Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Alaska Power Authority Unalaska Geothermal Project Final Rep 1987W BY | wy f 2-4 wine Ree T os a Sp uae” NE aot ie NO. 1198 NO. qs = AS os Incorporated ISSUED TO: tn THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 15, 1987 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT CONTACT: e@ BILLLEWIS, P.E. e@ JOHN McGREW © AIRPORT WAY @ P.O. BOX 1066 @ HAILEY, IDAHO 83333 @ (208) 788-3456 @ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I THE PROJECT ll PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS Ul PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM IV GENERATION SYSTEM Vv STATION REQUIREMENTS vi TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Vil SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS Vill ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/ IX ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE X APPENDICES Xl 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) ' I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POWER Engineers, Incorporated 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Alaska Power Authority (APA) contracted with POWER Engineers, Inc. (POWER) to perform an independent cost estimate of the agency’s Unalaska Geothermal Project based on the design and other project data found in the Unalaska Geothermal Feasibility Study Final Report, June 22, 1987, prepared by Dames & Moore. The Dames & Moore report addresses the institutional concerns, design and cost of a 7 megawatt (MW) geothermal power plant located on Unalaska Island. The report also addresses the transmission line and support facilities required to build and maintain the project and deliver the power to the Unalaska/Dutch Harbor area. In addition to carrying out the independent cost estimate, POWER--supported by Hart-Crowser, Inc.--was commissioned to review and evaluate the design suitability and feasibility of certain critical project components, in particular the transmission line. In the course of the review, POWER identified potential alternatives for the design of the plant, transmission line, and roads. Because these alternatives appeared to have potential benefits to the project, APA directed POWER to prepare an alternative design concept and cost estimate as well as a cost estimate for the original design. The report addresses two scenarios. The first, referred to as the “Base Case” throughout the report, is based on the Dames & Moore design. The second, referred to as the “Alternate,” is based on the conceptual design prepared by 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) 1-1 Driftwood Bay has been identified as a high energy beach with potential landing problems associated with the beach configuration and severe weather. The Alternate approach, in which all equipment would be transported up the Makushin Valley from Broad Bay, avoids this problem and negates the need for a road from Driftwood Bay. This road, which would run all the way to the production well plateau, would be initially more expensive but would result in substantial cost savings by allowing for the plant to be built on the production well plateau, thus eliminating the Base Case production gathering system and helicopter well drilling scenario. The Base Case location of the injection well on the plateau north of Fox Canyon would be appropriate because the well would be close to the plant and the injectivity appears to be good. In the Alternate, the injection well would be located at the east end of the plateau, about 2,500 feet from the production well, and would be drilled directionally to the north. Resistivity data indicates this location has a suitable injection zone at the target depths. If testing indicated a severe short circuit with the production well, this well could be converted to the spare production well and another location found for the injection well. The hybrid technology proposed for the Base Case, with the single-flash, two-steam turbine trains, and two binary generation modules, is complex and expensive. Due to the relatively high flash pressure and inefficient energy conversion of the binary modules, resource utilization is rather poor. The dual-flash system utilized in the Alternate design produces the same net power (7 MW) with 10 percent less geothermal fluid. The Alternate technology is simpler, cheaper--due to the fewer components--and better proven for geothermal applications. The total project capital costs may be seen in Figure 1-1. The estimated capital cost for the Base Case is $14 million more than the Alternate. The savings results from the different design approach and costs for the transmission line, plant, and wells. The transmission line savings are due to eliminating the underground cable by relocating the line to the edge of Makushin Valley and keeping it overhead. The other major component of the transmission line savings is due to elimination of the overhead ground wire, which POWER feels is unnecessary. 2980ND 1198 (12/15/87) | 7 3 FIGURE 1-1 TOTAL UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS (1987 DOLLARS) Plant Direct Costs Station Direct Costs T-Line Direct Costs SCADA Direct Costs Subtotal Construction Expenses @ 9% Contractors Fee @5% Subtotal Production and Injection Wells Roads and Docks - Construction Permits and Geotech Mob, Demob, Mancamp Subtotal Total Contract Cost Engineering and CM @ 13% APA Admin. @ 3% Subtotal Total Contingency @ 15% TOTAL PROJECT COST 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Base Case $16,633,041 508,300 5,654,515 100,000 $22,895,856 2,060,627 1,144,793 $3,205,420 4,127,615 4,022,993 224,850 2,343,000 $10,718,458 $36,819,734 4,786,565 1,104,592 $5,891,157 $42,710,891 6,406,634 $49,117,525 Alternate $10,300,714 470,000 $3,618,930 100,000 $14,489,644 1,304,068 724,482 $2,028,550 2,840,236 4,589,696 224,850 2,294,145 $9,948,927 $26,467,121 : 3,440,726 794,014 $4,234,740 $30,701,861 4,605,279 $35,307,140 LEGEND BASE CASE ALTERNATIVE CASE ROADWAYS = ——— ROADWAYS, — H-FRAME T-LINE —BH— H-FRAME T-LINE — *—AH—« UNDERGROUND -—------ SINGLE POLE TLINE »—--——» SUBMARINE ~~ ~~ SUBMARINE _——— A : 5 + Sease case_ 1 Tr Fria CSarterine STATION f ° et Lae Aa Sn + & /| te S| ae anit ee inaese 4 eee Las : ‘SINGLE POLE 4. Log. YEA an S wt = TERMINAL STATION BOTH CASES 2 NS ~~ BASE CASE Q “PLANT & INJECTION WELLS? | ff 12 SEGAL $i) QALTERNATIVE CASE yop — YO, 9 eee 4 SEG ll. THE PROJECT POWER Engineers, Incorporated ll. THE PROJECT In 1986, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) commissioned Dames & Moore to investigate the feasibility of developing a geothermal resource to provide power to the community of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor on Unalaska Island in the Aleutian Chain. The geothermal resource is located at the foot of the Makushin volcano approximately 14 miles west of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. Dames & Moore’s report was presented to the APA in June of 1987. This report included preliminary designs for project components and cost estimates. The general engineering scenario presented in Dames & Moore's report will be referred to throughout this document as the “Base Case” scenario with its associated components and cost estimates. POWER’s proposal is referred to as the “Alternate” case. Following a review of the Base Case scenario presented by Dames & Moore, the APA solicited proposals to perform an independent cost estimate and conceptual design review of the Unalaska Geothermal Project as outlined in the Base Case scenario. In August, 1987, POWER Engineers, Inc. (POWER) was selected for the independent cost estimate and conceptual design review project. As a result of POWER’ field investigation, review of existing studies, and a detailed analysis of the Base Case scenario, POWER concluded that an alternative to the Base Case design concept should be pursued. This conclusion resulted from the following considerations: 1. | POWER concurs that the production well site be established in the immediate vicinity of the ST-1 test well site (upper Fox Canyon Plateau). However, POWER 29B8IND 1198 (12/15/87) I-14 disagrees with the Base Case proposed site of the plant and injection well located