2Pev-oen: Section B Generation Type | internal Comb. Hydro | Other | (Fuel: Olesei) (Fuel: Total 1. Total KWH Generated S312 229 420 als 323 O40 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) a 3. Total Fuel Cost 92.60 4. Total Non-Fuei Expenses: $ 4 Section C 1. Total KWH Purchased: — © Purchased From: N/A o 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Consymption); (KWH) DZ O Sar 3. Peak Demend: (kW) SI S dpe. 4. Total KWH Sold to: Residential bol 378 ommercial Alo & gS Community Facilities | G iS Federai/State Facilities “O- Unbillad KWH __=O>- Total 26997B 5. Gross Billed Revenues to Customers: Residential SF Silo. 29 Commercial Zle 40 Ss! Community Facilities Tenge nh Facilitios -o- Totat 3) 4 t. Seation 0 pe 1. Price of Fusi used by to determine PCE Rate: + Lot Jgai Date Rate Aprv. > / | / 8S 2. Most Recent Fuel Purchase Price: $£./7 gai Purchase Date _/0 /24/ 9S" 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH -OZ04 Residential KWH: (2)(3) 4 329¢ / B4394 Commercial KWH; (2)(3) bao 0370 Community Facilities KWH: (4) las Y PEAT the qs Total Eligible KWH: 52739 Y 34,735 Section E: Certification Division of Energy Use Only | hereby certify that the information | AKSAS Vendor No: itted ta the Divigio in | Accounting: Appr. for Payment: Calculated Payment: (OTS. S&F Adjustment: Disbursed Amount: OK ns So PCE Vendor No: Billing Period Code: B. TET! SENT BY :DCRA. DOE SU/ 24 ZUZZ+Fl2 333 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Phona:(907) 269-4500 Fax: (907) 269-4645 7-16-96 : 22:09 : DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- STATE CF ALASKA ? Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy = POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY96 15 1935 (AS 42.45.110) UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Z0 sinc Mh RHR cel Ooh mela Page tof 2 Meters Read (Datel f So) 42S Bills dis Malled (Date) EZ ess ASS Utility Name Street Address QD. Sex it Regulated: Yes City, State, Zip Decand A Ff 9332 Phone No. 407 5 }_ 735 i Zoi Contact Name sjerry Noe a Fax No. (2973 73S. VOT Section A 1. Community Population _2UO_____ Date Population Certified by OCRA |Z //S_ 1 a¢ 2. No. of Customers: Residential _'S7 * a Community Facilities /2 Federai/State Facilities Unbilled Customers — O- Total 23G Section B Generation Type Internal Comb. | » (Fuel: Dieeel) Total 1. Total KWH Generated i oO 166 280 mole 129 20 2. Fuel Used (Gallons) Bre 3. Total Fuel Cost Z 4. Total Non-Fuel Expenses: 3 ZO?. Section C ag 1. Total KWH Purchased: __~ ©. —_ purchased From: 2. Station Service (Powerhouse Consumption): (KWH) cape vacate 3, Peak Demand: (KW) Ls5 Nvio 4 frn - 4. Total KWH Sold to: es Raaisontat___00,76 5 _ommorcil lé Lo S75) Community Facilities ‘ederai/State Facilities __ — O — SS Unbilled Snes eae ade epee 5. Gross Billed Revenues to Customers: tavcenta 93S LB commerciat_/9S520. 15 _ Community Facilities SB. 7S Faderal/State Facilities___—O — Total 7 5 2S Section D 1. Price of Fust used by to determine PCE Rate: 6 L2? get Date Rate Aprv. Se) [ pL IRS 2. Mast Recent Fuel Purchase Price: #/4Zigal Purchase Oate _/ /22/ 95° 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Totel KWH \ Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH ZO dy | Residential KWH: (2){3) 1g- 5/4 Commercial KWH: (213) 6432~ te eee Community Facilities KWH: (4) LLB 26~ 2 Total Eligible KWH: Sele: Hs Section E: Cartification | hereby certify that the information submitted to the Olvision of Energy In Division of Energy Use Only AKSAS Vendor mee PEUSIO08 Appr. for Penadei / alc "zrvasnonae-aosat67h-7izi0 |" Appr Sa72Rba ‘ _Appr. Calculated Payment: LOVE SE Adjustment: Disbursed Amount: = Lee. Ss PCE Vendor No: PUCO47 Loc Code: 001 Billing Period Code: Bee Dienst in participation with the Power Coat Equalization program is true and corract OOOO SE~ENI aie : 7-16-96 > 22:09 + DCKA DIV OF ENERUY- YU 2/4 LZULZ+ FLO (STAT ENE VAM AS Kat etc cen y Department of Community and Regional Affairs — Phene1907) 268-4500 i Sen Division of Energy Fax: (907) 269-4646 aa ye ‘ cw POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM - FY96 (AS 42.45.110) cond UTILITY MONTHLY REPORT Billing Period 2 /_ Ol / FE to ue eS is. No. of Days IDRC MNES Page 1 of 2 Meters Read d (Date) piyzaad 1} 2G } a Bills Mailed (Date) ee ri 1h 9 Utility Name = __ Pelican Utility Company Street Address | ©. So Regulated: Yes X __ City, State, Zip__ 12 KK 26 Phone No.(.927) 23S —Z3S_. aaa = Contact Name ayy | Aloa ie Fax No. (907, 79S. 2287 Section A 1. Community Population stataetes 2 EL) et Date Population Certified by DcRA (2) 1 S/F 2. No. of Customers: Residential _ 174 Commercial 3S _ Community Facilities / 2 Faderat/State Facilities — © ~ Unbillad Customers —~ > Total 22/ Section B Generation Type Intarnal Comb. Hydro Other (Fuel: Diesel) (Fuel: ' Total 1. Total KWH Generated 83 ep Le LL Sali 2. Fuel Used (Galions} 3. Total Fuai Cost 23. ss 4. Total Nan-Fusi Expenses: 6. & arg Cee le - Tots KWH Purchased: _— OQ — Purchased From: f Station Service aol Paes DEO beet pon (KWH) 3, Peak Demand: wi £60 Dec. 4 4. Total KWH Sold to: Residential. ommercial 106 081 Community Faoititios TiS 4EE Fem Factities___— OQ — Unbilled KWH, mai Total _L87_¥¢8 5. Gross Billed Revenues to Customers: 9 Residential {0,3 Commercial f Fa a. fo? he Community Facilities 152184, Spear Faoilities___ ~O— Total 26 70R%,26 Section D 1. Price of Fuel used by to determine PCE Rate: $43/ jgni Date Rate Apr. 5 / / / OS 2, Moat Recent Fuel Purchase Price: 94/77 gai Purchase Data AZ) 221 | Ig 3. PCE Eligible KWH by Rate: Rate #1 Rate #2 Rate #3 Total KWH Present PCE Rate ¢/KWH -0204¢ ~ Residential KWH: (2)(3) irs Se 75 alee ees Commercial KWH: (2)(3) sau if [ena biee Community Facilities KWH: (4) [38237 Total Eligible KWH: Ss Ss bt! g Section E: Certification | heraby certify that the infarmation submitted to the Division of Enargy in of «fot itity) > } fate Division of Energy Use Only AKSAS Vendor No: PEUS3008 Accounting: Gy ze Appr. for Payment: , ' In participation with the wer Cost Equalizavon Program is true and correct nee { my knowigtge. Calculated Payment: en Ge Adjustment: inured Amount: Bliling Period Code: fFly ponies Eo nw 7A ee eo Appendix G Pelican Utility FY95 Statistical Data 907 274 2022:4 2 8:50 DCRA DIV OF ENERGY- > 7- 8-96 ; SENT BY :DCRA. DOE Pelican Utility FY95 Statistical Data T Generated 1 ‘Fuel Used Fuel Cost Non-fuel | Payment PELICAN | 1 119,040] 332,960] | 409,708 10,679 $11,501 ~ $22,534 $878 PELICAN zi 95 272.480. 272,160| {| 490,049 22,990 $24,760 | | $25,483 | $909 PELICAN: 3,_~—Ss=“‘( 148,000 255,360 364,216 12,571] | $13,539 [| $18,575 $891 | PELICAN 4j 95; 29,120; + 223,840 228,610 2,587 $2,941 $11,202 $1,049 PELICAN 5 95/ 35,840) 182,240| | 211,143! _ 3,335 $3,792 $10,135 $1,182 PELICAN 6 95 101,280] 102,720 180,933 8,971: $10,200 , $8,685 $1,070 PELICAN 7 95| 130,080/ ‘80,480 201,512 10,951, $12,451 $10,277 $1,086 PELICAN 8 95 64,480| 126,080! | 170,282 5,478 $6,228; | $8,855) $1,031 PELICAN| 9 95 171,360 53,600' | 199,584| | 14,305 $16,265 $9,979 $1,052 PELICAN 10 95| 19,520] 253,920 256,869| | 1,266 _ $1,439 $13,357 $1,027 PELICAN 4 95 4,960| 236,520 | 242,143 638 $764| | $11,866 $957 PELICAN | ; 26,560| 257,760. | 260,755 $2,977 $13,559 Pelican Total 3,215,804] $106,858 $164,506 Appendix H Pelican Hydro - Par Bm Aw PELICAN HYDRO JULY 1990 pol rec: ult. | *: ,inc. ENGINEERS e SURVEYORS ¢ ENERGY CONSULTANTS 1503 WEST 33RD AVE.e ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 polarconsult . Pelican Hydro July 5,1990 To: Pelican Seafoods Box 110 Pelican, Alaska 99832 Att: Tom Whitmarsh, Chief Engineer Dear Mr. Whitmarsh, This letter is to let you know how we are progressing on our investigation of the dam and hydro plant. We have essentially completed our analysis of the turbine, dam stability, and the intake structure. However we are waiting for certain criteria information from FERC which we need to completely finish our analysis. We also investigated an alternative intake structure and wing wall which we think might be more advantageous for your circumstances. We will be sending you all of this information along with some sketches after we get the FERC information. Additionally, we did a preliminary investigation of the penstock stability as a bonus. We checked the pile supports and found that they are adequate as long as at least 9 inches in diameter of sound wood (not rotted) is present. If less than 9 inches of sound wood is present, then this would raise concerns over the adequacy of the supports. We checked the earthquake stability of the penstock using static methods. If each support structure is considered as having 12' or more of full pipe as its load, the structure is subject to overturning during an earthquake. With 8' of full pipe as the load, the situation is marginal. The static methods of earthquake analysis do not take into account any resonance or vibrational effects on the structure. Additionally, the wave like whipsawing of the penstock during an earthquake is difficult to predict. As a minimum measure, the ends of the pile supports should be securely anchored to the ground in such a manner as to provide 2000 Ib. of uplift resistance, and the connection of the penstock to the power house should be investigated. Failure of the penstock could cause significant damage to the powerhouse. We will be sending you our report soon. If there is anything else we can do for you, or include in the final report, let us know. . Sincerely, Earle Ausman, President polarconsult Pelican Hydro REGIONAL HYDROLOGY polarconsult Pelican Hydro FLOOD PROJECTIONS polarconsult Pelican Hydro Flood Projections Flows were estimated based on precipitation records, topology, topography, and Forest Service records. The estimated flow rates are as follows: Peak Flow Rates 2 year recurrence interval 2969 cfs 5 year 3941 10 year 4523 25 year 5214 50 year 5617 100 year flood 6117 The confidence interval for the above projections is 90%. The recent severe flood in Pelican, which was reported to be the worst on record since 1940, was estimated at 4300 to 4500 cfs. This value agrees roughly with the above 50 year value of 5617 cfs. The range of flow for a 100 year flood is from 2558 to 14,629 cfs, which represents the extreme ends of the statistical distribution for projected flow rates, and so are very improbable. A second set of calculations were made using the method from "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams", Water Resources Investigations 78-129, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Department of Transportation and the. Federal Highway Administration. The computations yielded values for the 50 year flood of 2966 cfs and 3272 cfs for the 100 year flood. These values are in relative agreement with those utilizing the preceding method. polarconsult Pelican Hydro HAZARD CLASSIFICATION polarconsult Pelican Hydro Hazard Classification The Pelican installation should be classified as low hazard potential for the following reasons: Ls No life threatening hazard due to dam failure 2s If a maximum flood occurred, the dam would be completely submerged. The notches downstream would act to back water up to a depth of 22 ft. at the dam (same height as the dam) at a flow rate of 24,000 cfs, or to a depth of almost 20' at a flow rate of 14,000 cfs. In other words the channel itself acts as a restriction, so that if the dam failed under these conditions, only a minimal change in flow rate, or water surface elevation would be noticeable. Also, even if the dam failed, the notches (less than 15' wide at the bottom) would serve to further restrict any downstream movement of 135' long dam debris. At the projected 100 year flood of 6117 cfs, failure of the dam would only produce a small additional flow in proportion to the flood flow, so that even under these conditions, the sustained flow due to a flood far exceeds the short term flow due to any dam failure. For these reasons, if a flood occurred which could cause dam failure, the hazards downstream would be due mainly to the flood waters, regardless of the dam. These hazards would exist even if there were no dam. A Dam Safety Inspection report done for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources by Charles T. Main in 1985 concludes that the dam should be classified as a significant hazard. This classification is not based on safety but economic loss. The Pelican electrical supply is backed up with diesel electric generators which operate when flows are low and during peak periods when the hydro plant can not meet the demands. In the event the dam was lost it would be fairly easy to get water into the flume or water pipeline with a modest pump or by running a gravity line. Therefore, the economic consequences of failure are small and the dam should be classified as a low hazard structure and as such can be designed using a 50 to 100 year flood frequency. It should be noted that one of the advantages of a timber crib rock filled structure is that it can be over topped without failure of the main structure. Failure of the wing walls, which were over topped by three feet, would have almost no measurable effects on downstream water levels. In the dam's current configuration a very large flood which removed the wing walls could damage or destroy the intake flume. The flume moved to the side during the flood of record. If the flume was lost it could be back in service in a week. polarconsult Pelican Hydro STABILITY polarconsult Pelican Hydro Pelican Dam Stability The Pelican dam is a rock fill timber crib type design in a sound rock channel, constructed in 1940. The current spillway is 55 feet wide, with timber supported wood plank wing walls on each side approximately 4 feet in height initially and have now been raised to near 7 feet. The purpose of this report is to present the results of dam stability analyses by Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Three different dam configurations were checked for stability: 1. The existing dam 2. A proposed 16 foot crib extension to the existing downstream face 3. A possible future 7 foot increase in height of the dam after the crib extension has been constructed. STABILITY CRITERIA A gravity dam must be designed to resist, with ample factors for safety, overturning and sliding. Safety factors are given by FERC guidelines , "Engineering Guidelines For The Evaluation Of Hydropower Projects", FERC 0119-2 reprinted in December 1989, and depend upon the loading condition and hazard classification of the structure. The projected 100 year flood was determined to be about 6100 cfs, and the average monthly flow was 272 cfs max. Based upon the hydrologic analyses, a flow of 6100 to 14,000 cfs would be considered as unusual loading, and any flow, 14,000 cfs and over, would be considered as extreme. All three configurations were checked for stability under conditions up to a flow of 24,000 cfs. Only stability due to overtuming and sliding was checked using water pressure and it was assumed based on observations by Mr. Whitmarsh that the nape was ventilated so no nape suction forces were used. Assumptions: Unit weight of rockfill : 95 1b/ft3 Unit weight of saturated timbers : 55 Ib/ft? Rockfill makes up 80% of the volume Wood timbers make up 20% of the volume Tailwater against the dam causes a weight reduction and a corresponding reduction in total horizontal force. AS SY > Dalinan Huden polarconsult Pelican Hydro 6. No uplift forces for this type of structure. 7. Silt buildup behind dam contributes to the total horizontal and vertical forces. Using Rankine's formula the horizontal component is 2030 Ib. and the vertical component is 4140 Ib. 8. The minimum friction angle of rockfill on top of rock is 35 degrees, giving a friction factor of 0.7 . Stability calculations are based on a level foundation as per drawings provided. 9. It was assumed that the cribs were entirely full. This is not the case at present. Using the above assumptions, the unit weight of the dam would be 87 lb/ft? dry and 45.8 Ib/ft3 when saturated. The results of the stability check are as follows: polarconsult Pelican Hydro PELICAN STABILITY RESULTS Existing Dam: Flow Tailwater cfs depth ft. 228 0 645 1.0 1185 2.7 1824 4.5 2550 6.0 3351 ies 4223 9.0 5159 10.4 6156 11.6 7210 12.9 9478 15.3 11,943 17.4 14,592 19.5 17,412 aieS 20,393 23.0 23,929 24.8 Proposed 16' Extension: Flow cfs 228 645 ~ 1185 1824 2550 3351 4223 5159 6156 7210 9478 11,943 14,592 17,412 20,393 23,929 Tailwater depth ft. 0 1.0 2.7 4.5 6.0 eo 9.0 10.4 11.6 12.9 15.3 17.4 19:5 21.3 23.0 24.8 Evert Fuori 4.39 3.94 3.54 3:22 2.98 DT 2.61 2.47 2.34 2.24 2.06 1.92 1.80 1.69 1.56 1.41 Evert Fyorwz 6.03 5.44 4.90 4.48 4.15 3.88 3.66 3.47 3.30 3.16 2:92, 212, 2.56 2.40 222) 2.01 eccentricity F.S.or e (ft.) 12.81 8.75 12.65 7.58 12.49 6.52 12.33 5.67 12.16 5.02 11.99 4.50 11.81 4.07 11.63 ose 11.43 3.42 11.23 3.17 10.78 21 10.25 2.46 9.67 2.21 8.98 1.99 7.96 1.79 6.58 EDI eccentricity F.S.op e (ft.) 22.62 19.81 22.47 17.10 22.30 14.64 22.13 12.65 21.97 11.14 21.82 9.91 21.67 8.90 2152 8.07 21.36 7.39 2121 6.80 20.88 5.86 20.51 5.14 20.11 4.57 19.64 4.10 18.93 3.66 17.96 3.24 polarconsuit Pelican Hydro 7' Height Added to 16' Extension Flow Tailwater Everr eccentricity F.S.or cfs depth ft. For e€ (ft.) 228 0 4.58 20.70 10.89 645 1.0 4.21 20.46 9.67 1185 2.7 3.85 20.16 8.51 1824 4.5 S57, 19.86 7.54 2550 6.0 3:33) 19.57 6.78 3351 Tes) 3.14 19.28 6.13 4223 9.0 2.97 19.00 5.58 5159 10.4 2.83 18.71 S213 6156 11.6 2.70 18.42 4.74 7210 12.9 2.59 18.13 4.40 9478 1533 2.40 17.53 3.85 11,943 17.4 2:25 16.90 3.42 14,592 19.5 21 16.26 3.07 17,412 23 2.00 15.56 2.78 20,393 23.0 1.87 14.74 23) 23,929 24.8 1.72 13.72 2.28 polarconsuit Pelican Hydro EXISTING DAM Flow Tailwater Overturning Sliding Sliding peel (4 1) BES SSS SESS SEE 1.1 RESSSS SSS SESS) UN REESESSSEA/) > CSSSSSanS) Nh 4300 9.0 4.07 2.61 1.83 6100 11.6 3.42 2.34 1.64 14,000 19.5' 22 1.80 1.26 24,000 22.0' 157, 1.41 1.00 Notes: V is the sum of vertical forces and H is the sum of horizontal forces. 4300 cfs represents the maximum flood ever recorded at Pelican dam site, since 1940. If the dam is considered to be at the limit for sliding, i.e. F.S. sliding = 1.0, then the back-calculated friction factor (tan of angle) would be 0.38 . Sliding F.S. is calculated using (V/H)*(tan 35°) Tailwater depth was calculated using downstream channel configuration. 