north of Fox Creek Canyon on the lower Fox Creek Plateau. Piping the steam and geothermal fluid to the proposed plant site would be costly, inefficient, and could result in severe operating problems. POWER proposes that the generation plant be located at the production well site with effluent piped to an injection well located on the extreme eastern extent of the upper Fox Creek Canyon Plateau. POWER contends that slant drilling the injection well underneath Fox Creek Canyon is feasible and the probability of short- circuiting between the production and injection well is reasonably low. Having the production well, plant and injection well on the same plateau would be advantageous for the following reasons: @ Higher plant efficiency because there would be no need to pipe steam 7,000 feet as proposed by Dames & Moore. @ Lower construction costs because steam and geothermal fluid piping would not have to span Fox Creek Canyon. @ Lower operation and maintenance expenses due to having all the geothermal power facilities within a reasonable proximity of each other. The separation between the production well/plant site and the injection well would be approximately 2,500 feet. 2. POWER proposes that the construction and maintenance access road be one and the same road, emanating from Broad Bay and continuing generally west to the upper Fox Creek Canyon plateau. It would be feasible to construct the road along the south side of the Makushin Valley to the lower Fox Creek Canyon and up to the well/plant site. This route would be economical and technically feasible, ensuring a reasonable level of safety for operation and maintenance personnel. The road would access directly to the geothermal site for both construction and maintenance purposes, allowing all drilling equipment, construction equipment, and plant material to be trucked to the site. This would eliminate the need to transport the drill rig, separator, steam and geothermal piping by 2981ND 1198 (12/15/87) -2 helicopter as proposed in the Base Case. Other considerations regarding POWER’s proposed routing of the road are: @ The risk to barges landing at Driftwood Bay would be eliminated. Driftwood Bay is exposed directly to the Bering Sea and is subjected to many days of stormy weather with high energy wave action. POWER’s proposal would have all landings take place at Broad Bay, which is considerably more protected than Driftwood Bay. @ POWER has strong reservations regarding the construction and maintenance of the Base Case service road in the Makushin Valley. The Base Case proposes this road to be designed for light vehicular traffic. But the expense of the road for such a restrictive use is possibly prohibitive. @ The Base Case calls for the road to be partially constructed of local aggregate encapsulated in a geotechnical matrix. This type of road construction is commonly done in marshy areas such as the Makushin Valley. The Base Case states that the lower three and a half miles of the Makushin Valley line routing would require trenching of the vegetative mat paralleling the proposed road route for the installation of the underground cable. POWER is concerned that the structural integrity of the mat--essentially the road’s foundation--would be destroyed if vegetation is cut. The possibility of the road sinking or listing at an angle to the cut is very high because it is not anticipated that the cut vegetative mat would regain its original strength for a number of years, possibly decades. 3. | POWER proposes routing the road at the southern edge of Makushin Valley where the valley floor and mountain slopes intersect. The use of geotextile fabric and fill for the road is proposed as well as employing the side of the mountains as the foundation rather than farther out in the marsh where the road would be totally flexible and buoyant. Little or no cutting would occur for road building in the Lower Makushin Valley because of the expected slope unstability problems. This road routing and construction has the advantage of allowing heavy construction equipment and all plant materials to be transported to the geothermal site. Also, conventional installation of an 298iND 1198 (12/1587) IL-3 averhead line--with single poles spaced at 300-foot intervals--could take place, resulting in a significant savings over the underground construction proposed in the Base Case scenario. Also, the environmental concerns of constructing a road through the marshy area of the Makushin Valley would be largely eliminated. POWER’s engineering analysis and cost estimates are included in the following sections. The Base Case and POWER’s alternative are compared for technical viability and cost. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) 1-4 lll. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS POWER Engineers, Incoroora Ill. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS INTRODUCTION The Base Case scenario calls for design and construction of the Unalaska Geothermal Project to take place over three years with a commercial inservice date in 1991. POWER concurs that this is a reasonable time frame to design and construct the project, and the Alternate schedule generally parallels the Base Case schedule except for road construction. The Alternate schedule proposes to have the Makushin Valley road completed the first year. The Base Case would have the construction access road from Driftwood Bay to Sugarloaf (helicopter staging site) completed the first year. The construction road to the plant site and maintenance access road through the Makushin Valley would be completed the second year. Discussed in this section are specific assumptions made for both the Alternate and the Base Case scenario regarding barge costs, personnel and equipment mobilization and demobilization costs, material mobilization costs, and mancamp costs. The equipment mobilization costs include the costs to transport the equipment to the barge staging areas whether it be Seattle, Washington, or Homer, Alaska. This is also true for the project material that, in most instances, will be transported to Seattle, loaded on barges and then shipped to Unalaska by barge. ALTERNATE APPROACH 1. The Alternate schedule has road construction commencing in May, 1989, to be completed in July, 1989. Drilling of the production well site would start in July, 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) tll - 1 1989 and be completed in August, 1989. The drill rig would then be moved to the injection well site. Once the well production capacities are proven through preliminary testing, drilling of the injection well would start. Piping for the geothermal effluent would be installed between well sites. Once the injection well is completed in an appropriate injection zone, the rig would move to the back-up well site. The drilling of the backup production well would occur in October, 1989 or early spring, 1990. 2. All road and dock construction equipment and mancamp facilities would be barged (350-ton barge) from Homer, Alaska. The drill rig, support equipment, and well casings would also be barged from Homer. Off-loading would occur at the Broad Bay site. Road and drilling crews would be housed in a mancamp located at Broad Bay. The camp, construction equipment, and materials would take three trips for mobilization and two additional demobilization trips, one in 1989 and one in 1990 for the camp. The dock deck materials would arrive on one barge with other construction materials, while the rig would be mobilized separately. 3. The mancamp costs for the drilling crews in the Alternate are based on 22 men on site for a period of 90 days. This compares to 30 men for 113 days in the Base Case. The number of men are lower in the Alternate as no pilots or helicopter support personnel are required. The drilling period is shorter as it is felt that the set-up time and move time between wells will be shorter if helicopter transport is not required. 4. In the spring of 1990, all power plant, transmission and substation materials would be barged (7000-ton barge) from Seattle to the Broad Bay site. The contractor(s) equipment for construction of the plant, transmission line and stations would be barged from Homer, Alaska. All personnel would be housed in amancamp located at Broad Bay. Drill rig equipment would be demobilized and transported back to Homer on the return trip of the barge that delivered the construction equipment. 5. The submarine cable would be transported from Seattle by barge during the summer of 1990. The costs for barging the cable are included in Pirelli Cable's estimate. 298iIND 1198 (12/15/87) tl - 2 6. Atthe completion of the project, all construction equipment, excess materials, and mancamp facilities would be barged back to Homer, Alaska. THE BASE CASE APPROACH 1. All Driftwood Bay road construction equipment and mancamp facilities for the well site would be barged (350-ton barge) from Homer, Alaska. The drill rig, drill casings and piping would be barged from Seattle. The barges would be off-loaded at Driftwood Bay. Helicopters for transporting men and equipment to the drill site would be mobilized from Anchorage. (Helicopter costs are included in the well-drilling estimate.) 2. All plant construction equipment, transmission line and station construction equipment, and modular mancamp facilities would be barged to Driftwood Bay in the spring of 1990. Driftwood Bay road construction equipment would be used for the Broad Bay access road. Dock construction equipment and materials would be barged to Broad Bay. 3. All plant, transmission line, and station materials would be barged (7000-ton barge) from Seattle to Driftwood Bay in the spring of 1990. Submarine cables would be transported by barge from Seattle during the summer of 1990. The costs for barging the submarine cable are included in the cable estimate. 4. The costs associated with the mobilization and demobilization of the drill rig, drill casing and piping is higher for the Base Case approach because of the additional geothermal effluent and steam piping required. The quantity, weight, and volume of the additional piping necessitates shipping from Seattle on a 7000-ton barge. CAMPS For the original Base Case plan, the camp would be mobilized to the plant site or vicinity over the road from Driftwood Bay. The cost for camps under this scheme has been estimated assuming the same scenario as the original report. Under the 298iIND 1198 (12/15/87) tl - 3 alternative plan, the camp would be mobilized to the beach at Broad Bay and set up ona location there to be used for road and dock construction during the first year. During the second year, the camp would be left at the Broad Bay site, and workers would be transported to the plant site along the road. The camp would normally contain 40 sleeping units with the capability to house up to 45. A packaged treatment plant would handle water and wastewater treatment. A well would be located in the lower valley near the camp to provide a water supply for the camp. It is important to note that a wellsite without saline intrusion must be chosen. In the alternate scheme developed for this report, a small emergency building and garage located near the dock, would be constructed to provide shelter for plant personnel responding to a plant emergency during severe weather. This building would have cooking and sleeping accommodations, as well as sufficient garage space to perform minor repairs on the service vehicle. This vehicle would remain onsite, securely locked in the garage during times when maintenance personnel are not at the plant. The plant boat would normally remain at Dutch Harbor, except when maintenance staff are at the site. In addition to these two pieces of equipment, a road grader/snow plow would remain at the Broad Bay location where there would be maintenance facilities for storing tools, oil, filters, etc. This equipment would be used for road maintenance and plowing in the winter. Also at the site would be an alpine snow machine capable of being transported by truck. This snow machine would be used for emergencies during difficult snow conditions. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Wh-4 Roads & Dock Construction Barge Trips Pile Driving MOB Pile Driving DEMOB Air Fares Standby Time Trucking Well Rig BASE CASE MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN No. 45 Hrs. 20 Unit Rate L.s.* $ 32,000 L.S. 100,000 L.S. 100,000 Ea. 650 900 30 Trip 1,000 L.S. 1,000 Subtotal Plant, Transmission, & Station Materials (Seattle) Barge Trip Trucking 2 60 L.S. $150,000 Trip 1,000 Subtotal Total $ 160,000 100,000 100,000 29,250 27,000 20,000 1,000 $ 437,250 $ 300,000 60,000 $ 360,000 Plant, Transmission, & Station Construction Equipment (Homer) Barge Trip Air Fares Standby Trucking *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) 50 Hrs. 20 W-5 L.S. $ 32,000 Ea. 650 1,000 30 L.S. 1,000 Subtotal $ 64,000 32,500 30,000 20,000 $ 146,500 BASE CASE MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN (CONT.) Mancamp Costs Mancamp MOB 1 Sis $349,500 $ 349,500 Catering (1989) 4050 Days 65 263,250 Catering (1990) 12,100 Days 65 786,500 Subtotal $1,399,250 MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP $2,343,000 COST TOTAL *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) l-6 ALTERNATE CASE MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN No. Unit Rate Total Roads & Dock Construction Barge Trips 5 L.S.* $ 32,000 $ 160,000 Pile Driving MOB 1 L.S. 100,000 100,000 Pile Driving DEMOB 1 LS. 100,000 100,000 Air Fares 45 Ea. 650 29,250 Standby Time Hrs. 900 30 27,000 Trucking 20 Trip 1,000 20,000 Well Rig 1 L.S. 1,000 1,000 Subtotal $ 437,250 Plant, Transmission, & Station Materials (Seattle) Barge Trip 2 LS. $150,000 $ 300,000 Trucking 60 Trip 1,000 60,000 Subtotal $ 360,000 Plant, Transmission, & Station Construction Equipment (Homer) Barge Trip 2 L.S. $32,000 $ 64,000 Air Fares 40 Ea. 650 26,000 Standby Hrs. 800 30 24,000 Trucking 20 L.S. 1,000 20,000 Subtotal $ 134,000 *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) tl - 7 ALTERNATE CASE MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN (CONT.) Mancamp Costs Mancamp MOB 1 L.S.* $249,445 Catering (1989) 6030 Days 65 Catering (1990) 11,100 Days 65 Subtotal MOB, DEMOB AND CAMP COST TOTAL *L.S.: Lump Sum 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) Ill - 8 $ 249,445 391,950 721,500 $1,362,895 $2,294,145 IV. PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM POWER Engineers, incorporated IV. PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM BASE CASE The Base Case scenario calls for two production wells--one on-line and another as a spare--and one injection well. Both production wells are to be located at the ST-1 test well site on the south side of Fox Canyon. According to the Base Case, the injection well is to be located on a plateau on the north side of Fox Canyon about 6,000 feet to the northeast of the production well site. All three wells are to be completed with 13-3/8 inch casing. According to the drilling program, all three wells are to be completed in 1989. The drill rig and related equipment are to be delivered to Driftwood Bay and transported by road to the Base Case injection well/plant site. This requires that the Driftwood Bay and Sugarloaf roads be constructed prior to mobilization of the drill rig. From the injection well site the rig and equipment would be transported across Fox Canyon by helicopter to the production well sites. Once the production wells are drilled and initial capacity tests performed (it is assumed that both production wells will be drilled at the same time to avoid the extra helicopter lift back and forth across the canyon), the rig will be flown to the injection well site and the injection well drilled. A mancamp will provide support for the drilling crews. A summary of the Base Case costs are illustrated in Figure 4-1. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) IV = 1 ALTERNATE The Alternate also proposes two, 13-3/8 inch production wells drilled at the site of ST-1 along with one 13-3/8 inch injection well. However, the Alternate differs from the Base Case as follows: e@ = The drill rig would be mobilized and demobilized out of Homer instead of Seattle. @ ~The rig would be trucked up the Broad Bay road to the production well site south of Fox Canyon. @ = The injection wellhead would be located on the east end of the ST-1 plateau, about 2,500 feet from the production well. The injection well would be slant drilled to the north under Fox Canyon. e@ = The first production well at the ST-1 site would be drilled, then the injection well, and, finally, the spare production well. Barge lines operating out of Homer serve the Aleutians. A suitable rig should be available for mobilization out of the Homer area. This will result in a savings of transportation costs. Another potential benefit of the Alternate plan is that an Alaska-based drilling company may be familiar with operating in the region and thus work with higher efficiency. Also, employment of a local driller would benefit the Alaskan economy. Because the Alternate plan calls for a road to be built to the production well site, drilling equipment could be trucked all the way. Therefore, helicopter support to move the rig back and forth over Fox Canyon would not be required. Also, the rig would be offloaded in Broad Bay, thus negating the need for landing craft, as well as the double handling and potential weather delays associated with a Driftwood Bay landing. Locating the injection well on the same plateau as the production well would reduce the quantity of piping required between the plant and the wells; allow for easier operating access between the production wells, plant and injection wells; 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) IV-2 and also reduce the distance the rig would have to be moved. Also, this site is at a sufficiently lower elevation than the proposed plant site that the spent geothermal fluid should not require pumping prior to injection if a well with reasonable permeability is established. There are two important questions associated with this injection well location. First, is there a sufficiently permeable injection zone and, second, will there be a direct communication with the production zone that will result in fluid short-circuiting between the two? Figures 4 and 5, Appendix E, of the Unalaska Geothermal Project Phase III Final Report show an overall view of the apparent resistivities in the 200- 500 meter and 500-1000 meter zones, respectively. These figures show that resistivities in the proposed injection area run from approximately 100-500 ohm- meters (as opposed to resistivities from about 70 to less than 30 ohm-meters in the production well area). The 100-500 ohm-meter range resistivity indicates a potential injection zone with suitable permeability and possibly fresh (low salinity) water. The presence of fresh water would indicate that an interconnection with higher salinity production fluids is unlikely. Any interconnection between the production and injection zones would, however, be established through testing after the wells were drilled. Upon drilling the first production well to the target depth, initial testing would be performed with the rig on the well. After verification that the production zone has been reached, the rig would be moved to the injection site and the injection well drilled. When this is done, and assuming drilling is stopped in a lost circulation or other zone of similar permeability, one of four scenarios is likely: (1) the well is completed in a permeable zone with fresh water, (2) the well is completed in a permeable zone with little or no fluid present, (3) the well is completed in the steam cap, or (4) the well is completed in the production resource. In either of the first two scenarios, it would be likely that no interconnection exists. Therefore, the rig could be moved off to the spare production well site. Testing would then be performed to confirm that there was no interconnection In the third scenario, there is an indication of interconnection with the resource but a short circuit could not be confirmed without testing. In fact, in some cases interconnection without short circuiting is actually beneficial. For example, in some areas of the Geysers KGRA in California there have been serious problems with 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) IV-3 pressure declines in the field. To counteract this, some firms are even injecting cold surface water into the field to help maintain pressure. A short circuit test would be designed by the reservoir engineer. This test would probably consist of flowing the production well to the drill pit until a sufficient inventory of fluid is accumulated; setting level, pressure and temperature instruments in the production well; and flowing the fluid from the pit to the injection well while monitoring the production well instrumentation. If a severe short circuit is found, the well would probably be drilled deeper and converted to the spare production well. An alternative would be to case out the steam zone and slant drill deeper to a completion zone farther from the production area into an area of even lower resistivity. If the resource is encountered, then this well would become the spare production well. If the proposed injection well is converted to a production well, then a new site would be chosen for the injection well. As this is unlikely to occur, an alternate injection well site has not been chosen. COST The drilling costs shown for the Base Case and Alternate in Figure 4 -1 use the Dames & Moore data from Volume II, Appendix B. Support data and assumptions may be found in that document. These costs have been modified to reflect new data and any changes in approach. Each line item shown in Figure 4-1 is discussed in the following text. Mobilization and Demobilization - The Base Case value is taken directly from the Base Case report except that the barge cost was altered to reflect a lower bid received by POWER for the Seattle to Unalaska run. In the Base Case, the drill rig would be mobilized out of Seattle, while the Alternate proposal suggests mobilization out of Homer. The Alternate results in much lower mobilization and barge transportation costs. Also, additional savings would result because the rig does not have to be modified for helicopter transport, and no landing craft are required. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) IV - 4 Helicopter and Subsistence - No helicopter charges would be required for the Alternate, as there would be a road all the way to the well site. Drilling crews will be supported by the mancamp so subsistence costs for the Alternate are covered under the mancamp costs in Section Ill. Drilling - The well costs taken from the Base Case report are the same for the Base and Alternate cases. Handling Charges - This is 10 percent of the other charges, as specified by the Base Case report. Professional Labor, Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODC) - The requirements for special professional expertise will be the same in both cases. 298IND 1198 ''2.15/87) IV - 5 FIGURE 4 - 1 DRILLING COSTS PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELLS Base Case Alternate Mobilization and Demobilization $427,606 $200,500 Helicopter and Subsistence 943,238 * Drilling First 13-3/8" Production Well 866,572 866,572 Second 13-3/8" Production Well 701,857 701,857 13-3/8" Injection Well 409,904 409,904 Handling Charges, 10% 334,918 217,883 Professional Labor, Travel and ODC 443,520 443,520 TOTAL $4,127,615 $2,840,236 * Subsistence costs covered in Section Ill, Project Schedule and Logistics. 