16 FOOT EXTENSION TO EXISTING DAM Flow Tailwater Overturning Sliding Sliding Sa (Cf 5) Sie Serene! dep th ieee Sena een / eee Ss 4300 _ 9.0 8.90 3.66 2.56 6100 11.6' es) 3.30 Pept 14,000 19.5' 4.57 2.56 1.80 24,000 22.0) 3.24 2.01 1.40 7 FOOT HEIGHT EXTENSION ON TOP OF 16 FOOT ADDITION Flow Tailwater Overturning Sliding Sliding (cfs) depth ES. V/H ES. 4300 9.0 5.58 2.97 2.08 6100 11.6' 4.74 2.70 1.89 14,000 1935; 3.07 2.11 1.48 24,000 22.0' 2.28 172 1.20 polarconsult Pelican Hydro STABILITY CONCLUSIONS The FERC safety factor requirements for low hazard potential concrete gravity dams are as follows: " Ww, Usual 0 to 6099 2.0 Unusual 6100 to 14,000 1.25 Extreme 14,001 and up 1.00 All analyzed dam configurations are stable with respect to overturning. However, the existing dam does not meet the requirements for sliding. Adding the 16 foot extension to the dam will make it stable against sliding. Future raising of the structure an additional 7 feet will decrease the sliding F.S. There is a degree of uncertainty as to the value of the friction which should be used for the site for the following reasons: (1) Resistance to sliding may be provided by the structural bridging of the wood cribs across the channel; (2) The rock surface could be sloped instead of level, or the rock surface could be very smooth. Published literature gives a minimum value of 35° for a rock on rock friction angle, which would make the friction factor 0.7 . Back calculations based upon the maximum flood of record indicate that the friction factor exceeds 0.38. Based upon published literature and the past performance of the dam, a conservative value of 0.7 for the coefficient of sliding friction is reasonable. polarconsuit Pelican Hydro ALTERNATIVE BUTTRESSING noalareoncult : Pelican Hydro polarconsult Pelican Hydro Recommendations Alternative Buttressing An alternative method of stabilizing the deteriorating cross log support of the existing structure was conceived. The alternative would utilize a number of space steel frames in an A frame configuration which could hold the downstream log face in position. This support would perform the same function as the proposed downstream cribs. The criteria which was used to make a rough analysis on the costs was that the A frame face strength must be able to support the entire water load for a dam 7 feet higher then the present structure. Based on this calculation and utilizing two classes of bent structures spaced 8 feet on centers it was calculated that approximately 27,000 pounds of steel would be required. Based on structural steel costs of 40 cents per pound, the material for the steel frame work cost would total $14,000. Each one of the A frames would have to be anchored against up lift and horizontal loading at the face member and have a thrust anchor at the toe. This support for the steel would require some minor concreting and would call for rock drilling in greater quantity than that proposed for the crib system tie downs. The advantage of the steel bracing system is that much of it could be installed during the warmer weather periods as compared to the rock fill, and a flood during construction would not be critical. A steel system would not require a dozer, loader, backhoe or other heavy machinery at the dam site, and blasting could be greatly reduced or limited. Further rock hauling would be decreased. The structure could be designed so it could easily be extended to raise the existing dam the planned 7 feet, and in time when the existing wood decays could be part of the replacement structure. The A structure assumptions were made to arrive at an outer envelope of material quantity, and cost. Relaxing the criteria to accommodate only the structural loads on the downstream logs and to increase the sliding resistance of the dam a modest amount would result in considerably lighter members then those cited. The materials for a A structure would be designed so that they would be within a helicopter transportable size. Rock drilling would be done by a heavy air drill or a small air trac which was supplied by 2 inch PE pipe from a compressor located at the powerhouse. With this new A frame ee ees polarconsult Pelican Hydro ple left abutment wing wall would be eliminated in its entirety and rock material excavated at this location would be used to bring the rock fill in the cribs of the existing dam to grade. oe bean Buttress: 4g polarconsult alaska, inc. SHEET NO, ZL 1503 West 33rd Avenue « Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 paeeetlee ly es (907) 258-2420 Fax (907) 258-2419 CHECKED SY Are SCALE AL. aS L oven SKetces. __ MID SEZTIONI polarconsult Pelican Hydro INTAKE polarconsult Pelican Hydro Recommendations The criteria for a new intake for this structure is to replace the section of the flume with a structure which can survive a large flood, operate utilizing the present copertte flume and accommodate the replacemenyin time with pipe which can utilized the storage behind the dam and take advantage of the proposed 7 foot increase in head gained by raising the dam. The intake should be fairly easy to build, inexpensive and have a long life. A butterfly valve was investigated and the list price on a 25 pound rated wafer type valve from Center Line was about $13,000. This price did not include the cost of the weld flanges or the bolts. Although a butterfly valve is easy to install it has the disadvantage of collecting debris, and if it is installed would have to have a much better trash rack system upstream then the one presently in use. It should also be equipped with a stop log system so the intake can be shut off and the valve removed. An alternative would be a sliding gate. The advantage of the slide gate is that it is easy to repair and remove without effecting operations and is less subject to problems from debris. The cost of a slide gate can be lower, about $6,000. The disadvantages are that the intake will be about 1.5 feet higher and there would be a turn in the pipe entrance which will cause some head loss. The other disadvantage is that a new structural support should be provided for the gate along with a walkway to reach the operator when there is a flood. The least inexpensive alternative would be to construct a pipe intake in the existing concrete flume with a connection to the wooden face of the dam. The intake would have slides on the face of the dam which would accommodate stop logs, and a trash rack. The stop logs would be adjusted to provide the maximum required flow when the water was level with the spillway. When the water level dropped, the flow would drop which would not be of consequence as all available water would be used. That is, it would be self regulating. When the water level was above the spillway crest the excess water coming through the opening would have to be discharged in a overflow section in the flume and/or at the forebay of the penstock. To shut off the water for repairs in the downstream sections additional stop logs would have to be dropped into place. This will be more time consuming then shutting the gate or valve. In addition in event of a emergency the flume will not be able to be shut down using a remote system. Either a gate or a butterfly valve can be operated utilizing remote systems or a hydraulic cylinder. polarconsult : Pelican Hydro The system in the proposal utilizing a 48 inch butterfly valve, as shown will work. It might be improved by putting the bypass line on the bottom where it would function as a drain if the intake was ever closed with stop logs. If this is done it is possible to eliminate the 24 inch valve which will save money. An additional item which should be added to the intake is provision for stop logs so the flume can be shut down and the valve worked on. The trash rack should be on slides and removable so the stop logs can use the same slides. The system may function better if the opening and rack lies on a center line perpendicular to the face. ee G WALL JOB polarconsult alaska, inc. SHEET NO oF 1503 West 33rd Avenue « Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 Chee eee aid (907) 258-2420 Fax (907) 258-2419 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE yy Ati, 32" GATE CONTROL, BEHIND 3/2" PLANKS Ax8Bs @ 32"0¢, polarconsult Pelican Hydro COFFERDAM PLANS polarconsult Pelican Hydro Recommendations A coffer dam design is provided. This coffer dam has the capability of withstanding 8 feet of head and is constructed of plywood and framing. The coffer dam can be sealed utilizing sand bags or using wedges or strips of wood. The wooden interfaces to the existing dam will have to match as closely as possible to reduce leakage so the pumps can handle it. As the coffer dam is made of wood it will have to be-weighted to sink it. This can be done with rocks in the bottom or a few people standing on it. If the water level is down the coffer dam will be above the surface so it will sink from its own weight. The coffer dam is designed for bolts through a steel angle to connect to the wooden dam as water is being removed. This design will enable the coffer dam to be put into place without divers. « The bolting is to keep flotation from floating the cofferdam. The bolts should penetrate and be connected to members which have sufficient capacity to withstand the + 15,000 pounds of uplift force. Dn Diveé nape neces rm pf Sein UPSTREAM A FACE £46 Bucls (ATO i 4xlZ (TYP) 212, THRU Bue 7S . INTAKE. AREA 30vos ree "AK/2 ContiAl(UOS Boral FACE i Preckeer | RE | adel i i Ss Broa de | seed. (sacs ere, wee O2v2-8S2 (206) €0S66 VASVIY “3DVYOHONY OTE A}INS » anuany PIEE ISAM EOST ‘ou| ‘eyseje yjnsuoosejod 612-852 (206) xed AB O3N93HD A8 G31V1NDIVO Bivo Baivo ON 133HS 30 VEIN NY EL WYUsEHo7 MoM Fico SECTION AS A UNIT es el laura FLaoe SECTION, AS AU | Note BUILD | . a1vos ZAss/P1e0 | Ba7s MUST BE (NTO 06s. or OTHER | WO~ 12% vn ae ave (eel aie © S$ a STs, Pe eo 2 2oa=s alfa x nO Roa a NEw Sok ma eed «OS anc Sze or. ioe, ne Anos OW R w R _ IO © oO a: a oO g c a © Cilia 2 6 o = ° °o i ‘ou| ‘eyseje }jnsuosiejod “ON 433HS gor a SECITON. 22 polarconsult alaska, inc. deere ae 1503 West 33rd Avenue « Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 eeeeerit oA (907) 258-2420 Fax (907) 258-2419 CHECKED By DATE SCALE 34" er mot — Q = L AN6LE Lex 4" lags, oe th sl s"x Bl -Zx12 FRAMES a eS polarconsult Pelican Hydro FISH WATER SUPPLY polarconsult Pelican Hydro Recommendations There is a requirement for 3 cfs constant flow for fish purposes. This flow can be derived by branching off of the 48 inch pipe and placing a orifice at the end of the branch. The orifice which is constructed for 0.5 inch steel plate can be easily changed to a smaller size if conditions warrant. Such a condition might be if the water that is leaking through the dam were counted. An other condition will be when the dam is raised. The orifice as shown on the drawings is based on the assumption that the minimum reservoir surface is no lower then 6 inches below the spillway crest. It is also based on the assumption that the orifice is on the center line of the 48 inch pipe which lies at the bottom of the flume which is 8 feet below the spillway crest at the assumed elevation of 130 feet. If conditions warranted the orifice could be moved to the bottom of the 48 inch pipe where it would also serve as a drain. It could then serve to replace the 24 inch bypass valve. If it were moved the hole size should be recalculated. The disadvantage of the bottom location is because of debris pick up. The advantage is the small particles will be removed from the pipe before reaching the forebay. The orifice will need to be checked for stick blockage. Any of the other schemes can also be outfitted with a short section of pipe and a orifice. If the flume is replaced by a pipeline and stored water becomes of value it will probably pay to provide a more sophisticated system that will provide a constant flow under varying heads, but at this time it is not warranted. polarconsult alaska, inc. SHEET No Porcine e 1503 West 33rd Avenue * Suite 310 Er: vate LOLS “Fe ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 CARCULATED BY (907) 258-2420 | Fax (907) 258-2419 CHECKED By DATE SCALE FEL! CAN FL SIT. Fy, ros Sa emecl! — Beefs | A eswmnel! =k er cresk polarconsult Pelican Hydro HEAD LOSSES polarconsuilt Pelican Hydro Pelican Hydroelectric System Head Losses Turbine Inlet Pi The existing inlet to the 100 KW turbine was investigated to determine the head loss. Data: Flow rate : 11.65 cfs Velocity thru 12" pipe : 14.99 ft/sec , based on an internal diameter of 11.938" K factors used: Sharp edged inlet : .5 20 degree bend : .07 12" to 10" reducer, 3" long : .024 (calculated) 12" butterfly valve : .35 Head loss in 12" pipe at 5228 gpm : 5' per 100' of length (Cameron's). The access hatch portion was treated as a section of 12” pipe. Based upon the above values, the head loss with this existing configuration is approximately 4 ft. polarconsult Pelican Hydro The proposed new inlet system was investigated for head losses. Data: Flow rate : 11.65 cfs Velocity at 27" diameter inlet : 2.93 ft/sec K factors used: Sharp edged inlet : .5 Due to necking of inlet : .09 Bifurcation of inlet : .88 (metric system) 18" to 12" reducer, 32" long : .0231 (calculated) Standard 12" 45 degree elbow : .21 12" butterfly valve : .35 12" to 10" reducer, 3" long : .024 (calculated) 12" pipe at 5228 gpm, head loss taken as 5' per 100' of length (Cameron's) The access hatch portion was treated as a section of 12" pipe. Based upon the above values, the head loss was determined to be approximately 2.4 ft. with this system. Note that the head loss would actually be slightly higher due to increased flow velocity. An alternate system was investigated. The layout consists of a 14" long radius 22.5 degree elbow, 14" pipe, 14" butterfly valve, 14" to 12" reducer, and 12" to 10" reducer into the turbine, all in one straight run (sketch included). Data: Flow rate : 11.65 cfs Velocity in 14" pipe : 12.17 ft./sec, base on an I.D. of 13.25" K factors used: Inlet losses - rounded edges : .27 22.5 degree long radius 14" elbow : .2 14" butterfly valve : .35 14" to 12" reducer, 13" long : .004 (calculated) 12" to 10" reducer, 8" long : .01 (calculated) 14" pipe at 5228 gpm head loss was taken at 3 ft. per 100 ft. of length (Cameron's). polarconsult Pelican Hydro The head loss through the alternate system was calculated to be approximately 2 ft. The actual head loss would be slightly hizher due to increased flow velocity. Formulas and k factors were obtained from Cameron's Hydraulic Data Handbook. Internal pipe diameters were obtained from the handbook based on schedule 40 pipe, and from manufacturer's data provided by H.D. Fowler Co. The head losses estimated from the new and alternate systems will be adjusted based on the increased flow rate due to draft tube head loss calculations, which are more significant. The adjustments are made at the conclusion of this report. Draft Tube The existing draft tube was investigated to determine the head loss from the turbine to the exit. Data : Flow rate: 11.65 cfs Velocity thru 10" pipe : 21.4 ft./sec K factors used: 10" 90 degree standard bend : .42 10" 20 degree mitered bend : .11 Exit losses : 1.0 Head loss thru 10" pipe at 5228 gpm was taken as 12.2' per 100' of length (Cameron's). Total calculated head loss through the existing draft tube was approximately 14.4 ft. polarconsult Pelican Hydro The new proposed draft tube system was analyzed for head loss. Data: Flow rate : 11.65 cfs Velocity through the 10" turbine exit : 21.4 ft/sec. K factors used : 10" to 12" expansion, 8" long : .03 (calculated) 90 degree long radius elbow, expansion : .21 14" to 16" expansion, 14" long : .01 (calculated) 16" to 18" expansion, 15" long : .008 (calculated) Exit losses : 1.0 45 degree long radius elbow 18": .19 18" pipe at 5228 gpm was taken to have a head loss of .8 ft. per 100 ft. of length (Cameron's). The estimated head loss for the new proposed configuration is approximately 2.04 ft., which will be adjusted for increased flow. After adjusting for increased flow the following conclusions were reached: New Draft tube total head loss : 2.25 ft approx. Head gain over existing draft tube : 12.13 ft. New Flow Rate : 12.25 cfs Two Alternative systems for the draft tube were considered. The first system would add a 12" to 14" expansion onto the 10" to 12" expansion, then install a long radius 14" 90 degree elbow which would hook up to the 14" to 16" expansion. All other elements would be the same as the new proposed system, except that the 45 degree elbow would be eliminated. The second alternative would use a 12" long radius elbow hooked to the 10" to 12" expansion, then a 12" to 14" expansion which would hook up with the 14" to 16" expansion. All other elements would be the same as the new proposed system, except that the 45 degree elbow would be eliminated. polarconsult Pelican Hydro Data for Alternative draft tubes: Flow rate: 12.0 Velocity thru 10" turbine outlet : 22 ft./sec K factors used as above, and : 12" to 14" expansion, 13" long : .014 14" and 12" long radius 90 degree elbows : .21 The head loss for each alternative draft tube system, using the above data: Alternative 1, 14" bend - 2.15 ft. approx. Alternative 2, 12" bend - 2.54 ft. approx. SUMMARY All values have been adjusted to account for increased flow rates due to a reduction in head losses. Existing System Total Turbine inlet losses : 4 ft. Draft tube losses : 14.4 ft. 18.4 ft. Proposed New System Inlet losses: 2.64 ft. Draft tube : DDS its 4.89 ft. Alternative Systems Inlet 14" 2:25 tt Draft tube 1 (14" bend): ZS Kt: 4.4 ft. Draft tube 2 (12" bend): 2.54 ft. 4.79 ft. polarconsult Pelican Hydro ECONOMICS Assumptions: Fuel cost : $ .90/ gal. Plant runs 1/2 the time 14 KWH/gal. = $.064/kwh 10 yr. payback 15% interest rate Present worth factor : 5 Present worth of 1 KW = $ 1,400.00 According to the turbine chart, each foot of head gained will give 1 KW of added capacity (approximately). What this means is each foot of head which you can gain is worth $1,400 in present value. If an improvement costs more than $1400.00 per foot of head gained, it isn't economical, based on the assumptions. For example, the proposed new inlet system will give a head gain of 4 - 2.64 = 1.32 ft., so that the cost of installation must be 1.32 X 1400 = $1848.00 or less in order to be economical. We investigated an alternative inlet system using 14" pipe and found that the head gain with the configuration would be 4 - 2.25 = 1.75, which would translate to a present value of $2,450. The existing draft tube has head losses of 18.4 ft., and the proposed new system would only have 4.89 ft of head losses. The gain is 13.51 ft. so that the installation cost of the new system should be $18,914 or less. One improvement can be had by using a regular 14" long radius elbow instead of an expansion elbow (Alternative 1). This would save money on materials since the 14" elbow and reducer cost about $1,100 less than the expansion elbow, with virtually no difference in the head losses. Also, if instead you wanted to retain the 12" draft tube elbow (Alternative 2), then the saving would be about $1,200 over the expansion elbow scheme. However, the head loss would go up by .29 ft = $406.00 present value cost, for a total saving of about $800.00. © In conclusion, the proposed new system significantly reduces the head losses thru the system. If the draft tube configuration is modified slightly then additional money can be saved. If the alternative 14" inlet system proves economical, then an additional .49 ft of head might be gained in addition to reducing the construction costs. Perhaps the existing inlet system will be retained. These decisions will need to be made based upon the local cost situation and how well it agrees with our economic assumptions. The present value of a 14" inlet and Alternative 1 would be 14 X 1,400 = $19,600, and for a 14" inlet and Alternative 2 the value would be $19,054. The installation costs would be lowered, and the head losses would be reduced slightly more. polarconsult Pelican Hydro APPENDIX BASIN NAME: Pelican Creek LOCATION: Pelican, Alaska CLIENT: Pelican Seafoods FOR BASINS WITHIN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST DATE: Jul-90 ** NOTE: INPUT VARIABLES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE LISTED RANGE OF VALUES TO RETAIN THE 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FROM THE TEST FLOWS. VARIABLES UNITS Q = Flow (CFS) (ALL Q) (2-100 | INPUT | VALUES YEAR PEAK | VALUES USED FLOWS) P = Mean annual precipitation . 