2yp 198 (12/03/87) IV 6 V. GENERATION SYSTEM POWER Engineers, Incorporated V. GENERATION SYSTEM BASE CASE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The Base Case plant design is a 7 MW net hybrid generation facility located on the plateau northeast across Fox Canyon from the production well plateau. The hybrid design utilizes two 2,750 KW steam turbines with auxiliaries and two 1,100 KW binary modules for power generation. The production wells are to be located on the plateau near ST-1 and the plant and injection well on another plateau on the far side of Fox Canyon. The major mechanical equipment required for this design is given in the Base Case Mechanical Equipment List included at the end of this section. The primary sub-systems of the Base Case generation system are the gathering system, steam generation plant and binary generation plant. A listing of the Design Assumptions and Criteria for the Base Case as well as the Alternate case may be found in Figure 5-1 in this section. Gathering System In the Base Case, two-phase flow from the production well is piped to a separator located on the same plateau. There the steam and liquid are separated into their component phases. From this primary separator, the steam and liquid are piped down to the bottom of Fox Canyon, an elevation change of between 150 and 200 feet and then back up about 200 feet to the plant. The two-phase line from the production well to the primary separator is about 2,500 feet long, while the two lines from this separator to the plant are approximately another 5, 000 feet. The 2981NO 1798 (12/15/87) V-1 low spot through Fox Canyon is essentially a trap. Consequently, the design must include a method of draining condensate from the steam line during normal operation. Whatever equipment is used to accomplish this (normally condensate drain legs with steam traps), it must be protected against freezing and have a suitable method for disposing of the condensate as it is assumed that continuous dumping into the Makushin River would be environmentally unacceptable. For abnormal operation--resulting after an extended shutdown--provisions must be made to drain both the liquid and steam line in the Fox Canyon area. This is necessary to prevent these lines from freezing and possibly rupturing. The Base Case report does not address this concern but does state that flow from the production well will be maintained to the plant. This will be accomplished by venting steam to the atmosphere through a back pressure control valve upstream of the steam turbine in the event the steam turbine is off-line. If this valve were to fail, stick in place, lose its air supply, have its line plug, or otherwise become inoperative, flow to the plant could be lost. Due to the potential severity of the damage if the production lines were to freeze, the design should provide for draining lines and disposing of the fluid. As it is unknown whether dumping geothermal fluids to the river would be acceptable in this emergency situation, it was assumed that this would be permissable. Therefore, no provisions were made in the cost estimate for collecting the drained effluent for pumping back to the injection well or otherwise disposing of it. In the Base Case report, the primary separator has a liquid level control system with a level controller at the vessel to control a valve in the liquid line to maintain the level in the vessel. Although it did not appear to be noted in the Base Case report, this means air and/or power must be available at the remote location to operate this equipment. Also, it would be preferred to have this control signal brought to the plant control room to allow for remote operation from this point. The liquid line from the primary to the secondary separator is shown as a 14-inch line in the Base Case report. As is stated in the text of that report, “the pressure drop in the water pipeline between the first steam water separator and the power plant will result in the flashing to steam of additional geothermal water in the pipe.” At the secondary separator inlet conditions, the two-phase flow pressure drop for this flow is over 1.5 psi per 100 feet of pipe. Where this stream goes two- 29BINO 1198 (12 15/87) V-2 phase will depend on the location and pressure drop through the primary separator level control valve and relative elevation of the various components in the system. It will probably occur somewhere in the run of pipe gaining elevation as it comes up out of Fox Canyon, about 1,500 feet from the plant site. Assuming this is the case, the pressure drop between this point and the plant is, very roughly, equal to 1.5 psi times 1,500/100, or 22.5 psi. This is greater than the pressure drop available between the two separators even if the pressure drop in the liquid portion of the line is neglected. Therefore, a larger diameter line would be required. Another problem which will occur, especially during startup or unstable operations, is the development of slug flow and consequent hammering of the lines. Unfortunately, increasing the line size makes this problem even worse. This problem, as well as the pressure drop problem, could be avoided, however, by an appropriate design change. By putting the primary separator at a high enough elevation on the ST-1 plateau so that it is at least 35 feet higher than the secondary separator elevation and also placing the primary separator level control valve near the secondary separator, the elevation head will be greater than the frictional pressure drop in the pipe. Therefore, fluid will stay in the liquid state upstream of the level control valve and then flash to two-phase due to the valve pressure drop and subsequently be fed to the secondary separator. Of course, power to. the primary separator would still be required for the level instrumentation. In addition to the potential pipe freezing problems, it should be noted that both the primary and secondary separators, with their instrumentation, drains, etc., are located outdoors and thus also subject to freezing. These potential operating problems, as well as the cost of installing and maintaining several thousand feet of large diameter pipe would be eliminated if the plant was located on the same plateau as the injection well. Steam Generation Plant At the plant site, steam from the primary and secondary separators is combined and fed to two 2,750 KW steam turbine generator unit power production trains. Liquid from the secondary separator is fed to the binary power plant. The steam generation plant is relatively standard and straightforward with skid-mounted 29BIND 1198 (1215 87) V-3 turbine generator sets, air-cooled condensers, condensate and non-condensable gas ejection system. The choice of two trains provides for system redundancy and should help the overall reliability. However, this has the effect of substantially increasing the plant cost as all components have to be duplicated--piping is more complicated--and the economies of scale are lost. For example, a major supplier of steam turbine generator units for geothermal service quoted two 2,700 KW units for a slightly higher price than one 7,300 KW turbine generator unit, even though the larger unit would produce 35 percent more power. Given the fact that steam turbine-generator units, even in geothermal service, have proven their reliability over many years, the reliability gained by going to two trains is probably not worthwhile. The pressure of the steam fed to the turbine is 60 psia in the Base Case report. It is not entirely clear why this pressure was chosen as the optimum thermodynamic flash point pressure for a single-flash system utilizing this resource is about 28 psia. In fact, using this flash pressure, even without the binary units, 7 MW of power could be produced from a single-flash unit with only about 5 percent more flow than with the Base Case design. The Base Case report states that efficient steam water separators precluded the need for demisters in the steam line going to the turbine. Although good separators would normally provide good quality steam, installation of demisters upstream of the turbine is almost universal in flash plants. This is done to protect against occasional excursions and to improve the steam quality even more, thus reducing the potential for “salting” the turbine (any moisture carried over from separators has the same dissolved solids composition as the liquid in the separator, thus solids are left behind to plate out on the turbine when the liquid evaporates). An additional consideration is that the steam line from the primary separator will be carrying some condensate formed due to heat losses in the 5,000 feet of pipe between that separator and the turbine. This condensate should be removed prior to entering the turbine to prevent erosion of the blades. Some of this can be removed by a well designed steam trap system, but a demister is required to provide truly turbine quality steam. In the Base Case design, there are two vents to the atmosphere on each steam train. One is for the non-condensable gases from the condenser. It discharges these gases as well as the steam from the second stage ejectors (as there is no condenser on this stream to remove water vapor prior to discharge to the atmosphere). This is 298IND 1198 ('2 15:87) V-4 undesirable because water vapor in this stream could create ice fog in the plant in certain weather conditions. POWER’s Alternate design will utilize a condenser to minimize this problem. The other vent is from the back pressure control valve that controls the pressure in the steam header supplying the turbine. In the Base Case report, this vent is to be used to control the turbine generator power output by diverting flow from the turbine in periods of low power demand. The stated goal is to maintain a constant flow from the well while simultaneously controlling the turbine-generator to match load. This is a method of accomplishing this goal. However, the large quantity of steam vented (this will occur mostly at night in periods of low demand) will result in a serious potential for ice fog problems. In addition, this method of control results in a waste of the resource. Most wells, especially those producing from a fracture zone and flashing in the well bore such as is expected for this resource, can have their flow slowly modulated over a fairly wide range. In some hydrothermal fields this is done intentionally to move the flash point up and down the well bore to equalize scale formation in the well, thus maximizing the length of time between well cleaning. Binary Generation Plant Each of the two 1,100 KW binary modules receive fluid from the secondary separator, remove sensible heat from it and convert it to power via a Rankine cycle, and discharge the spent fluid to the injection well. Binary units are usually selected when the resource is relatively low temperature and thus unsuited for flash technology plants. The other case when binary units are preferable is when the resource has an extreme carbonate scaling problem. In this case, the production wells are pumped to a pressure sufficient to maintain the fluid ina liquid state and prevent the dissolution of carbon dioxide and subsequent scale formation. Binary units have the advantage of being relatively simple, readily available from Ormat in a modular design, and easy to install. The disadvantages are a relatively low power conversion efficiency, high fire danger due to the organic working fluid, and relatively unproven design in the large power output modules and consequent potential for poor availability. 298mD 1198 (12.15 87) V- 5 ALTERNATE GENERATION SYSTEM The Alternate design has the plant located at the same site as the production well on the plateau south of Fox Canyon. The plant will use one dual-flash turbine generator set capable of producing 7,300 KW gross power. The injection well will be on the other end of the same plateau. The major equipment for this scenario is listed in the equipment list at the end of this section. Two drawings, a Process Flow Diagram and a conceptual Piping and Instrumentation Drawing illustrating the Alternate design, are also included at the end of this section. Gathering System As the plant is located at the wellhead, the gathering system for the Alternate case is simply a short interconnection line between the wellhead and the high-pressure flash separator. There must, however, be sufficient distance between the wellhead and the separator, about 100 feet, to allow a work-over rig access to the well in case it needs maintenance at some point in the future. The wellhead would be protected by a small, removable building. The pond used when drilling the well would be maintained and used to hold fluid for startup. The high-pressure separator would be located within the building as would be the low-pressure separator and all other generation equipment. Only one building would be required in the Alternate as opposed to the Base Case which calls for separate buildings for the steam system and binary plant. The above-ground, insulated, two-phase pipe between the well and the plant is the only portion of the system exposed to the elements. The injection line will be buried below the frost line in the 2,400-foot run between the plant and the injection well. , This design results in a simpler, more reliable system that is much less sensitive to abnormal operating conditions. In addition, as it has only about 150 feet of 16-inch production piping and 2,500 feet of 14-inch injection piping, it is much less expensive than the Base Case. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) V-6 Generation System Dual-flash technology is the basis for the Alternate generation system. This technology is simple, reliable, and well-proven in many installations. A dual-flash unit is slightly more expensive than a single-flash unit but results in much more efficient utilization of the resource. The dual-flash system is also more efficient than the Base Case hybrid system. In the dual-flash Alternate, approximately 983,000 pph of well flow is required to produce 7,000 KW of net power as opposed to the 1,093,000 pph required in the Base Case to produce the same amount of power. Depending on the royalties contract, this may result in a significant cost savings to the project. Even if the contract is based on power sold, efficient fluid utilization still has the benefit of extending the life of the well and the resource. In addition, if well performance declines with time there is more leeway before the problem becomes critical if the system requires less flow. In the dual-flash system, steam from the high-pressure separator is fed to a demister, then to the high-pressure inlet of a dual pressure turbine. Liquid from the separator is flashed across the level control valve and fed to the low-pressure separator. Steam from the low-pressure separator is fed to a low-pressure demister, then to the low-pressure inlet on the turbine. An air-cooled condenser located adjacent to the building condenses the turbine exhaust. This condenser will be self draining and have an air recirculation package to prevent freezing (a condenser with similar features is being used successfully at the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) generation plant). This is the only portion of the generation system exposed to the elements. Non-condensable gases from the condenser go to the non-condensable gas removal system. Although both use steam jet ejectors to compress the non-condensables, there are two fundamental differences between the Base Case and the Alternate. The Base Case uses an air-cooled, inner-condenser to condense the flow from the first stage ejector and vents a water vapor laden steam from the second stage ejector to the atmosphere. The Alternate utilizes the condensate from the main condenser in a water-cooled surface condenser to condense the steam from the first stage ejectors. Another water-cooled condenser is used to condense the discharge from the second stage ejectors so the non-condensable gases vented to the atmosphere contain only residual water vapor. Using water-cooled ejector 29BIND 1198 (12 15.87) V-7 condensers allows the entire system to be indoors and minimizes ice fog due to the much smaller quantity of water vapor vented. The system condensate is combined with the flow from the low-pressure separator and sent to the injection well. The fluid in the injection line is kept in the liquid state by a back pressure control valve located at the injection well. This valve utilizes upstream fluid pressure to operate its actuator and thus requires no power or air at the injection wellhead. In the Base Case, load control is accomplished by venting steam to the atmosphere upstream of the turbine. In the Alternate, there are three ways to control the system to follow load. Before discussing them, however, it should be pointed out that, according to a major manufacturer of geothermal steam turbines, a 7,300 KW unit can be successfully “turned-down” to the 1,000 KW range and operated for an indefinite period of time without damage to the machine. To follow load, one control method would be to reduce flow to the low-pressure side of the turbine by closing the pressure control valve on the outlet of the low-pressure separator. In the extreme, this valve would be closed, the low-pressure separator would be acting