180 (INCHS) 85-355 18-355 |—————- 180 in Pm = Mean monthly preci itation (PERC! “AGE OF MEAN ANNUAL) January 98 16.04 in Februar’ 7%| 12.48 in Marc! 1" 12.48 in April 6% 10.69 in May 68 10.69 in June as 7.13 in Jul 6% 10.69 in Augus 88 14.26 in September 12%] 21.39 in ictober 15%/ 26.73 in November 11%/ 19.60 in December 10%} 17.82 in *NOTE: (Monthly Percentages are / by SUM when ——-——————— mthly precip calculated to force to 100% *SUM = 101% A = Basin area ENTER BASIN AREA = 13.0 (SQ MILES) 2.5-80.0 1.4-80.0 13.0 mi*2 T = Proportion of basin ENTER AREA ABOVE TREE LINE = 7.5 |Sq. Mile above tree line (PERCENT) 1-95 1-95 |—————-| 57.6834 % L = Proportion of basin in ENTER LAKE AREAS = 0.1 |Sq. Mile main channel la. (PERCENT) 1-24 1-24 O.7 % S = Slope of main channel ENTER ELEV. FROM GAGE TO DIVIDE =} 1970 |Ft. ENTER DIST. FROM GAGE TO DIVIDE =| 26928 (FT/1000FT) 5-167 5-189 73 ft/k E = Mean elevation of basin ENTER MAX ELEV = 3500 MIN ELEV = 100 (FEET) 551-2254 324-2254 1202 ft C = South distance to Gulf of Alaska 24 (MILES) 10-138 10-162 |-—————- 24 milel ESTIMATED FLOW RANGE OF FLOW LOW HIGH 1 Mean Annual Flow = 154 cfs 93 255 cfs MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS i. January = 83 cfs $3 129 cfs 3 February = 96 cts 61 152 cfs 4 March = 85 cts 54 132 cfs S April = 104 cfs 65 166 cis 6 May = 257 cfs 148 449 cfs 7 June = 203 cfs 119 345 cfs 8 Jaly : 166 cts 99 276 cfs a August = 141 cfs 86 231 cfs 10 September = 210 cfs 123 359 cfs il jetober = 272 cfs 155 477 cfs 12 November = 219 cfs 128 376 cts 13 December =< 137 cfs 84 224 cfs PEAK FLOWS if 2 Year = 2969 1335 6605 cfs 1 5 Year = 3941 1722 9018 cfs 16 10 Year = 4523 1949 10494 cfs 17 25 Year = 5214 2215 «12271 cfs 18 50 Year = 5617 2369 13318 cfs 19 00 _ Ye : 2 WINTER LOW FLOWS - 7 DAY MEAN 20 2 Year Recurrence = 15 cfs 12 20 cfs 21 S$ Year Recurrence = 9 cls 7 ll cfs 22 10 Year Recurrence = 7 cfs 6 8 cfs WINTER LOW FLOWS - 30 DAY MEAN 23 2 - 30 cfs 21 42 cfs 24 5S Year Recurre 15 cfs ll 19 cfs 25 10 Year Recurre: 1l cfs 8 13. cts SUMMER LOW FLOWS - 7 DAY MEAN 26 2 Year Recurrence = 31 cfs 22 43 cfs 27 5S Year Recurrence < 20 cfs 15 27 cfs 28 10 Year Recurrence = 16 cfs 12 22 «cfs SUMMER LOW FLOWS - 30 DAY MEAN 29 2 Year Recurre! - 74 cfs 48 114 cfs 39 5 Year Recurre: 48 cfs 32 10 cfs 31 10 Year Recurrei 3 cfs 3 4 cfs FLOW EXCEEDED % OF THE TIME 32 st = 488 cfs 263 906 cfs 33 273 cis 156 478 cfs 4 ee Hl ei cfs cfs 36 20 cfs 4 26 cts Aluminum LTT CANAL GATE —| ‘AC-3T | Sizes 12-42" oo — HH (LARGER SIZES ON REQUEST) 40 a © ASUPERBLY ENGINEERED GATE EXPRESELY SUITABLE FOR CORROSION-RESISTANT, RUST PROOF DEMANDS. © RUGGED, HEAVY DUTY CONSTRUCTION — YET LIGHTWEIGHT AND EASY TO INSTALL. ¢ ALUMINUM GATE ELIMINATES ELECTROLYSIS ¢ USUALLY FOUND IN CAST IRON GATE TO ‘ \ ALUMINUM PIPE CONNECTIONS. Q 0 \\ Z FEATURES: SEATING HEADS TO 30 FEET \ i UNSEATING HEADS TO 20 FEET TAPERED SUDE: PROVIDES WEDGE-TYPE SEATINGAND LOWFRICTION \, OPENING. NEOPRENE J-BULB SEAL: wo VIRTUAL LEAKPROGF CLOSURE. EASILY REPLACEABLE. ADJUSTABLE. GUIDE INSERTS: A REDUCED SLIDE FRICTION. ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR | WEIGHT (UHMW) POLYETHYLENE, DOVETAILED. , INSTALLATION OPTIONS: : DIRECTLY ONTO CMP — SELF-CONTAINED SPIGOT. ONTO THIMBLE — CIRCULAR FLANGE BACK. ONTO WALL —FLAT BACK. ‘EMBEDDED INTO WALL — EMBEDDED DESIGN. STAINLESS STEEL STEM & HARDWARE BRONZE LIFT NUT OR COPOLYMER LIFT NUT. Tite Te CELE UPR I Gra Ll ee Ht TTT Pett ttt err tit tt | | — INDUSTRIES, INC. SXETER. CA * LUBBOCK. TX ¢ GARDEN CITY. KS ° BOISE. 10 MEMPHIS. TN ¢ GRAND ISLAND. NB e INDIANAPOLIS. IN TYPICAL DIMENSIONS & SPECIFICATIONS AC-31 ALUMINUM CANAL GATE LIS O1A {16% [25 [9% 28% [io | 4M | 32% | [18 OIA Tio% [28 [iy [334 [2 [4 [37% | 24 OIA [25% [34a [ia [azn [12 [4% | 46% | [30 OIA [31% [40 Tie [Sen [is [4% | 58% | [36 OIA [37% [46 (21 [ea [is [4% | 67% | [42 O1A [as [52 [24 [724 [ia [5% | 76% | Fasteners - ASTM A-183 & 194 Type 18-3 Stem - ASTM A-276 Type 303 & 304 Hanctwheei Lift - (See Specifications for Lifts - Waterman oF foveal) Enciosed Gear Lift - (See Specifications for Lifts - Waterman or Equal) Aluminum Side Gates, where shown on the plans or indicated in the specifications snail be Model AC-31 Alum- inum Slide Gates with resiiient seai as manufactured by Waterman industries, inc. or equal. The gates wiil be seif contained, rising stem of the spigot- back design for attaching to corrugated pipe (or flatback design for attachment to head wail with anchor boits|, (or flange design with drilling suitable for attachment to 25 or 125 Ib. ASI companion flange}. Guide frames shail be of extruded aluminum shape, of sufficient section to carry the operating forces of the gate, and shail have UHMW potyethelene inserts on which the slide assembty traveis.to minimize friction. A spigot ring will be weided to the guides and have a seating surface at minimum 1'4° angte to which a resilient J-Guib seai shail be attached. The seal shail be adjustable and heid in piace by a substantial section ring and stainiess steei fasteners. Quai Headraiis (yokes) shail be weided to the guide rails and so positioned that the siideis removabie from thegate. The siide shail be aluminum piate suitably reinforced with extruded structural shapes for the head requirements specified and wiil not deflect more than 1/360 of the gate width under the design head. Suitable side guides wiil be weided to the siide, which will trave! within the guides, and Place the cover in an angie corresponding to the seat surface of the guide frame assembly. A rising stainiess steel stem having modified acme type threads shail attach to the slide with a cievis and pin arrangement. 04> rman INDUSTRIES, INC. The stem will be ito havea L/Rotless than 200and to withstand in compression at leest twice the rated output of the jift at 40 Ib. pull. A suitable handwheel or gear type Operator should be mounted on the headraiis (yoke) of the gate and will require a maximum 40 Ib. puil on the hand- wheel rim or crank handie to operate the gate. Flatback gates shail be attached to headwails with anchor boits or expansion anchors. Gates shail beinstailedon the anchors with nuts both behind and on the flange facesoas to position the gate without stress or distortion. Seemanu- facturer's instailation instructions. Sealing between head- wail and gate flange wiil be by dry-pack non-shrink grout or other suitable mastic seatant. Spigotback gates will be attached to corrugated metal pipe by fieid drifting the pipe with 7/16” holes and secured with 3/8” stainiess steei botts, maximum spacing to be 6” on circumterence of pipe. Sealing between pipe and gate will be made with a suitable mastic sealing maternal to assure water tightness at this joint. The gate, when instailed, shail haveno morethan 9.01 gpm per foot of sealing periphery for seating or unseating heads up to 15 feet. Aluminum and stainiess stee! will be mill finish. Paint for lifts will be manufacturer's standard (or prime paint as specified etsewhere. | => Pelican Seafoods Inc. P.O. Box 110 Pelican, Alaska 99832-0110 U.S.A. (907) 735-2204 Fax: (907) 735-2281 WHX 956-16VHF/4125 SSB DATE 2-4-4! TO: EAnis AUSMAN FAX NO. 1 258- 249 COMPANY: OL ARCOMSULT Total number of pages being - transmitted including this FROM: TORAH hme ORGY cover sheet 4 Thank you for sending the drawings; they give a really good picture of the dam site and water works. I am concerned with your proposed solution for the intake structure and the bypass on the left side of the dam. The FERC license, under environmental issues, recommends that the dam should not be breached in such a manner that would allow downstream flushing of sediments that have accumulated in the reservoir. And the previous plans did not call for the dam to be breached at all. Your plans for the bypass would reach to the very bottom of the pond and might in fact run into solid rock at the up stream face of the dam. With the bypass as shown, sediments would certainly be washed from in back of the dam. In addition the license requires that concrete lechates be precluded from entering the stream. This will require a tight coffer dam over the area where the bypass is to be built and a considerable amount of concrete to be hand mixed at the dam site to pour the bypass section with a strong possibility of lechates getting into the stream. Installing a bypass will add considerably to the expense and will cause regulatory difficulties. The intake as shown on your drawing will require removal of a sizable section of the area in back of the right wing wall including a part of the concrete section of the flume through the dam. I believe that turning the pipe as shown will run into solid rock on the bottom of the pond in the area shown. These two factors will make this solution reasonably expensive. I have sketched up a possible alternative for the intake that might eliminate the need for the bypass on the right side of the dam and simplify the intake. I propose to leave the existing slide gate in position. When we wish to change the intake structure, the gate would be closed as tightly as possible; and a diver would be sent down to plug the leaks around the gate from the up stream side. We could install several large diameter pipes (8 inch) on the existing dam spillway to transfer water around the intake structure of the dam to the flume down stream of the intake structure. Then a new slanting slide gate as in your drawing would be installed in the concrete section just downstream of the existing gate. The an te, concrete section would be lined a with metal insert made of steel plate that would be welded together on site. The joint between the metal and the concrete would be caulked or grouted. The new intake pipe and slide gate would be attached directly to the metal liner. The metal liner would be extended upward to the height of the wingwall. The existing slide gate could then be removed to provide smooth water flow in the channel. The top of the concrete section and corner of the existing wing wall over the concrete section would be removed to leave an open toped channel between the new slide gate and the face of the dam. During the low water period when this work would be done we would lower the height of the water in the pond below the top of the concrete section by wasting it through the flume and new gate. Then the height of the concrete section would be raised and sealed to the dam spillway and the right wing wall; this work could also be done with steel plate. This proposed solution eliminates the need for an expensive coffer dam, reduces down time for the turbine generators, offers a simple way of bypassing water for the town. without pumps, eliminates the need to mix very much concrete and should be safe even if we had a high flood flow during the construction. On the left side of the dam you show an area to be blasted about 10 feet by about 60 feet. This is a smaller area than on the existing plans but it is still a sizable area. According to the current license the blasted area must be stripped of over burden before blasting to prevent the organic matter from being knocked into the creek and to get it out of the way so that it is not included in the rock fill of the dam. The organic matter is a mass of roots 2 to 3 feet thick and will be difficult to remove by hand and this is such a narrow section on the edge of the creek that it will be difficult to remove by machinery. The drawing showing the steel buttresses in back of the dam spillway does not show the buttresses in back if the right wingwalT. “I would think that the angle of the flume would make anchoring buttresses in this area difficult and it might be cheaper and easier to just build a timber crib filled with rock in this area to support the wingwall. As an alternative, a couple of steel support members might easily be run from the top of the wingwall to the solid rock wall adjacent to the flume in back of the wingwall area instead of the sloping angle braces shown in your drawing. I assume that we would install blocking between the upright steel I beams and the logs at the face of the dam to transfer the load. This blocking might have to bridge a distance of a foot or more and the attachment of the blocking to the logs and the upright I beams will have to be considered. Is there any cross tie between the buttresses at the top of the dam spillway? Matching up all of the holes on the steel members on the job site may be difficult unless the holes are drilled oversized. Would it be possible to use just a couple of bolts and weld the joints instead? Construction will be made easier if the steel beams have Reali fn Berl Ea iain " aa E “ u holes drilled in them at the ends and balance points so that lifting eyes can be bolted to the beams. I would expect to use cabies strung across the ee face and just down stream of the dam witrc trolleys and haists to pesition the beams. I would think it might be worth while to specify an extra section I beam of each size so that material would be available to field t the members if we run into problems. he sketch showing a method for raising the dam looks simple and hould work. Box cio PIPE Shoub RF \ DESIGNED Foe AT LEAST A FoR. j2" JAK ore PIPE : _ Pelican Seafoods Inc. CITY WATER DURING REPLOKAeaT OF THE FLUE P.O. Box 110 Pelican, Alaska 99832-0110 U.S.A. (907) 735-2204 Fax: (907) 735-2281 WHX 956-16VHF/4125 SSB DATE 2-5- TO: ENRE AvSmizs FAX NO.: = 258 -24) COMPANY: Pot ARCOMSULT Total number of pages being transmitted including this FROM: FO IYI TM AREY cover sheet _00 2. After thinking about sur ,es I nave come up wit ancther 1464. If we cuiid an open topes on the solid rock back of the dam, the slide gaté or ste could be mounted the Cox. along with the powered grid c« r that wilt pe needea the dam is raised. sty grid sould il what ever site wanted. The Fo. would Ge Sulit to the meignt of the tlocd crest the current dam so1llway with grovisicn Tor raising the neignt The BOK and grid if the dam is raised. This allows us to widen the splliway all the way to tne right wall of the creek without naviing Ls worry about a grid and gaté sticking up in tne middie of the pond. We know for sure that theré is a sclia rock foundation in the location shown in the sketch, we can put im rock ancnors both to the base and to tne wali tor a ver, secure structure. No Dlasting woula be required on the intare side of the dam ana because of the widened spillway no blasting would be needéd on the cther side cf the dam either to widen the spillway ain that direction. This would allow us to picn a more convenient ana Concentrated area away from the tani to blast rock for fill. The regulator, agencies will be hapey Getause less organic matter and sediment will wind up in the creek. The siphon could be used to lewer the water level in the pona enough to seal up the 42-84 inch pipe to the dam face. The pire would lay in the existing concrete channei and on the floor cf the current flume. A spllliway déckh wouid ce built over the pipe as shown in the sketch. The current pipe grid protecting the enc or the Flume would be left in place tu Prevent jarge logs from getting Into tne intake pipe. Perhaps ¢t intal sid of the pipe could ct cy oo designeq to allow stop i5gs to sve instaiiea If necessary facilitate work on the bo«, grid cr new slice gate. With the raised deck on the intake side of the dam this pipe grid would be accéssibie under most normal water flows. 4 bypass pipe and valve would be instaliea in the pottom of tne intaleé pipe petween the cam and the box as snown in the previsus Tor upgrading the aan to support fish in the stream. The -al+é would also be useful tor déwatering the intake pipe and box if tne dam ena of the intabe Pipe 18 designed for stop jogs. 2) ais a —— Pelican Seafoods Inc. P.O. Box 110 Pelican, Alaska 99832-0110 U.S.A. rm (907) 735-2204 August 25, 1992 Fax: (907) 735-2281 WHX 956-16VHF/4125 SSB Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 15023 West Zird Avenue Suite 310 Anchorage Alaska 99503 Subject: Pelican Hydro Froject -- FERC 10198 Attn: Mr. Earle Ausman Dear Earle, The Pelican Utility Company has decided to go forward with the hydro project which has a latest start date of April 27, 1993. We plan to use the plans that your company drew up. I have enclosed a letter to FERC which details our projected construction plans and a schedule. We would like your company te be project manager on the parts of the project that will be ton time consuming for the Pelican employees to handle. We will also need a updated cost estimate of the parts of the project that your company will be managing. The letter to FERC lists the parts of the project in steps. Your company will be responsible for sections numbered S through 19. We would also like to have a rough current estimate for part 12, replacing the penstocr, although we do not plan to do this work immediately. We would like your estimate to determine the cost of each sectinn separately. Because the weather will dictate when wort car be done in tke creek, the project will probably have to be stanped and started several times. It may be less expensive to purchase some of the tools rather than renting them, and reseilting the tools after the project is completed. At the end of the project we would like your company to produce as-built drawings if the actual construction differs from the original plans. The letter to FERC has not been sent as yet. We would like you to review it and make any suggestions that seem appronriate, so we do not need to make additional changes at a later date. Sincerely, . [nna Wutrncrky Thomas Whitmarsh Chief Engineer Pelican Utility Company Appendix I Pelican Drinking Water Study Ms Dnata? ot pris ae polarconsult alaska, inc. energy systems e engineering design e environmental services 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3661 PELICAN DRINKING WATER STUDY Prepared for PELICAN SEAFOODS, INC. 1216 Pine Street Seattle, Washington 98101 June 1996 prepared by polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 258-2420 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Table of Contents SUUMIN TARY crccezecesesestcrgones coves sosstcsuos seentuorersevecenecerseasesecesevacsestsvsrares esecsqarsisves sustavecesquessvonessasesesesosecssseeesessesess 1 INTRODUCTION 6 ccsc-scoveccocovescsovoveroveovvconesorsnseoesecsees setesecorererercvceves seoreovovevevesovsesosesseesosevescovevecsrocssoceroveserereee 1 RE UTR IN Uscssecet cocce corer cveseceocareneteceayecececsiozos exsaseevevesecoversveveversacscensesceseaseensseressavevesecaseosesessssoconanserezerse) 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION sacscssssseccecsesseecovovonen svontecesnovorecscseeusetorweresesqserstovovovevecsvecessosusasasvscsoscesevaususeeresecereers 2 CURRENT SYSTEM........ CURRENT OPERATIONS PASTE TRIN Asi YS costes cosecenscovcnseseeonerseeucecrcerenececerececsovacecteceeratet eneececaceceasestsversapseseeseresensesessssstrenseversroeetesseeores 5 TREATMENT OPTIONS SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS.. SYSTEM DEMANDS... STORAGE TANKS... DISTRIBUTION PIPING Insulated Pipe and Treatment Sysiem...... Services POINT OF ENTRY SYSTEMS... COST ANALYSIS. CON GIUSTONS tersrrctesccscosassocesserescesesstcesconcscacaves nscecsussetavecevevessetessdezcetgsesecerg cusaseceescosasesssvensusvecesenrecerereersce 14 RECOMMENDATION .i.....csscsscssscooccscscssseccnsserssscsssosesacsssosessssessesescesssovesssosssesoscevesesscesoceswoscesoeoesesseescesess 15 caesarean eater June 27, 1996 Page! Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Summary Pelican Seafoods owns the water utility which supplies water for processing of fish and for the City of Pelican. The water system is integrated with Pelican Seafoods’ hydroelectric power plant. The water system does not comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring a study to show what should be done to meet the statute. EPA has, by letter, stated what is out of compliance. The primary problem is the system cannot meet the disinfection requirements for 99.9 percent reduction in Giardia lamblia and 99.99 percent reduction in viruses and bacteria. The reason is that the current system does not have filtration nor chlorine contact times to assure safe water prior to its reaching the services. In addition, the water system pressure is too low and it freezes during the winter. A new system serving only domestic purposes, versus domestic and industrial, that provides a new insulated distribution system and treats the water to meet the SWTR requirements. has been determined to be the most economical solution to the problems with the existing system. Introduction The community of Pelican is located about 70 miles to the west of Juneau on Chichigoff Island. The community, with an estimated population of 250 people, obtains its water from Pelican Creek - a surface water source. The system, owned by Pelican Seafoods (PS), distributes the water by pipeline throughout the community. The water supply for the system is surface water that is not treated to meet current state and federal statues which require disinfection and, potentially, filtration to remove Giardia, Cystosporidian, bacteria. and viruses. This report will provide an analysis of means to meet the statues. Requirement The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under June 29, 1989 regulations (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H) titled the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) which became effective in December 31, 1990 issued a notice to Pelican Utility on March 17, 1993 that the water system did not meet SWTR criteria for remaining unfiltered and the utility could not continue to use the unfiltered surface source. A “Criteria Analysis Report” (July 25. 1995) was issued (Exhibit 3). A letter of reply to clarify the Criteria Analysis Report by the utility provides further details regarding the system (Exhibit 4). A “Proposed Decision Document dated October 27, 1995 was sent by a November 1, 1995 letter (Exhibit 5). This document called for an engineering report to be completed by December 15. 1995. The Utility has requested and been granted an extension until June 30, 1996. aT June 27, 1996 Page 1 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study System Description Current System Pelican is a fishing community with the majority of the construction on a rocky coast line and on the gravel and sand delta of Pelican Creek. Most of the community is centered about a wooden boardwalk which extends from the Processor to Pelican Creek. Many of the buildings, and the boardwalk itself. are built on piling. Utility piping is suspended from the boardwalk. and in some cases it is buried where possible in an attempt to prevent freezing during the winter. Burial is difficult because most of the area is bed rock with a thin mantle of organics or in the inter tidal zone where the mantle is comprised of silty organics, sand, sea shells and gravel. See map and photographs of Pelican in exhibit 1 and 2. Pelican obtains all of its water and hydroelectric power from Pelican Creek which is a mountain stream with a drainage area of 13 square miles. Pelican Creek is dammed by a 20 foot high timber crib dam which diverts the water through a course trashrack to the wooden flume. The dam creates a pond 5.3 acres in extent that stills the water and settles the bed load. Floods up to an estimated 6.000 cfs can occur. Low water periods occur when temperatures are below 0 ° F during the winter. During the winter of 1996 it was reported that the wind chill was from -20 to -35 °F. Pelican Creek has reasonably good water quality. The watershed is very rugged and is not used by people. The water pH is 5 to 5.5. The turbidity usually runs in the 0.1 to 0.2 NTU range with an occasional spike to 1 NTU. The reported high was during a large flood when it reached a value of 6 NTU. The raw water total coliform counts are generally low in the order of 5 to 20 per 100 ml. However, occasionally there are readings such as on August 30, 1994 which reached 220. The chief engineer for PS states higher readings are observed when there is a rain after a dry period. Tests for total coliform at PS after the water has been chlorinated have no counts. The contact time is one of the longest at this location. Local people stated there is grit and an occasional floating needle in the water. They state they believe people have become ill from the water. however, debris in the water can alter the perception as to the source of disease. Water travels through the flume which feeds a penstock to the hydro plant. At the end of the flume, adjacent to the hydro penstock, is the domestic supply intake which has a fine screen that separates out most of the floating matter (see Photo 2). The elevation of this intake is about 108 feet. From the screen the water is conveyed in a 12 inch PVC pipe to the power house. At the power house chlorine is injected. There are two chlorine systems and a backup generator to provide electricity in the event the system is down. Preceding the chlorination point is a tap from which raw water samples are taken. From the powerplant the water travels to the main distribution system via a steel pipeline which is partially insulated. The main distribution system mostly parallels the wooden boardwalk through the community. This main thoroughfare trends northwesterly until it reaches the Pelican Seafoods plant (see map in exhibit 1). The water main is mostly 8 inch PVC pipe buried seaward of the boardwalk. There is a steel section of the main that June 27, 1996 Page 2 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study is under the root of the breakwater. In addition to the main line there is a branch that serves the northern shore part of the community along Salmon Way. This PVC line troze and water was not available for some time this year. A section of this PVC line has been replaced with polyethylene. Several of the houses beyond the terminus of the pipeline have large insulated storage tanks for water. These homes are supplied by plastic tubing laid on the surface of the ground. Southeast of the point where the water line from the hydroplant reaches the main there is an insulated 3 inch pipeline crossing a new bridge to serve 8 houses. This system froze up this winter and the people were without water for an extended period of time. Photograph 4 shows an exposed section of the PVC main. Most of the main line is shallowly buried under silt. gravel, and shells in the intertidal zone. The PVC pipe is bell and spigot with rubber gaskets. Individual service lines tap the PVC main. These service lines are usually HDPE tubing. Some of the lines are insulated and heat traced: others are not. Most lines extend through the intertidal zone to the floor of the building to be served. Photograph 6. There is an insulated sewer system mostly suspended from the boardwalk. This system drains by gravity to lift stations where it is pumped to septic tanks near the end of the breakwater. From this point sewage is discharged to an outfall line which extends beyond the breakwater into Lisinanski Inlet. There also is a dry fire system that is hung under the boardwalk that relies on an engine driven pump to furnish salt water in the event of fire. A boat harbor exists in the center of the community. Water is provided to the boats by hose bibs on each main dock. Sewer service is not provided to the harbor making it likely that boats discharge wastes into the harbor. sssileeindaageaiesiepaaienianeaamiapnnsaspsitetaiaiaiaaieinaeesnemaysecnisieliiiacanaaiplinae iain catia ena June 27, 1996 Page 3 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Pelican Seafoods provided the number of current connections to the system as follows: Description of buildings Residences. 4-piex. duplex 73 Pelican Sea Foods Old Bunkhouse 1 New Bunkhouse 1 Crab Plant includes Apt, Bunkhouse Messhail l Store Building includes 3 apartments, Office, Post Office I Engine Room. includes Condenser and Compressor Cooling 1 City Municipal building & Residence Grid Harbormaster Grid City Float Clinic Library Firehall Grid Wharehouse Community Hall Middle School High School Music Room Grade School Total Grand Total 93 Current Operations The operation of the water system is dominated by two conditions. The first is during the summer when processing is taking place. At that time there is a need for approximately 1,100 gpm of water used for cooling the condensers that are part of the freezer plant. The plant freezes fish and produces ice for the boats. Some water is also used to wash fish, produce ice, and supply the residences. The second period of time is during the winter when the houses all bypass water to keep the lines from freezing. It is estimated by PS that about 1,100 to 1,200 gpm is consumed in the winter by these services. During the winter when it is cold, water flows in Pelican Creek diminish to several cfs and there is little more water than is required for the water system. Due to the low flows the hydroplant is turned off and diesel electric units at PS supply electricity for the community. The diesels use up to 750 gpd of fuel to supply winter power. This means that the equivalent of 1,000,000 Btus per hour is available as jacket water waste heat. Improvement of Pelican’s water system has been hampered because of the cost of changing a system that was designed to use large, low cost quantities of water to one which meets the SWTR requirements while also keeping water utility rates affordable for the users. June 27, 1996 Page 4 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Alternatives Treatment Options Pelican Seafoods has been considering a number of alternatives to solve their problems. Alternative ]: Treat all of the water near the intake to the flume. The water would pass through a settler, perhaps a filter, to a large tank where the contact time with a disinfectant would be sufficiently long to kill the parasitic cysts. This system would not appreciably change the current operations which use water for cooling and keeping the lines from freezing during the winter.. Alternative 2: Pass the water through a settler at the flume intake and further treat the water individually at each service with a point of entry unit which would consist of filter, UV disinfectant unit. and a storage tank. Under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart J - “Use of Non Centralized Treatment Devices” (Exhibit 6), point of entry systems are allowed as long as certain conditions are met. These conditions include operation and maintenance by the public water system, obtain State approval for a monitoring plan, effective treatment. adequate certification, and all customers must be protected. Alternative 3: Separate domestic and industrial use of water by constructing an insulated line below the board walks to serve only the non processor buildings. This system would be designed so there was no bypass water. The water could be treated at the flume or, more likely, on a hill just above PS. In either case a settler would be constructed, filters provided, and a tank constructed. The system would utilize disinfectant to remove viruses and bacteria. The system can be pressurized as the quantity of water used is not large. At 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and a population of 250, the use of water for the domestic system is conservatively estimated at 26 gpm. There are a number of variants to each of the basic total treatment systems. For example where will the tank be placed? Is there a new or better treatment which can reduce the contact time? Is there a substitute for chlorine such as ozone or UV which may be more effective? What filter type is superior? Should a pump be used? What kind of insulation system is best? Should the water be heated? Should there be thaw wires, or should thawing be done by circulating fluid? These variants will be discussed and one selected to include in the cost analysis. Due to changes in technology, selection of optimum configuration and components will occur during the design. Because of the varying technologies that are just now developing, any of the above alternatives may prove to be the most economical. The following outline some of the technologies that have been investigated. Different methods of treating the raw water have been investigated. PS investigated ozone treatment for 1,200 gpm. The cost of the equipment exceeded $100,000. In addition to the ozone treatment equipment, filtration and screening systems are needed and a tank would be required to provide detention and storage. This type of treatment falls under Alternative 1. June 27, 1996 Page 5 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Water can be treated using proven filtration and disinfection technologies. A quotation for a 50 gpm package plant (Alternative 3) equipped with a flocculant system with polymer addition running through a tube settler to a filter is $50,000 to $75.000. Fora unit with only the filtration equipment an estimated price is $36,000. Additional costs will be incurred for housing and connecting the unit. It is estimated this can be completed for about $15.000. Polymer use is estimated to be from 0.25 to | PPM. At 50,000 gallons per day the polymer use is estimated to not exceed 0.4 pounds per day for a cost of about $1.10. Flocculant such as alum is estimated to cost between 5 and 10 dollars per day. A yearly chemical cost will be about $3,000 dollars. There will be electricity costs to run mixers and the pumps. The largest consumer of energy will be a 1.5 horsepower pump which will pump water up to the tank. This will cost approximately $1,300 per year. A variant of the filtration system is a system that utilizes cartridge or bag filters. Such a system will have a lower initial cost but operating costs will be substantially greater. The problem with filtration of a stream which varies its turbidity over a period of time is it is difficult obtain a good benchmark on the extent of filter use that will be required. Cartridge and bag filters are relatively inexpensive down to about | micron. Below this value their price increases radically. Investigation of cartridge filters using 3 stages (5, 1, and 0.65 microns in size) resulted in the cost of the first stage housing cost of $960 with five filters costing $28 each. The second stage housing cost is $960 with five filters costing $31 each. The third stage housing cost is $2,500 with twenty five filters costing $300 each. If these filters have to be changed once each six months the cost for filters will be $7,800 per each filling or $15,600 per year. Using an interest rate of 3.5% over a 20 year period the present cost is $221.700. This amount of money is well in excess of a tank sized to provide a 3 log deactivation of Giardia. In addition to filter replacement costs there will be added energy costs for pumping as the filters become loaded. A system developed by Phoenix Technology’s was investigated. Phoenix claims that their system will provide 4 log removal of Cystosporidium and Giardia oocysts. and 5 to 7 log removal for bacteria and viruses. Although tests of the system are in progress in several locations, including one by the EPA, the available information is not sufficient to prove the system’s effectiveness. Based upon reports on the system by an evaluating professor the system has a low use of energy. The cost of the equipment would appear to be about $50,000 to treat 400 gpm, however the price is expected to drop when the equipment goes into production. The inventor, Ray Smith, states a smaller unit will cost several thousand dollars. This type of treatment can be used with Alternatives | and 3. A reference to this technology is “Microbial Killing Efficiency with the Phoenix Water Treatment” by S.T. Kellogg and K. Bengtson, Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, University of Idaho, Moscow. A disinfection system developed by MIOX was investigated. This