only as a surge tank between the high-pressure separator and the injection well, and the production well flow would be maintained at a constant level. This control action would have the capability of controlling the generator output between 2,500 and 7,300 kilowatts (most of this is due to the lower flow through the machine, a portion is due to the lower turbine efficiency at the lower rate). Another control action is to decrease the well flow by either closing the control valve in the two-phase flow line to the high-pressure separator or closing the pressure control valve in the steam line between the high-pressure separator and the turbine (this decreases well flow by raising the pressure in all of the system upstream of it). The other control action which can be taken is venting steam. Although this is not the preferred alternative, it would be used in the event of sudden load changes such as a turbine trip. In actual operation, a combination of these three control methods would be used. The specific control philosophy, and which would be used in what situations over 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) V-8 what range of conditions, would be developed during design of the plant and modified as required during startup and operations. The Alternate case has, however, included provisions for all three so the design has sufficient flexibility to satisfy any scenario. A crane has been included in the design to facilitate maintenance activities. An emergency generator with a seven-day fuel supply located in the base has also been included in the design. COST The capital cost for the plant proper for the Base Case and Alternate were developed using a combined method of material take-offs and factors. The Base Case and Alternate gathering and injection systems have been done differently, however, due to the fact that the plants are located on different sides of Fox Canyon and thus the gathering and injection systems are much different and cannot be compared directly. For the Alternate, the production well to plant piping is only approximately 100 feet and was thus included with the plant cost estimate. The Alternate case injection piping, however, consists of approximately 2,500 feet of 14 inch direct buried pipe. Conversely, the Base Case injection piping is minimal and is included in the plant estimate while the production piping has a total of 12,900 feet of above-grade piping on drilled pier supports. Due to these extreme dissimiliarities, factoring is not an appropriate method for determining these costs. In consideration of this fact, a detailed take-off was performed for both these systems. As an example, the Base Case take-off included quantities such as straight pipe, elbows, insulation, number of welds, number of expansion loops, number of supports, pipe support attachments, pipe support stanchions, concrete for drilled piers, etc. The cost of these materials and the installation time was taken from The Richardson Rapid System Estimating Standards, 1987. Cost of transporting the materials to the site and contractor mobilization and demobilization are covered in other sections of this report. The manhour rate applied to the installation, $33.10 (including benefits) was the top 298iND 1198 (12.15 87) V-9 rate quoted by the Anchorage union hall. The summary of the Base Case and Alternate take-off and associated costs may be seen in Figure 5-2. The supporting material for this summary may be found in the appendices. The mechanical equipment estimate is the basis of the total plant estimate. Therefore, care had to be taken to ensure that it was as accurate as possible. The first step in this process was performing a take-off of the mechanical equipment utilizing the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs). A copy of the Alternate design P&ID may be referred to at the end of this section. The Base Case report contains all drawings relating to the Base Case design. In conjunction with this take-off, those components not appearing on the P&lD but which, based on experience, are known to be necessary, such as the emergency generator, crane, and instrument air compressors, were sized and added to the Mechanical Equipment List. This list, which addresses both the Base Case and Alternate, provides information as to the equipment size, design criteria, cost and cost source and may be found at the end of this section. Of the mechanical equipment, 94.3 percent of the cost was from vendor budget quotations for the Alternate, and 97.7 percent from vendor budget quotations for the Base Case. The mechanical equipment cost summary may be seen in Figure 5-3. Once the mechanical equipment costs were developed, the other plant costs were derived by factoring. To accomplish this, standard textbook tables providing ranges of costs for the various plant components as a percentage of the mechanical equipment cost were used. These tables were generated based on historical data for the construction costs of existing plants. As these factors are presented as a range of values, specific design criteria, project knowledge, and engineering judgment and experience are applied to select the factor which most nearly fits the facility in question. To present as fair a comparison as possible, the factors chosen were the same for both the Base Case and the Alternate. Determining the direct costs in this manner should result in a conservative estimate. There are two major equipment cost items, the turbine generator and the non- condensable gas/condensate system, which are supplied complete with piping and control systems and require only erection and interconnection. Therefore, applying standard factors, which assumes a number of small, discrete equipment items requiring purchase of interconnection piping, complete supply, and installation of 298IND 1798 (12. 15°87) Vv m1 10 control system, etc., to these two cost items results in a very conservative estimate. The direct costs developed for both cases may be found in Figure 5-4. Supporting material may be found in the appendices. 298IND 1198 (12/15.87) V-11 FIGURE 5-1 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA 1. Resource conditions as follows: Bottom Hole Temperature - 382°F Resource Non-Condensable Gas - 186.8 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids - 5,800 ppm 2. Plantsite elevation - 1,100 feet. 3. Plant site weather design data: 150 mph Wind Load 16 Feet Snow Load 0° F Winter Design Temperature 64° F Summer Design Temperature 4. UBC Seismic Zone 4. 5. Soil bearing capacity 2,000 pounds per square foot. 6. Plantsize is 7 MW net. 7. Plant and well design life is assumed to be 25 years. 8. Specific mechanical equipment design criteria found in Mechanical Equipment List. 298IND 1198 (1215.87) V- 12 FIGURE 5-2 BASE CASE PRODUCTION LINE SUMMARY* ** Installed Cost 24” Std. Wt. Pipe - 2,500 L.F. w/Supports and Insul. $ 478,498 20” Std. Wt. Pipe - 5,200 L.F. w/Supports and Insul. 965,813 14” Std. Wt. Pipe - 5,200 L.F. w/Supports and Insul. 741,744 Fox Canyon Pipe Bridge 341,551 TOTAL - BASE CASE $2,527,606 ALTERNATE INJECTION LINE SUMMARY* ** Installed Cost 14” Std. Wt. Pipe - 2,500 L.F., Coated and wrapped $161,639 Valves, Fittings, Piping Specialties 43,861 Misc. (Drain Valves, Vents, Q/A, Etc.) 20,500 Excavation and Backfill 17,703 TOTAL - ALTERNATE CASE $243,703 * Quantities taken-off Base Case and Alternate P&IDs and area plan drawings. Installation time and material costs from The Richardson Rapid System Estimating Standards, 1987, labor rates based on Anchorage union shop quotations. = For the Base Case, the production line only was taken-off and estimated separately. The injection line, which is quite short, was assumed to be in the plant piping. Piping runs above grade on drilled pier supports. For the Alternate, the injection line only was taken-off and estimated separately as its production line is very short and assumed to be part of the plant piping. Injection piping is buried four feet. 298)ND 1198(*2 15/87) V- 13 FIGURE 5-3 SUMMARY OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (FOB SEATTLE) Equipment Alternate Base Case HP Separator $ 21,068 os HP Demister 15,200 ---- Primary Separator ---- $ 28,100 LP Separator 29,835 ---- LP Demister 45,000 “-- Secondary Separator ---- 14,000 Steam T-G(s) 2,750,000 3,026,000 Condenser and NC Gas System 1,800,000 1,600,000 Instrument Air Compressor 35,000 45,000 Crane 131,496 45,000 Binary Modules o--- 2,000,000 lsopentane Storage Tanks sore 19,800 Transfer Pumps o--- 3,100 Emergency Generator 25,000 25,000 TOTAL $4,852,599* $6,806,000** 7 94.3 percent of equipment cost from Vendor budget quotations. a 97.7 percent of equipment cost from Vendor budget quotations. 