system breaks down salt water using electrolysis and produces mixed oxidants comprised of chlorine dioxide and ozone. MIOX claims this system is two to six times more effective than ordinary chlorine. If accurate, the result would be reduced contact time, and the elimination of chlorine handling hazards and shipping costs. The reduced contact time would make it June 27, 1996 Page 6 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study possible to use a smaller. less expensive storage tank. It is stated that the system can be dosed at higher values without a taste and odor problem. Also, the Trihalomethanes (THM’s) appear to be reduced over that of free chlorine disinfection systems. This type of system is used for treatment strategies of the type described in Alternative 1. For more details: “Disinfection By-Products Produced in Raw Water treated with Mixed Oxidants” by Wesley L. Bradhford. PhD and Amos Coleman, Report No. LATA/MX-93/0005 US Army Belvoir Research, Development and Engineering Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., and “A Review of the Effectiveness of SCOLA in the Disinfection of Water Contaminated With Microorganisms” by Stephen P. Shelton PhD, Professor of Civil Engineering, and Larry L. Barton. PhD Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico. Currently the MIOX system does not appear to have enough history to use in this study. Point of Entry systems (Alternative 2) were investigated. These systems generally are built up of components from different manufactures. A typical system would consist of a prefilter which would remove the larger material (5 microns) and a finer filter (0.65 microns) that would remove Giardia cysts. Filters should meet ANSI/NSF Standard 53 (“Drinking Water Treatment Units - Health Effects”) for cyst reduction. After filtration, some form of disinfection will be required to remove bacteria and viruses. This can be accomplished with UV systems. The NSF, American National Standard 55-1991 “Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems” provides a standard for UV system for point of use and entry. Currently only one device for point of use has passed the standard. This device is manufactured by Amway who states it is manufactured only for use in Japan. Other UV equipment is undoubtedly making it’s way through testing and likely will be available soon. Therefore, the assumption is made that a UV system can be used for a point of entry system that will be reliable and will meet ANSI/NSF 55- 1991 requirements as to reducing bacteria and viruses. At this stage the assumption is made that point of entry system components will be available and they will be effective. The EPA is working with a UV system that uses Titanium Dioxide as a catalyst combined with ultra filtration for systems with populations of less than 3,300. A paper is in the process of being published. “Identification of TiO,/UV Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water” by Susan D. Richardson, et. al, with Ecosystems Research Division EPA in Athens GA, and John Ireland et al Drinking Water Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, EPA, Cincinnati, OH Prefiltration, which is superior to the currently used screen at the intake of the system, will be needed under all of the Alternatives. Water users are finding pine needles and other matter in the water. This likely occurs during flood stage. A high rate tube settler with better screens will be able to provide water at less than | NTU during flooding. This will conserve filter life and allow disinfectant to be more effective. System Configurations Current system configurations and the physical siting of the community are very important in the selection of system upgrades. The hydraulics of the system are greatly influenced by the source of water on one end of the community and the major user, PS, on the other end. Further, the limited elevation of the water source (about 108 feet) June 27, 1996 Page 7 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study constrains gravity operations as the community expands into the surrounding hills. PS has always attempted to build and operate a water system which does not require pumping. This is because the system is designed for large flows and pumping will be costly as electricity cost is on the order of 15.3 cents per kWh. As a result the system pressure has been limited to the intake elevation minus the losses of the distribution piping. Piping losses are substantial due to high flow rates. The measured pressure at the discharge of the condensers is 23 psi. Inland of the processor are homes for PS workers and their families. The home with the highest elevation has its main floor at about 60 feet. The church elevation is at 75 feet. There is also a dry land area to the north of PS which has 9 or more homes. To the north there may be vacant lots for 25 more homes and south of the bridge there may be vacant lots for 6 more homes for a total of 31. The two homes at the end of the pipeline on Salmon Way each have large insulated storage tanks to provide water when the pipelines are frozen. The elevation of the highest one of these is about 100 feet and it is reported that it is difficult to get water to these homes. The National Plumbing code requires that water pressures at the fixture be between 15 psi minimum to 80 psi maximum. Fifteen psi means that with zero pipe friction losses no fixture can be above elevation of 73 feet (108 ft - 15 psi * (2.31 psi/ft)). At this time these requirements are not met for a number of buildings in Pelican. Because of the pressure requirements any system which feeds water to the north end will need to have the pressure boosted with a pump. This is most especially the case if point of entry systems are used. Hydraulic losses were approximated for this study. They serve to illustrate the problems with the current system and suggest requirements for a new system. The current hydraulic losses are mostly caused by the high flow rate of 1,200 gpm. As most of this flow is to PS it results in hydraulic losses which approximate 39 feet of head loss near the plant. The highest tank without boost can have a maximum water level of less than 69 feet. If a new tank is founded at 100 foot elevation there will not be sufficient head on the 8 inch main when condenser water is flowing to put water into the tank. So a booster pump will be needed. A second community constraint is that when it is very cold a number of the users loose their water supply due to of freeze ups. Without water, sanitation degrades, and replacing and thawing water lines is costly. A disinfection system at the flume will not alleviate this problem. Further, the 8 inch PVC pipe is constructed with rubber bell and spigot joints. The line is buried in the intertidal zone. If the line looses water pressure during repair or for other reasons it is possible to have ingress of salt water. Boats, which may dump wastes, are moored nearby and there is debris dumped from buildings along the boardwalk. Although not likely. a potential source of pollution is possible from this pipeline due to its design and location. June 27, 1996 Page 8 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study System Demands Water which meets the SWTR can be provided by central or point of entry systems. A point of entry system using the current pipeline does not solve the freezing problem. In fact. it may make it worse as there is more equipment to freeze and break. A central system with an insulated distribution system can reduce the risks of freezing. These two systems will be discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. Water quantites are needed to size facilities. It has been reported that the use of water under the current system can reach near 1,200 gpm. Also this spring, when a condenser was on and after most of the community no longer ran bypasses to prevent freezing, it was estimated that the flow was about 350 to 400 gpm. Subtracting the condensers at 250 gpm leaves a flow of between 100 to 150 gpm for a baseflow. These flow rates appear too high. The reason for this may be that water is being bypassed at the dock, leakage is occurring, and/or people may still be bypassing water at their sinks. Water use for private systems averages about 142 gpcd. A projected use in the year 2000 for all purposes is about 177 gped (“Water Supply and Sewerage”, Terence J. McGhee). Pelican is different as homes and buildings are generally smaller, part of the summer population is transient and lives in dormitories, and there are essentially no lawns and gardens to water. For the purpose of this study 150 gpcd would be very conservative. During design this number can be more accurately defined by information from other similar communities and the addition of increased population over time. If the population is 250 people, the domestic water consumption would be 37,500 gallons per day. This would be a flow rate of 26 gpm. With an increase of population to 350 at approximately 3 per each new home the demand would be 52,500 gpd and a flow rate of 36 gpm. Peak rates can vary but for pipe sizing purposes for this study were assumed to be near 200 gpm. This value was checked with a fixture estimate from the Uniform Plumbing Code that typically yields high values. Refinement of flows, likely lower, will be made during the design. Storage Tanks A filtration device with a storage tank can be located at the flume. The system can treat all of the water currently used, i.e. 1,200 gpm, or only treat water used directly by the consumers. In either case a fine screen with automatic brushing would be used to remove leaves, needles and other floating debris. The velocity will be dropped enough so bed load in the bottom of the flume will be diverted. A tube settler will be used to reduce the turbidity to less than 1 NTU. Most measurements are less than 0.2 NTU. From the settler the water will be conveyed to the tank which is baffled to increase effective contact times. With the cold water and a pH of about 5.5 the contact time to kill Giardia with a 3 log removal with a chlorine free residual of 1.0 ppm will be about 2.4 hours. As a result, a tank to provide full flow of 1,200 gpm at a high 0.7 efficiency will be about 250,000 gallons in capacity. For flow rates in the range of 40 to 50 gpm for domestic purposes only, using an unbaffled tank. efficiency of 0.1, a tank capacity of about 50,000 gallons is required. If the MIOX system is used and works as claimed, the contact time will be about 70 minutes and the tank sizes will be 125,000 gallons and 25,000 gallons June 28, 1996 Page 9 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study respectively. The end of the flume where the filtration system and the tank will be located is limited in area and is an expensive space to build on due to its steepness and lack of access. Therefore tank construction at this site will likely cost near three dollars per gallon. The full flow system, with the exception of meeting the requirements of the SWTR, would make little change in current operations with the exception that there would be some minor head losses which would result in an additional decline in pressure for some of the more distant dwellings. Freeze ups might be more frequent as the tank will loose heat which is not now being lost. A second configuration of the Alternative 3 variety is to tap the main distribution line just before reaching PS and pumping water to a tank at 100 feet or potentially even higher if appropriate property can be found. The pump would be located just off the boardwalk and a heat exchanger would be incorporated in the line to heat the water. The source of heat would be a loop from the diesel generator engines and the refrigeration condensers. Since the flow into the tank would be almost constant the heat exchanger can be small in size and inexpensive. Heating would be available in the cold times or during processing when the diesels are being operated because water is not available to run the hydro generators. This heat would increase reaction rates, which can reduce component sizes and decrease fixed costs. Further. warm water in insulated pipes will prevent most freeze ups. A secondary benefit of warmer water is it reduces the need to run the hot water heaters so a small savings in energy will accrue tod each user. In this configuration a filtration and chemical injection system can be added near the boardwalk or up at the tank. If the system is sized for chlorine and contact time the required tank will be about 50,000 gallons. If the Giardia are removed by filtration and disinfection to kill bacteria and viruses then size of the tank would be about 12,000 gallons. The final size will be selected to provide water for events such as system problems or special events. Distribution from this tank, if it is based at the 100 foot elevation, will be by gravity for buildings at or near boardwalk level and, using a separate branch pressured by a booster pump, for services at higher elevations. The area for town expansion is at elevations well above the boardwalk level and will need a pressurized system. Because of the shallow depth to bed rock which makes deep burial uneconomical, pipelines will likely all be insulated. At this time the homes in this area are served with uninsulated surface laid plastic pipe. Distribution Piping Insulated Pipe and Treatment System A single purpose isolated water services system with treatment near the flume can provide water under gravity to the community. There will still be pressure deficits. Although the pipelines will all be insulated, there remains the possibility of freezeups unless heat is added. Adding non electrical heat to this location will be difficult unless a Alesse ean a alee allanol susan nen LEVEL aac EO LESS June 27, 1996 Page 10 Polarconsuit Pelican Drinking Water Study circulation pipeline is run back to the junction or the tank. With the insulation system shown on Figure |. it is possible to readily construct almost any configuration. These can include provision for thaw cables, dry line for circulating water with antifreeze, or a return heated water jine. Doubling the line for heating adds to costs and complexity of the system. Figure 1 Typical Piping Insulation System a “hy S Pa a ~ R ss i > T ATIZ ~ QL |e | 19 ‘ a Lv ea Pe =, 7 ae A mr in = N= LAP ONSULAT ON JOINTS x L . : Eat aN an, Leen ret cl tae : b LS HoT WIRE CUT Seni ae i ? Neal NSULATION AS REQUIRED New - EF xe a k ral ™~ SECTIONS oF STYROFOAM INSULATION Re | io 2.2 POUND COATED Under Alternative 3, insulated distribution piping about 4 inches in diameter will be needed. This pipe will be hung directly under the boardwalk and connected to the houses with horizontal runs of insulated tubing. The pipe for Pelican can be insulated using factory manufactured HDPE jacketed pipe insulated with polyurethane. The jacket is to protect the polyurethane which can adsorb water and loose its insulating ability. Pipe of this type generally sells for approximately $20 per foot. An inexpensive alternative is to use hot wire cut Styrofoam and strap it over the pipe. The Styrofoam can be protected from sun by a very inexpensive coating. The pipe, when buried, can be protected from poor quality backfill using geofabric. The material cost for 4 inch pipe with a nominal 4 inches of insulation is about $6.50 per foot. Installation is simple and fast as the HDPE is fused together and then insulation applied in 4 foot sections. Taps and accessories are easily accommodated and repairs are readily accomplished. This type of insulation system. as shown in Figure 1, can be configured for multiple pipes or for electrical wires. With a multiple pipe system circulation can be obtained with a small pump to keep the end-of-line systems from freezing. Also, secondary piping can be used to thaw pipe with a circulating antifreeze system or as a chase for heating tape. June 27, 1996 Page 11 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Services Services are not included in the cost estimate. The individual users are responsible for making their service connections as is typical with most communities. As is seen in the photographs, services as currently used are likely to freeze and require high flows of bypass water to keep them in operation. With an insulated system the same insulation will be needed for the service as bypass water will no longer be allowed. The utility will have to require that the services all be insulated unless they are to be turned off during the winter. Services would be constructed and operated in accordance with a utility standard. The services to the new system will be above water so insulation will be more effective and heat tapes that currently last for a reported two years should have a longer life. For some users who have adequately insulated systems the change will cause them to pay added money for something that already works. However, the benefits to all will be a more reliable and cost effective system with none of the problems that plague the current system. Point of entry systems Point of entry systems seem attractive because it appears a great deal of the current system can be retained, and the system capital cost will be lower than alternatives. Point of entry systems are now allowed by the EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). A point of entry system cost was calculated for this study consisting of a 5 micron filter, a 0.65 micron filter, a pressure/storage tank and a UV disinfectant lamp system. A schematic sketch is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Point of Entry System Configuration BLADDER ~ANK BEESSURE GAUGE — TYPICAL =~ i ae = ye | | Kings oy ( #\ _ DO) < 2) 4 | | we. i. ! —e—_ UV +> <} = SER | \ | \ | AES | i ! 5 MICRONS 3.65 WiCRONS BGPM 8GPM NU EEE NEEL EEE June 27, 1996 Page 1z Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study The system shown will be constructed to fit into an insulated box which can be installed on the outside of a building or on the board walk. The insulated box will be equipped with a small 100 watt heater controlled by a thermostat. Power will be obtained from the service user. A UV lamp will be used for disinfection of bacteria and viruses. The UV lamp uses 110 watts. The regulations require the utility maintain the system. The box will need to be equipped with a locked door so the utility workers can check the pressure differences across the filters. The life of filters depends upon the quality of the water. As a general rule most filters last up to six months. The UV lamp should last one year. Point-of-entry filtration systems have a low initial head loss, however, as the filters get dirty the head loss increases and the filters can be run at higher pressure differentials such as 20 psi each or 40 psi for the two. Unfortunately, the water system has a maximum total psi of 47 psi at the boardwalk. When 15 psi is subtracted for minimum there is only 32 psi left for head losses through piping and filters. This means that most of the community could not run the filters with high head losses. As a result the filters will require more frequent changing and will perhaps be more costly to operate. The yearly cost of materials and electricity for a point-of-use system which can produce 8 gpm is as follows: Item Cost 5 micron filter x 2 $40 0.65 micron filter x 2 $320 UV Lamp $100 Electrical operating $160 costs Total yearly expenses $620 In addition to these costs are the cost of replacement of the materials and checking to assure the system is operating correctly. It is estimated that labor costs will average an additional $60 to $80 per year. The installed cost of these units is about $1,800, not including the changes that need to be made in service piping. Cost Analysis Costs have been discussed in the description of alternatives. In this section costs will be listed for comparative purposes to aid in determining what the most effective systems are. The costs will also provide an approximation of the present worth of the system. In cases such as the package filtration plant, the yearly operations and maintenance differentials are not accounted for. Present worth costs for filter replacement or other operational cost are based on 3.5% real interest over a 20 year period. This yielded a factor of 14.2 times annual cost to convert to a present worth cost. All future component costs were assumed to remain the same in current dollars. June 27, 1996 Page 13 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study Contiguration Cost Full Flow Tank and revised intake ee $970.000 Fuil Flow Tank. revised intake and MIOX system al ; all "$568, 000 Filtration system with insulated piping out. pumps. "$371,000 booster pump to high points, 20,000 gallon tank heat exchanger. revised intake, located above Processor 50.000 Tank. insulated piping throughout. pumps, booster pump to high $368,000 points, heat exchanger, revised intake, located above processor Other Costs Contingency 20% Title 36 wages $150,000 Conclusions Pelican’s water system does not meet the Surface Water Treatment Rules as required by State and Federal Statute. In addition. the system has numerous problems with operations during the winter and with low water pressure in violation of the Uniform Plumbing Code. A number of alternative systems were investigated. Systems that attempted to operate the system as it is currently being run, i.e. using bypass water to prevent freezing during the winter and using large quantities of water to cool condensers result in present worth costs of about $970,000 for a system that gets its entire disinfection by using long contact times for chlorine to $568,000 if a mixed oxidant system will work. Both of these systems will not solve problems of freezing or of low pressure and may make them worse. Systems located near PS (above processor) were investigated. These systems have the advantage of being able to obtain waste heat, of being situated near the center of mass of the community and of having the best topography and access to construct a tank on. Each system would tap off of the 8 inch PVC main and would have the water pressure boosted through treatment facilities hence to a tank. The water from the tank would be distributed throughout the town using an inexpensive insulated piping system. New more reliable services would be constructed. Unlike the current system, the new one would be almost entirely above water. A booster pump would be supplied to serve the area which is near tank elevation where community expansion will occur. Freezeups should be greatly diminished because of heated water and insulated lines. An advantage of the system is that PS could continue to use large amounts of water for cooling the condensers and processing fish. PS uses additional chlorination added at the plant as required by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Raw water, if chlorinated, is acceptable to government agencies. A filtration system and modest storage tank with all of the above features will cost about $371,000. A system with only a larger tank to achieve 3 log reduction in Giardia and 4 log reduction in viruses and bacteria will cost about $368,000. Point of Entry systems were studied. At first they appeared attractive, however they are very dependent on the correct functioning of myriad systems. Further, problems with filtration are not known. The 0.65 micron filter to remove Giardia may clog rapidly and June 27, 1996 Page 14 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study raise costs. Additionally. the pressure drops across the units will create more locations not meeting the codes. Further. these systems will not help the freezing problems. The partial total cost of these systems is $395.000. To this cost could be added booster pumps for the main line or for individual services. The difference in cost of the systems and features shows that selection of a system with a tank on the hill near PS and a new pipeline that serves the community is the best alternative. Pelican Seafoods owns and operates the electric and water utilities. The City owns and operates the sanitary sewers. garbage, and other services typical for a City. The water system in most communities would be owned and operated by the City who can obtain money more readily at lower interest rates than private industry. To keep water costs low to the residents, Pelican Seafoods has not made system upgrades that will improve the operations of the system. Recommendations The requirements of the SWTR require that the water system be improved. It is clear that the best solution is a separate insulated system with treatment and a tank located near the Pelican Seafoods plant. Not only will the new system meet the SWTR but will deal with low pressure and freezing problems. The difficulty is acquiring money for the upgrade. Based on the cost estimate each user will have to take on about $4,000 in debt. This means. as a minimum. an annual increase in water costs of about $400. Additionally, each user will have somewhat higher operating costs. The users will also incur expenses in upgrading their services. This may cost from several hundred dollars or much more depending on distance, complexity, and whether the work is contracted. Pelican Seafoods and the City should consider transferring the water system to the City because this can result in the lowest cost to the residents due to the potential to receive grants for upgrading the system. The City could continue to provide water to the processor in exchange for waste heat to warm the water. Although it may be tempting, the transfer of the power system, because of its integration with the processor's operations, will likely not be a good idea. The upgrading of the water system will cost, at least, an estimated $371,000. There are no contingencies in the estimate nor are wages based on title 36. If contingencies are added they should be in the 20 percent range. Investigations disclosed that the expenditure of state money by the processor does not require title 36 wages although it is more difficult for a private organiztion to obtain state money as opposed to a city. If the water system is upgraded by the City it can be done by force account to avoid title 36 wages. If construction is not done with force account contracting costs will increase the total project cost by $150.000 or more. TT June 27, 1996 Page 15 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study EXHIBIT 1 City Water Plan and Photograph of Community June 27, 1996 Exhibit 1 UMP a LEGEND WATER DISTRIBUTION FAIRBANKS e ANCHORAGE $ PROJECT LOCATION ~P KEY MAP SCALE IN FEET 7 (wo. | oare| revacns \( polarconsult alaska, inc. DRAWING PROJECT SHEET = ENERGY SSS NMEXTAL ee DESIGN PELICAN CITY WATER PLAN DRINKING WATER STUDY 1 | 1503 WEST 33RD AVE, SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420 Pelican, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 Polarconsult Pelican Drinking Water Study EXHIBIT 2 Photographs Sr erT sera June 27, 1996 Exhibit 2 7 PHOTO NO. PHOTO No. | PHOTO No. 3 Puoto No. 6 PHOTO NO. EXHIBIT 3 Criteria Analysis Report IED Exhibit 3 June 27, 1996 CRITERIA ANALYSIS REFORT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE Public Orinking Wate: Supply Pelican Utility, Inc., Pelican, Alaska July 25, 1995 Bh review of Fel weques= to uta treatment. ican Utility, Tne., Public Drinking Water System's ze surface water sources without filtration BACKGROUND On June 29, 21989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated new regulations (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H) comionly referred to as the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). The SWTR, which became ef tive on December 31, 1990, established treatment technique requirements for public water systems {PWSs) which use surface water sources. Under these requirements, PWSs which use surface water sources and/or ground waters directly influenced by surface water, and which do not ——— filter their water, may be allowed to continue using those sources without filtration if they meet criteria specified in <he SWTR. Systems were to have demonstrated compliance with all otf the criteria by December 20, 1991, in or@er to remain unfiltered. In each state, the agency with authority te requlate public drinking water systems must determine if each system can continue to use the surface water source without filtration treatment. If the system does not meet the criteria to remain unfiltered, as outlined in 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H, the system will be required to install filtration treatment or find an alternate scurce of water supply. On March 17, 1993, EPA issued notice to Mr. Thomas Whitmarsh, Chief Engineer, Pelican Utility, Inc., that the water system did not meet the SWTR criteria for remaining unfiltered, and that it could not continue to use its unfiltered surface scurce. EPA, rather than the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), issued this notice because ADEC had not completed the requirements to receive delegation of the authority from EPA to enforce the requirements of the SWTR.* In a letter dated April 25, 1994, from Mr. Whitmarsh to ADEC, Mr. Whitmarsh stated that Pelican Utility, Inc., was attempting to meet the criteria for remaining unfiltered. This was reaffirmed in a letter dated June 27, 1995, from Mr. Whitmarsh to EPA. ‘on January 19, 1995, ADEC was delegated responsibility to enforce the SWTR. Since, however, EPA has been working with Pelican Utility, Inc., on the filtration decision, it will make the final decision with ADEC input. / SwIR'sS source remaining unfi wea SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Pelican Utility, Ince., a privately-owned utility cempany, sexves the community of Pelican, Alaska, with drinking water. Most of the public and private services, and employment, are supplied or supported by Pelican Seafcod, Inc., which also owns the water utility. The public water system (ID# 130122) serves ppromimately 259 residents, a transient fishing fleet of over 300 vesseis, and an unknown number of other non-residents. The system has approximately one hundred (100) service comnecticns. The system utilizes water from Pelican Creek, an unfiltered surface source. The water system was constructed when the community was founced in the i9¢0's. A dam and reservoir were constructed on Pelican Creek; the reservoir supplies water for hydroelectric generation and drinking water. Water is carried from the reservoir in an approximately 1,900 foot long wood flume to a point above tcwn at approximately 100 feet elevation. There the water is diverted into a 340 foot long twelve (12) inch FVC pipeline for drinking water and intc a separate pipeline for hydrcelectric generation. Screens at tne head of each pipe keep out large debris. The twelve inch line terminates inside the hydropower building, where the water is treated by chlorine injection. From the hydropower building, the distribution system consists of an eight inch steel line which terminates in a tee about forty feet from the hydropower building. Coming off from the tee are a tnree (3) inch polyethylene line and@ an eight inch PVC line. The three inch line serves seven houses on the south side of the bridge. The eight inch line serves customers along the boardwalk. The line is buried alongside the boardwalk most ot its length and is supported on the boardwalk pilings for a short section near the seafood plant. Pelican Seafood Inc., is located at the northwest end of the boardwalk. Here the line reduces to a six inch PVC pipe and continues to serve a small group of homes. The line further reduces to a four inch PVC pipe as the distribution system continues to its end about 3,000 feet from the hydropower building. The water system operates by gravity flow. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION s (13 square miles} The watershed is approximately 8,260 acre the higher of torested hills, muskeg, and bare rock at 2 He t0Se of me waAclronteaes naged by the U.S. Forest Se d, apprceximately one square 2 of Alaska. A small area near the ; ected by ty of Pelican. Vegetation cover is typical of Southeast Alaska rainforest and nuskeg wetlands. Access up the flume to the reservoir is limited by a locked gate at the hydropower building. A sign identifies the area as a drinking water supply. The other access is “brutal bushwhacking straicnt uphill through thorns and brambles." The major reported interest in entering the watershed is for hunting; with more productive hunting spets in nearry places at sea level, the human intrusion in the watershed is minimal. Mammals living in the wa shed include prewn bears, Sitka black tail deer and many ether species cf small mammals. No roads, structures, or habitations exist in the watershed. Ou - HH, oO FINDINGS The remainder cf this accument summarizes EPA's analysis of he Pelican Utility, Inc., compliance with the eleven SWTR i a for remaining unfiltered. Criteria which surface water Must meet in order to remain unfiltered are found in 40 -71, and are summarized below in bold type. The findings EPA regarding whether the system meets each criterion are then scribed. 2 m1 4 3 2 1. § 141.72 (a) (1). The fecal coliform concentration must Be equal to or less than 20/100 ml, or the total coliform concentration must be equal to or less than 100/100 ml in = representative samples of the source water immediately prior te the first or only point of disinfectant application in at least 90 percent of the measurements made for the 6 previous months — that the system served water to the public on an ongoing basis. If a system measures both fecal and total coliform, the fecal coliform criterion, but not the total coliform criterion, in this paragraph must be met. Reauired Monitoring Frequency Unfiltered systems trying to remain unfiltered are required to collect total coliform or fecal coliform samples from their source water. The minimum sampling frequencies vary according to the population served. Systens serving fewer than 500 persons must collect at least one source water quality sample per week. In addition, one samplé must be collected every day during which the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU (see criterion 2). Pelican Utility, Inc., Monitoring Results Pelican Utility, Inc., started consistently monitoring in 3 -- ot: oot ye in 1854. Since i¢34, the utiiccy aas to sollect the required number of » has collected 55 samples from January 1994 e review period"); two of these samples coliform concentration of 100/100 ml. both cf these samples were collected in August ity came close to failing she requirement that at the measurements fer the 5 previcus nonths be less Mo. Turbidity levels during the review period were reported above 2 NTU for only five days (all in October 1994). The utility collected one raw water coliform sample during those five da put failed to collect samples on the other four days. Sampling procedures need to be developed to assure that samples are collected when the raw water turbidity exceeds 1 NTU. An axception may be allowed by the state where it can be determined that "for logistical reasons outside the system's contrel" that the ccliform sample cannct be analyzed within 30 hours of collection. Conciusion: Pelican Utility, Inc., is in compliance with tke total coliform source water quality criterion and is in substantial compliance with the monitoring requirements. 2. § 141.71(a) (2). The turbidity level cannot exceed 5 NTU in representative samples of the source water immediately prior to the first or only point of disinfectant application unless: (i) the State determines that any such event was caused by circumstances that were unusual and unpredictable; and (ii) as a result of any such event, there have not been more than two events in the past 12 months the system servad water to the public, or more than five events in the past 120 months. Peguired Monitoring Frequency Unfiltered systems trying to remain unfiltered are required tO measure turbidity levels in grab samples at a minimum frequency of every 4 hours. Continuous turbidity monitoring may be substituted for the grab samples. A total coliform distribution system sample and a source water coliform sample must be collected each day the turbidity level exceeds 1 NTU (see alse criteria 1 and 10). Pe) => Uta e THs onitoring Results The utility monitors turbidity by collecting one grab sample eacn day at the hydrcpower house. This monitoring frequency is not in compliance with the SWIR. Continuous turbidity monitoring will be the only practicable way that tne utility can comply with the nonitoring requirements. > , Curb aac tne wos lity the highest eee experienced cone turbidity event reading was 6 NTU. Consiusion: Felican Utility, Inc., is ret in compliance with che turbidity monitoring requiroments. The uzility appears to be in compliance with the requirement that the source water not exceed 5 NTU, except in limited situations. 3. § 141.71(b)(1) (i). The disinfection treatment must be sufficient to ensure at least 99.9 percent (3 leg) imactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent (4 log) inactivation of viruses, every day the water system serves water to the publics, except any one day each month. requency Unriltereé systems trying to remain unfiltered are required to calculate inactivation values daily. This calculation must be Made at the peak hourly flow rate and reaguires knowledge cf contact time at peak hourly flow, chlorine residual concentration, and pH and temperature values. Pelican Utility, Inc., Compliance Status As indicated above, the utility cnlorinates its drinking water; however, only limited (as little as one minute) chlorine contact time is provided before the first customer. The utility is not in compliance with the inactivation criteria and as a result does not protect against exposure tc Giardia lamblia, viruses, and other pathogenic organisms. 4. § 141.71(b) (1) (ii). The disinfection system must have either (i) redundant components, including an auxiliary power supply with automatic start-up and alarm to ensure that disinfectant application is maintained continuously while water is being delivered to the distribution system, or (ii) automatic shut-off of delivery of water to the distribution system whenever there is less than 0.2 mg/l of residual disinfectant concentration in the water. Discussion In Mr. Whitmarsn's letter of April 25, 1994 to ADEC, he states that the Pelican Utility, Inc., uses "a dual bottle, dual chlorinator system with automatic switchover so that chlorination is maintained when the first chlorine beztle runs out of gas." Further, his letter states that they have installed "a propane fired electric generator which starts automatically when the 5 i all disinfect:on components have back-up units with capacities equa: te or creater than tne largest unit on-line. Peiican Utility, Inc., meets this provision. ie a minimum cf <wo extra units of disinfectant be available =r which can be used aiternately. Pelican Utility, Inc., meets this provisicn. Bs automatic switch-over equipment be rrovided to cnange the feed from one storage unit to the cther before the first empties or tecomes inorerable. Pelican Utii:ty, Inc., meets this srovisicn. a an alternate power supply such as a standby generator with the capability cf running all the electrical equipment be at the disinfection station. The generator should be on-site and functional with the capability of automatic start-up on power failure. Pelican Utility, Inc., meets this provision. Conslusion: It appears that Pelican Utility, Inc., meets this condition. However, an on-site inspection needs to be performed by an independent third party to verify that the disinfection equipment is in place and operational. 5S. § 141.71(b) (1) (iii). The residual disinfectant concentration in the water entering the distribution system cannot be less than 0.2 mg/l for more than 4 hours. Remired Menitorin Unfiltered systems trying to remain unfiltered with a population the size of Pelican Utility, Inc., are required to sample a minimum of once ver day. Pelican Utility, Inc., Monitering Results The utility monitors chlorine residual daily at the entry 6 2m. ar Z cay to J ° ? The criterion of a minimum o chlorine residual, however, is after meeting the inactivation criteria (see 3 above), so the values reported by the utility cannet be compared to the above requirement. Due to inadequate contact time, the utility should increase their chlorination levels, however, the operator receives complaints of chlorine taste and odor if the chlorine leveis are raised much abcve the current levels. 6. § 141.712(b) (1) (iv). The residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution system measured as free, total or combined chlorine, or chlorine dioxide, cannot be undetectable in more than 5 percent of the samples gach month, for any two consecutive months that the system serves water to the public. Required Monitoring Freauency Monitoring must be completed at the same time and location that Total Coliform samples are collected for compliance with the Total Coliform Ruie. elican Utili Mon As indicated in condition 5 above, the utility measures chlorine residuals daily near the end of the distribution system. The requirement, however, is that a residual must be maintained after the inactivation criteria are met, therefore, the values reperted by the utility cannot be compared to this requirement. 7.§ 141.71.(b) (2). The public water system must maintain a watershed control program which minimizes the potential for contamination by Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses in the source water...,.At a minimum the watershed control program must: (a) characterize the watershed hydrology and land ownership; (ii) identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have an adverse effect on source water quality; and (iii) monitor the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse effect on source water quality. The public water system must demonstrate through ownership and/or written agreements with landowners within the watershed that it can control all human activities which may have an adverse impact on the microbiological quality of the source water. utility provided 2?A with a description of tne Pelican in February 1995. Due to the limited human itres that take place in the watershed, only a mininal control pregram is required. The utility’ should commence working with the City of Pelican and other land owners to develcp ordinances which will protect water quality in the Pelican Creek watershed. “<9 8. § 141.71(b) (3). The public water system must be subject to an annual on-site inspection to assess the watershed control procram and disinfection treatment process. Sither the State or &@ party approved by the State must conduct the on-site inspection. A contractor <sor EPA conducted a detailed sanitary survey of the water system on September 22, 1993. Much of this report is based on that survey. If she utility. chooses to pursue the water system improvements needed to avoid filtration, a sanitary survey will be required when the improvements are completed, and anraally thereafter. 9. § 141.71(b)(4}. The public water system must not have been identified as a source of a waterborne disease outbreak, or if it has been so identified, the system must have been modified sufficiently to prevent another such occurrence, as determined by the State. Discussion The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services nas no record of any waterborne disease outbreak attributed <o the Pelican Utility, Inc., water system. 10. § 141.71(b) (5S). The public water system must comply with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliforms in at least 11 of the 12 previous months that the system served water to the public, om an ongoing basis, unless the State determines that failure to meet this requirement was not caused by a deficiency in treatment of the source water. Frequency Reowired Monitorin Based on a population cf 250 persons, the utility is required to collect at least one routine total coliform sample per month. In addition, unfiltered systems using surface water sources must collect a total coliform sample at or near the first customer each day the turbidity level exceeds 1 NTU. 8 uv Ww 2 1 ia Sane inc. Monessen" ag Pesul<s 2@cords for the period September i99: through June i995 were reviewed to determine compliance with this condition. During that persec, all required routine sampling was conducted, and ail samples were total coliform negative, except for the sample collected July 5, 1994 (total positive-fecal negative). Two things are noteworthy. First, no chlorine residual is indicated on the analysis form. Second, on that same date a raw water sample was collected; its results were "too numerous to count." Follow-up raw and finished water samples were collected on Juiy 7, 1994. The nisned sample was negative and the raw water counts were typical--17 total coliform. The required follew-up sampling was not conducted (i.e., four repeat samples and five the following month). Two other concerns exist with the utility's monitoring program. The distribution system samples are all collected at the "Engine Room" which is at the Pelican Seafood, Inc., plant, at the distant end of the distribution system. While even at the distant end of the distribution system, only minimal contact time is provided (the operator estimates 10-12 minutes), this location represents a "best case" situation since at least limited chiorine contact time occurs in the distribution system. The ity should develcp a sample siting plan where the sampiing would cccur at sites more representative of water throughout the distribution system. At a minimum, the sample location should alternate monthly between the beginning and end of the distribution system. In addition, coliform samples were not collected during four of the five days when turbidity exceeded 1 NTU in October 1994. See also conditions 1 and 2 above. Concsiusion: Pelican Utility, Inc., is in compliance with the total coliform maximum contaminant level. The utility needs to refine its monitoring program, however, to be in compliance with the monitoring requirements. 11.§ 141.71(b)(6)- The public water system must comply with the monitoring and MCL requirements for total trihalomethanes (TTEMS) . Discussion Compliance with the TTHM requirements applies to those public water systems serving 10,000 or more persons. Because the population served by Pelican Utility, Inc., is less than 10,000, compliance with this condition is not required. Conclusion: This candition is not applicable to Pelican Utility, Inc. EXHIBIT 4 Letter of Reply to Clarify Criteria Analysis Report a eee June 27, 1996 Exhibit 4 P.O. Box 110 Pelican, Aaoxa $9892 0119 U.S.A. (907) 735-2204 Fax: (907) 735-2281 WHX 956-i6VHF/Si25 SSB eile LG nth S&venue Washangton 98103 Oo 5 G » P| n 7 Palsean Utilacy. Ine. Water System 12o122) = Bub pec with SWI Dear Sar: We have received your letters of June 12 and June 22 1995 and arr replyine to clarify the situation and correct some minor points im your Criteria Analysis Report. bhe Fetican Utility Company nas sought permission to operate an witiitered system because preliminary inquiraes have indicated nhat filtering eur water would be prohibitively expensive in both Canitol costs and operating costs. We have been weiting for regulatory approval of this option before hiring an engineering gonsulkant to explore alternatives for upgrading cur water syv3tem. The Pelican Utility facen an impossible economic situation in trving to comply with the EPA SWTR. Smal] towns are ata disadvantage to towns with larger water systems because of the normal econemies of scale, but Pelican has the additional problem shat this small town has the same water use and treatment reguirgmnnts as anormal system 10 times larger; sa the economic difficulties are multiplied for this system. It just may not be POGEsSilIo.e to meet the SWTR requirements for the city of Felacan 0 there isn’t enough money to build or operate the system that as required. The Water Utility is currently subsidized by the Pelican Electric utility and the Pelican Seafoods company. The Fetican Seafoods Company, which igs the reason'the town was fourded im the first place, has to watch every penny to stay viable. Changes in various government regulations have increased the ocests to operate and reduced the available seafood for OFrOocessitna. The engineering consultant will be exploring all options for impraving aur water system both filtered and unfiltered. re 2s bie ths the only way thas tewn can afford a system that mea 7A rui2e for 4a surtace water seurce is to build a watering Soint system where residents can ebtain surifien bottled water. The GWTR coentaars 11 criteria. whacn if met, will allow a system to be unfiltered. O01 these criteria, only one (mumber 9 - The water eyatem mist not have been adent2fied as a source of a water baurne disease outbreak) is truly significant. This is actually the purpose of the SWIR. The otner criteria are factors that will contribute to eathieving this absence of waterborne disease moe breaks. There ace no records of water borne disease outbreaks from the Pelicam water system in the last 55 years. We are fermtunate in our water source which drains from e pristine wilderne arte. Kasey on this history. the water system in Priican if mot ino a crisis situation since the wilderness character of the watersned is unlikely to change in the near future. The consultang engineering firm will be h2red in July of 19975, The tairm. Folarconsult Ataska based in Anchorage, Aiaska,. is currently working wath the Pelican tility Company oan an ungrarie of the Dam on Pelican Creek which ifs required by the Feceral Energy Regulatory Commission. The dam and water works for the hydreelectrac plant are ‘the source of the water suppiy for tne Water Wrility. We would hope to rave a report trom the Hiting enganeers by December of 1995. We will be unable to any turther decisions on plans and arheduling for the water simm Laproavements until after we have had time to consider the engqinerring report. Comments on the Criteria Analysis Reporte page 2. 2nd paragraph: The serecens are pleastac on an aluminum frame rather than stainless steel. page 2. Srd paragraph: The shree imch line serves 7 housen on the south side of the bridge mot the school building. The line is buried along side of the boardwalk and is only supported on the palings far a short section at the end near the seafood plant. page 2. 4th paragraph: About halt of the watershed has thin soil cover or iS bare rank at the higher elevations. Page 4. 16t paragraph: high turbidity leveis for this system are always associated with eunet* durina eavy rainta.l storms whicn precominantly ¢ dursag the tall of the year. During these sterms the air tov. servaces that connect Pelacen with Juneau and the water testing laboratsry frecuentiy da not fly. During these “imes whan ERA mandates we sample the water, we frequently cannot get the samples tested withan the 30 hour period. EFA will need to aabe allowances far poer transportation avaiiability. belaeve that many of the hign turbidity readings could be eminated aith the installataan ef a settler on the intoke tor atv water. About FO% of sediment collected in system water ens during the Pagh rainfall starms will settle out in about mairnwites. pace ‘4+. th paragraph: The EP requirement of continuous monitering for the system in Pelican might not work very weil. based on our experience over she last 1060 vearss of turbidity testing, the actual results = can vary Basialy by a factor ct 10 with small changee in the testing procedure with grab samples. A dirty test tube or air bubbles ian easily give a false reading. Just turning on the fauret te a mI" Of less open positien can give highly variable readings. We leave the taucet running in an attempt to minimize these varraoles with our grab sample testing- I have little faith in the readings trom a continueus monitoring device even when recalibrated weekly as per the regulations. Bad readings are always figh. High readings mean extra water samples sent to the latoratory at 55 per test. Every time the continuous monitor saves there mas peen a turbidity event greater than 1 NTU, EFA world require ennther water sample tno be sent to the lab. The ecnntinueus turbidity testing menitor with analog chart recorder will cost between $1800 and #5500. Thais is a big expense for a warter utility with total yearly revenues of iess than £6000. Hogh monitoring costs are a considerable financial burden for a smakl utalaty. The absence cf a hastery of health problems should justify a variance to allow the utility to continue with ats current. once per day turbidity monitoring schedule. The State DEC drinking water section has approved this reduction in manitoring frequency for small water utilities. Rage 4. last paragraph: The Felacan Utility has turbadaty readings from June 1984, page 4. 2. The Priican Utility has a dual bottle chlorinator system. The bottles can be used alternately. In'addition, there 43 a comeletely separate single bottle chlorinator system that is sonnected to the propane driven electric generator for bactup dering power outages: it can also be turned on manually if the main system needs maintenance. The back up generator and chlorainator syetem are tested monthly. nage o. last paragraph: Chlorine residuai readings are taken dazly beth at the start of the cdaistratution system ana 3st a representative point near the end of the distribution system. page 7. ist paragrapn: The utility receives complaints from its customers of an offensive chlorine taste and oder if chlorine levels are raised much above the current levels. page %. 2nd parauraph: The water flows through the distrabution system at a high mete. The Pelican engine room cantains tube and shell refrigeration cendensers which have Aigh continuous water flow. At a typical metered flow rate tor the system of 800-1000 gal/minute. it takes an estimated 10 to {2 minutes for the water to travel from the hydro bualding disanfectant point to the Pelican engine ranm. We contends that we have develnwped a sample siting plan and that the current sampling site at the engine room is representative at the water throughout the dastribution system. Sincerely, fee higuncd . Thomas Whitmarah Chief Engineer Pelican Wtilaty, Ine. EXHIBIT 5 Proposed Decision Document —_— June 27, 1996 Exhibit 5 BLISS A review of the Pelican Utility, Inc., request to utilize a surface water source without filtration treatment BACKGROUND On March 17, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified Mr. Thomas Whitmarsh, Chief Engineer of the Pelican Utility, Inc., water system, that the water system dic not meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) criteria for remaining unfiltered, and that it couli not continue to use its unfiltered surface source. Ina letter dated April 25, 19¢;, from Mr. Whitmarsh to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Mr. Whitmarsh stated that Pelican Utility, Inc., was attempting to meet the criteria for remaining untiltered. This was reaftirmed in a letter dated June 27, 1¢25 from Mr. Whitmarsh to EPA. On June 22, 1995, EPA notified Mr. Whitmarsh that it had completed a Draft Criteria Analysis Report. The report preserted EPA's evaluation of Pelican Utility, Inc.'s demonstration cf compliance with the source water quality and site-specific criteria for remaining unfiltered as provided in the SWTR. EFA, in consultation with ADEC, determined, based on the informaticn provided, that Pelican Utility, Inc., was complying with the two source water quality criteria for remaining unfiltered, and wes in compliance with three of the eight site-specific criteria for remaining unfiltered. In Mr. Whitmarsh's letter of June 27, 1995, to EPA, he provided comments on the Draft Criteria Analysis Report which were included in the revised Report dated July 25, 19¢5. In addition, Mr. Whitmarsh indicated that Pelican Utility, Inc., would hire an engineering consultant in July 19¢5, and the consultant would provide a report by December 1995, with PURPOSE This Proposed Decision Document ccntains the results of EPA's evaluation of Pelican Utility, Inc.'s compliance with tre SWTR. It also presents the rationale tor the compliance dates contained in the Proposed Administrative Order. If no additizcnal substantive information relevant to the proposed decision is submitted by the public or the utility, and, if EPA determines that a public hearing on this decision will not be held, this Proposed Decision Document will be considered final. ta u ‘ t vs ' , fo 4 a w 4 re o uw ys a @ (o) " ’ a o " ' we BO Remaan Unftalcered: Criteria) WaZen mass water system to € fFiitered. y umma i ow: §141.71(a)(1) The fecal coiiform concentration must ke equal to or less than 20/100 ml, or the total coliforr concentration must be equal to or less than 100/100 m: ir. representative samples of the source water immediately prior to the first or only point of disinfectant applicatior in at least 90 percent of the measurements made for the six (6 previous months that the system served water to the public on an ongoing basis. §141.71(a) (2). The turbidity level cannot exceed 5 NTU in representative samples of source water immediately pr:or to the first or only point of disinfectant application. §141.71(b)(1) (i). The disintection treatment must be sufficient to ensure at least 99.9 percent (3 log) inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percert ¢ log) inactivation of viruses, every day the water syster. serves water to the public, except any one day each mcntr. §141.71(b) (1) (ii). The disinfection system must have eitner (1) redundant components, including an auxiliary power supply with automatic start-up and alarm to ensure thet disinfectant application is maintained continuously while water is being delivered to the distribution system, cr ‘2) automatic shut-off of delivery of water to the distrikut:on system whenever there is less than 0.2 mg/1 of residuel disinfectant concentration in the water. §141.71(b) (1) (iii). The residual disinfectant concentzrazion in the water entering the distribution system cannot te ‘ess than 0.2 mg/l for more than four (4) hours. §141.71(b) (1) (iv). The residual disinfectant concentrat:on in the distribution system measured as free, total or combined chlorine, or chlorine dioxide, cannot be undetectable in more than five (5) percent of the sarsles each month, for any two consecutive months that the system serves water to the public. §141.71.(b) (2). The public water system must maintain é Watershed Control Program which minimizes the potential ‘for contamination by Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses in the source water. At a minimum, the watershed control progrin must: (zit; =soniter s currence of activities which may have an on source water quality. The public water system must demonstrate through ownersh:p and/er written agreements with landowners within the watershed that it can control all human activities which x ay have an adverse impact on the microbiological quality of the source water. 8. §141.71(b) (2). The public water system must be subject to an annual on inspection to assess the watershed control prog and disintection treatment processes. oe §141.71(b) (4). The public water system must not have been identified as a source of a waterborne disease outbre:, or if it has been so identified, the system must have been modified sufficiently to prevent another such occurrence. 10. §141.71(b) (5). The public water system must comply with the ma>;imum contaminant level for total coliforms in at leas: 11 of 12 previous months that the system served water to the public, on an ongoing basis, unless the State determines that failure to meet this requirement was not caused Ly é deficiency in treatment of the source water. Note: An eleventh criterion requires that a public water system meet the monitoring requirements and maximum contaminant leve. for total trihalomethanes. Because this criterion applies to systems serving 10,000 or more persons, Pelican Utility, Inc., is not subject to this requirement. The five criteria identified in the Criteria Analysis Resort which Pelican Utility, Inc. did not comply with are: lis the inactivation (CT) requirements (criterion 3, above); essentially no chlorine contact time is provided pricr tz: delivery of water to the first customer. és the disinfectant residual entering the distribution systen (criterion 5, above); the disinfectant residual must se maintained after the inactivation criteria are met, and since the inactivation criteria cannot be met, complianc= with this criterion is not possible. ae the disinfectant residual in the distribution system (criterion 6, above); the disinfectant residual must be ntrol program (criterion 7, above); greements with the watershed land owners are this criterion. 5. the annual on-site inspection (criterion §, above); an or- site inspection was conducted by an EPA contractor in 1963 but none has been conducted since. CONCLUSIONS While the Criteria Analysis Report documents that five of the criteria are not being met, Pelican Utility, Inc., has presented information which demonstrates that, if allowed rore time, it may be able to comply with the SWTR requirements for remaining unfiltered. EPA recognizes that Pelican Utility, Inc., is working towards remedying the existing deficiencies. However, until such time as the utility's engineering consultant completes its studies, a final compliance date cannot be determined. Pelic:n Utility, Inc., has indicated that this engineering study will be completed by December 1995. Because the system was unable to comply with all the criteria for remaining unfiltered by December 30, 1991 (the regulatory compliance date), and further engineering studies are needed, an Administrative Order will be issued as part of this decision. The Administrative Order will address accruing SWTF violations and include interim reporting requirements as well as a compliance date for submitting the engineering report to EFs+ and ADEC. Upon review of the engineering report, the Administrative Order will be amended to include a compliance schedule for meeting all of the SWTR requirements. A 3( Oct 9S Date Drinking Water Unit EXHIBIT 6 Use of Non-Centralized Treatment Devices es June 27, 1996 Exhibit 6 $141,100 Criteria and procedures for public water systems using point-of- entry devices. a) Public water systems may use point-of-entry devices to compiy with maximum contaminant leveis only if they meet the requirements of this section. (b) It is the responsibility of the public water system {to operate and maintain the point-or-entry treaument system. ic) The pubiic water system must develop and obtain State approval for a monttoring pian before point-of-entry devices are instailed for compirance Under the pian approved by the State. point-ot- entry devices must provide health protection equivaient to cenwal water weatment. ““Equiva- lent’’ means that the water wouid meet all national primary drinking water regulations and wouid be of acceptable quality similar to water distnbuted by a weil-operated central treatment piant. in addi- tion to the VOCs. monitoring must inciude phys- ical measurements and observations such as total flow treated and mechanical condition of the treat- ment equipment. (d) Effective technology must be properiy ap- plied under a plan ap- proved by the State and the microbiological safety of the water must be maintained. (1) The State must require adequate cemfication of performance, field testing, and. if not included in the certification process. a mgorous engineenng design review of the point-of-entry devices. (2) The design and application of the point-of- entry devices must consider the tendency for in- crease in heterotrophic bacteria concentrations in water treated with activated carbon. [t may be nec- essary to use frequent backwashing, post-contactor disintection. and Heterotrophic Plate Count mon- itoring to ensure that the microbiological sarety of the water 1s not compromised. (e) all consumers shall be protectea. Every buiiding connected to the system must have a point-of-entry device installed, maintained. and adequately monitored. The State must be assured that every building 1s subject to treatment and monitoring, and that the rights and responsibilities of the public water system customer convey with utle upon sale of property (52 FR 25716, July 8, 1987, 53 FR 25111, July 1, 1988] §141.101 Use of other non-centralized treatment devices. Public water systems shail not use bottled water or point-of-use devices to achieve compiiance with an MCL. Bottled water or point-ot-use devices may be used on a temporary basis to avoid an un- reasonable risk to health. Appendix J Drawing Set: Pelican Creek Hydroelectric Project f ih ii E abit polarconsult alaska, Inc. AOE AA OOS PELICAN CREEK HYDROELECTRIC INTAKE & DAM UPGRADE PELICAR. ALASKA owe VERTICAL SECTION ond 2 1 mre Ok & wr « (5) & von e Ee PELICAN CREEK HYDROELECTRIC WNTAKE & DAM UPGRADE 1° THREADED PIPE END ~ 1° PIPE TO 1° GATE VALVE 30°@ 150 FLANGE SET Oe aut zl» ss J Es (O_O 0 | [a> poe a INSTALL BLOCKS BEHIND PIPE FOR SUPPORT. SECURE BYPASS TO EXISTING INTAKE ELEV. 136.4" DAM ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH IK. POND ELEV 326 ¢° 30°@ 3/16 WALL STEEL—————. BYPASS PIPE SS EXISTING TIM3ER CRIB ROCK FILLED DAM Ss FACE OF EXISTING DAW O I\3/16 dy (e SILT pee 30° 150§ BUTTERFLY VALVE O Oo DO © Ty oO Oo NN O —O DAM SECTION A Appendix K Pelican Electrical Distribution System Upgrade: Staking Sheets and Notes PELICAN ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE NOTES TO STAKING SHEETS General Notes: All existing primary conductor is stranded copper. The main section of town is #3/0 AWG concentric stranded and either end is #4 AWG solid. The existing system is a 2400 volt delta system. Existing transformer fuses are enclosed drop out type. Reuse the existing fuses and any serviceable insulators. All M5-9 units referenced shall be drop out type fuses. Tie conductors to insulators using #4 AWG solid copper. The staking sheets utilize REA Bulletin 50-3 for construction standards. Construct the new system as closely as possible to Bulletin 50-3. Remove all old TV cable, speakers, and fire alarm boxes. Reinstall all street lights. Specific Notes: 1. o Replace pole with new pole indicated. Reinstall the three existing meter bases and meters to the new pole. Reuse secondary cable support brackets. Reframe the transformer structure similar to Unit G210. Reinstall back span of 3 #3/0 AWG copper to. Remove copper conductors from pole number 7 to pole #1. Reinstall 2 #10 conductors (provided for alarm.) Move dropouts from building and install dropouts on crossarm. Rebuild pad for transformers. Rework jumpers from primary line to dropouts. Install transformers in fiberglass enclosure as indicated on Sketch 1. Install new service to dock. Route 3#4/0 aluminum in conduit. Transfer all service (4) from existing pole. Service to health club is installed under the walkway. Remove the existing conductors and extend the conduit to the new pole. Install new conductors from the service to the transformer. Install two transformers on a three phase cluster mount. Replace the service to the building with the broken mast with a new under boardwalk feed. Transfer all services (5) from the existing pole to the new pole on the opposite side of the boardwalk. The two existing primary risers shall be transferred to the new pole. STAKING SHEET | SECONDARY CONDUCTOR JPRIMARY [SERVICE JUNDERBUILT ICONDUC TOR: STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY GUYS: ANCHORS REMARKS No. [Sz |Back |No. [Sz |Back |No. [Sz [Back NO. ICLass [ASSEMBLY Tyee nest invent iypelnaaad pen | tyeeluaell open Iba [Sn na 3 ms Lote —_ peer sent we {| 18210 Tex. 204 1 40-4 187 NEV2 JRECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES TO HOMES 1 T cu 163-10 NOTE 1 i. {920 —- TPX 2 Bo AEN-2 1]25 KVA_ AIMS-14 JREFRAME POLE I I sJesi6 alus.t7 NOTE 2 | il IRECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES TO HOMES 1 #200 TPX 3 140.4 sfe9 2/56 IREMOVE EXISTING POLE AND SAVE i FOR REUSE RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES TO HOMES | is i . 2:82 34 40-4 2|87 2)e1-2 2)F1-2P T JACSR 2]€3-10 T i ; 2is2 32 © laoa Jas 1 I IACSR . 33 |ao4 Jes 7 T 202 34 40-4 189 I { JACSR | — +- ] 7 2.02 35 |ao4 ‘Jaa ican NO. JDATE BY JDESIGNER DATE C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer ease — a . a PELICAN 1306 W. 47th Avenue DISTRIBUTION ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 fa aan) SYSTEM UPGRADE JOIST. ENG. JOATE cw Jan-95| MGR. ENG. DATE cw Jan-95|SHEET 1 OF 8 [wo no. 95001 SHAKING oHieLE SECONDARY CONDUCTOR |SECONDARY RIGHT SERVICE |UNDERBUILT STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY GUYS: JANCHORS XFMRS |ANO |MISC. |OF REMARKS No. [Sz [Back |No. [Sz [Back No. [class [ASSEMBLY SERVICE way Type span |Type [Span No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units 3-6 40-4 a7 2)e12 2) 12° 2)F3-10 ae a i i os Px 3-7 |404 1Ja7 afer2- [apse 1 T 1JE3-10 oc 3) T 1px tex | 3-8 = }ao5 fer? aise 2)%6 { 163-10 } 1170 | ‘ TPX 2.02 4 40.4 IB E12 2156 IREPLACE EXISTING POLE ' 7 JACSR ‘E310 JRECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES TO T 1PX 202 5 sar Jena aFioe 125 KYA 2]6 aus: 44 STRAIGHTEN EXISTING POLE ANU REFRAME ! T JACSR 13-10, 2]M5-17 RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES cau IE sll PX 202 6 45.4 1182 AEN-2. 116 |REPLACE EXISTING POLE | JACSR 1F3-10 : 3030 Z 50.4 1]ce-4 3fe12 REPLACE EXISTING POLE { i cu ilar afea-t0 NOTE 3 ; . 8 Io WORK INO. DATE BY JDESIGNER: JDATE C.W. Versyp. P.E., Consulting Engineer oy on 86) PELICAN 1306 W. 47th Avenue CHECKER mare DISTRIBUTION ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 tl Jen-95} SYSTEM UPGRADE DIST. ENG. JDATE cw Jan-95} MGR. ENG. |OATE t cw Jan-95|)SHEET 2 Ors [WO HO. [SECONDARY CONDUCTOR SERVICE No. _[Sz. Type JUNOERBUILT PRIMARY |CONDUCTOR (Back |No. [Sz |Back [No. [Sz |Back Span_|Type Span |Type Span STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY NO. CLASS |ASSEMBLY No. [Units STAKING SHEET curs |ANCHORS No. [Units No. [Units C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer 1306 W. 47th Avenue ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 SECONDARY AND SERVICE No. [Units REMARKS RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES REPLACE EXISTING POLE IREMOVE ONE GUY RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICES REPLACE EXISTING POLE ‘SIGNER ECE : PELICAN cw 7 DISTRIBUTION DIST. ENG. SYSTEM UPGRADE cw GR_ENG cw STAKING SHEET [SECONDARY CONDUCTOR SECONDARY SERVICE [UNDERBUILT STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY icuys |ANCHORS XFMRS |AND REMARKS No. [Sz [Back [No. [Sz [Back No. CLASS |ASSEMBLY SERVICE Type Span [Type iSpan No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units 48 RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICE REPLACE EXISTING SECONDARY CABLE RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICE REPLACE EXISTING SECONDARY CABLE RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICE REPLACE EXISTING SECONDARY CABLE RECONNECT EXISTING SERVICE REPLACE EXISTING SECONDARY CABLE DESIGNER cw CW. Versyp. . Consulting Engineer CHECKER PELICAN 1306 W. 47th Avenue cw DISTRIBUTION ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 DIST. EN SYSTEM UPGRADE cw MGR E cw STAKING SHEET |SECONDARY CONDUCTOR |SECONDARY RIGHT SERVICE |UNDERBUILT CONDUCTOR STRUCTURE JPRIMARY GUYS: JANCHORS XFMRS |ANO MISC. |OF REMARKS No. [sz |Back NO. ASSEMBLY SERVICE WAY Type Span No, [Units [No | Units: No. [Us No. [Units No. |Units 17 . 18 REMOVE EXISTING LOUD SPEAKER [SEE NOTE 4 19 FEED TO CRAB PLANT REMOVE OVERHEAD |CONDUCTORS AND INSULATORS INSTALL NEW UNDERGROUND CONNECTION 20 1 REMOVE OLD OIL CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND | |CROSSARMS . 21 No WORK — 22 |PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN GUY JAND SWITCH 23 q]c2-4 1fe1-2 REPLACE POLE 24 1\c9.4 ae 1-2 REPLACE POLE a 2 NO. By DESIGNER [DATE cw x C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer cuecuen ee PELICAN 1306 W. 47th Avenue cw Jan-33} DISTRIBUTION ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 DIST ENG DATE SYSTEM UPGRADE cw Jan-35] [MGR ENG. JOATE cw Jan-95[SHEET 4 [wo Ni 9 STAKING SHEET SECONDARY CONDUCTOR |PRIMARY SECONDARY RIGHT SERVICE |UNDERBUILT |JCONDUCTOR STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY GUYS: ANCHORS: XFMRS JAN MISC. OF REMARKS: No. [Sz [Back |No. Sz. |Back |No. [Sz [Back NO. ICLASS ASSEMBLY SERVICE WAY [Te Span |Type Span_|Type Span No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units [No. [Units No. [Units 25 No WORK awa T ai 26 acai 1]25KVA ajus9 I I 2)M5-14 JREFRAME POLE a)nas-17 [SEE NOTE 5 27 0.4 ier REPLACE POLE 28 50.4 fei REPLACE POLE 29 fez REFRAME POLE 30 ici REFRAME POLE 31 ica REFRAME POLE LOWER GUY 32 s0.4 afer ales-2 a|Fize i pox 1f6 REPLACE POLE I 2 2)e3-10 SEE NOTE 6 INO. JOATE By IDESIGNER DATE — C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer eee ite PELICAN - — 1306 W. 47th Avenue cw Jan 35] DISTRIBUTION - a ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ST ENG. DATE SYSTEM UPGRADE — cw Jan-95) —— —_ MGR. ENG. DATE <a _ cw Jan-98|SHEET 8 OF 8 Rone 35007 SIAKING ortel [SECONDARY CONDUCTOR SERVICE UNDERBUILT PRIMARY CONDUCTOR STRUCTURE |HEIGHT [PRIMARY curs CLASS |ASSEMBLY No. [Units JANCHORS, XFMRS No. [Sz. Back |No. Sz. Back |No. [Sz. Back NO. Type Span |Type Span_|Type Span No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units 33 C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer 1306 W. 47th Avenue ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 SECONDARY AND SERVICE No. [Units DESIGNER cw [CHECKER cw DIST. ENG. cw MGR. ENG. cw REMARKS JADD INSULATORS CORRECT INSULATOR SPACING REPLACE POLE REF RAME POLE REFRAME POLE REPLACE POLE REPLACE POLE IREMOVE FIRE BOX DATE Jen-95) PELICAN DATE DISTRIBUTION Jan-95] SYSTEM UPGRADE DATE Jan-95} DATE Jan-95|SHEET 6 OF 8 STAKING SHEET [SECONDARY CONDUCTOR PRIMARY SECONDARY SERVICE [UNDERBUILT ICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE |HEIGHT |PRIMARY cus JANCHORS XFMRS JAND No. [Sz [Back |No. [Sz [Back [No. [Sz [Back NO. CLASS |ASSEMBLY SERVICE Type span [Type span [Type [Span No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units No. [Units IRE SAG CONDUCTORS IRE SAG CONDUCTORS IREFRAME POLE REF RAME POLE DESIGNER C.W. Versyp, P.E., Consulting Engineer CH, PELICAN 1306 W. 47th Avenue CHECKER DISTRIBUTION ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 Cw. SYSTEM UPGRADE DIST. ENG. cw MGR. ENG. cw SHEET 7 OF 8 iceman ed