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) V = 14 FIGURE 5-4 PRODUCTION, INJECTION, AND GENERATION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 1987 DOLLARS Description Alternate Base Case Mechanical Equipment $ 4,852,599 $ 6,806,000 Mechanical Equipment Installation 1,516,437 2,126,875 Instrumentation & Controls (Installed) 363,945 510,450 Plant Piping (Installed) 606,575 850,750 Electrical (Installed) 703,627 986,870 Buildings (w/Services) 727,890 1,020,900 Yard Improvements 181,972 255,225 Service Facilities 982,651 1,378,215 Land 121,315 170,150 Subtotal Direct Costs $10,057,011 $14,105,435 Production Piping ---- 2,527,606 Injection Piping 243,703 2--- TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $10,300,714 $16,633,041 29BIND 1198 (12)'5.87) V ° 1 5 BASE CASE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LIST NAME: Primary Separator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 140 psig, 360°F; Operating Conditions - 80 psia operating pressure, 1,100,000 Ib/hr total feed, 89,300 lb/hr steam, 1,010,700 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 56” ID, 187" S-S WEIGHT: 8,000# COST: $28,100 COSTSOURCE: SimilarJob 298IND 1198 (12'15.87) V-16 NAME: Secondary Separator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 100 psig, 338°F; Operating Conditions - 63 psia, 1,010,700 lb/hr feed, 15,500 Ib/hr steam, 995,200 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 36” ID, 138” S-S WEIGHT: 3,500# COST: $14,000 COST SOURCE: Similar Job 29BIND 1198 (12:15:87) V-17 NAME: Steam Turbine-Generator QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Skid-mounted, single-cylinder condensing geothermal steam turbine with lube oil system and air-cooled synchronous generator with brushless exciter. DESIGN CONDITIONS: Turbine - 49,500 pph, 60 psia, 293°F steam supply; 3“ HgA exhaust; Generator - 2,750 KW, .85 lagging power factor, 4,160V, 32. COST: $3,026,000 COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12'15/87) V = 18 NAME: Main Steam Condenser QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Air-Cooled, finned-tube, A-frame condenser with two 75 hp thermostatically controlled motor-driven fans, includes transition piece and ducting. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 64°F Dry bulb temperature at 1% for summer conditions; O°F Dry bulb temperature for winter conditions; wind velocity maximum 150 mph; 2.5” HgA; 46,000,000 BTU/hr.; 1,100’ plant elevation. MATERIAL: 304SS CONNECTED HP: 300 COST: $1,600,000 (Price also includes complete non-condensable gas and condensate system as these components would be purchased as a package.) COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12/1587) V 7 19 NAME: NC Gas Removal System QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Two-stage steam jet ejector system with two 100% capacity jets; includes air-cooled inner-condenser. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 2.5” HgA condenser pressure, 4.3 psia first stage jet discharge pressure, 14.5 psia second stage jet discharge pressure, 1500 pph steam consumption. MATERIAL: 3048S COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298INO 1198 (12.15/87) V = 20 NAME: Condensate Drain Tank QUANTITY: Two DESIGN CONDITIONS: Full vacuum to 100 psi, 338°F. MATERIAL: 304SS SIZE: 30” 1D; 60” S-S WEIGHT: 700# COST: Ir .iuded in Main Steam Condenser Cost COSTSOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12: 15/87) V-21 NAME: Condensate Receiver QUANTITY: Two DESIGN CONDITIONS: Full vacuum to 100 psi, 338°F. MATERIAL: 304SS SIZE: 33” 1D, 67" S-S WEIGHT: 1,100# COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COSTSOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298INO 1198 (12/15.87) V-22 NAME: Condensate Pumps QUANTITY: Four TYPE: Vertical Turbine Can-Type DESIGN CONDITIONS: 105 gpm at 75‘ TDH, 12’ NPSHR. CONNECTED HP: 3hp/pump MATERIAL: 304SS COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12.15.87) V- 23 NAME: Drain Pumps QUANTITY: Four TYPE: Horizontal Centrifugal DESIGN CONDITIONS: 70 gpm at 25’ TDH, 5’ NPSHR. CONNECTED HP: 1hp/pump MATERIAL: 304SS COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12.15/87) Vv 7 24 NAME: Instrument Air Compressors QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Reciprocating, oil-free compressor with dryer, air receiver and control package. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 100 psig discharge pressure, 60 scfm. CONNECTED HP: 15/compressor COST: $45,000 COST SOURCE: Factored from Similar Job 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) V-25 NAME: Crane QUANTITY: One DESIGN CONDITIONS: Five-ton, 40 ft. span. COST: $45,000 COST SOURCE: Factored from Similar Job 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) V tm 26 NAME: Binary Generation Module QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Skid-mounted binary generation unit with turbine, air-cooled synchronous generator with brushess exciter, preheater, vaporizer, feed pump, separate air-cooled condenser, controls, duct to condenser and interconnecting piping between components. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 988,500 Ib/hr brine feed, 296°F brine feed temperature, isopentane working fluid; 1,100 KW, 4,160 V generator. SIZE: 8’ x 8’ x 40’ module (basic unit without condenser) COST: $2,000,000 COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) V- 27 NAME: lsopentane Storage Tanks QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Horizontal Pressure Vessel MATERIAL: Carbon Steel WEIGHT: 2,500# ea. COST: $19,800 COSTSOURCE: Factored 298IND 1198 (12/15.87) Vv 7 28 NAME: Isopentane Transfer Pumps QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Gear-type positive displacement pumps. CONNECTED HP: 10hp COST: $3,100 COST SOURCE: Estimating Manual 298iND 1198 (1215.87) V-29 NAME: Emergency Generator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Diesel engine generator with breaker, battery charger, day tank, controls and fuel storage tank. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 100 KW, .80 power factor, 480V, three-phase, seven-day fuel storage tank. COST: $25,000 COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) V-30 ALTERNATE DESIGN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LIST NAME: High-Pressure Flash Separator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 140 psig, 360°F; Operating Conditions - 85 psia operating pressure, 983,000 Ib/hr total feed, 75,800 lb/hr steam, 908,000 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 51” 1D, 170” S-S WEIGHT: 6,000#4 COST: $21,068 COST SOURCE: Similar Job 298IND 1198 (12 15/87) V id 31 NAME: HP Demister QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Separator with Chevron Separator Internals DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 140 psig, 360°F; Operating Conditions - 83 psia, 75,800 lb/hr steam. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 36"ID, 72” S-S WEIGHT: 1,900# COST: $15,200 COST SOURCE: Engineer's Estimate 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) V -32 NAME: Low-Pressure Flash Separator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 50 psig, 300°F; Operating Conditions - 20 psia, 908,000 Ib/hr feed, 85,300 lb/hr steam, 822,700 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 75” 1D, 249" S-S WEIGHT: 8,500# COST: $29,835 COST SOURCE: Similar Job 298IND 1198 (12/1587) V - 33 NAME: LP Demister QUANTITY: One TYPE: Vertical Separator with Chevron Separator Internals DESIGN CONDITIONS: Vessel Design Conditions - 50 psig, 300°F; Operating Conditions - 20 psia, 85,300 lb/hr steam. MATERIAL: Carbon Steel SIZE: 70” 1D, 170“ s-S WEIGHT: 6,500# COST: $45,000 COST SOURCE: Engineer's Estimate 298IND 1198 (12/15.87) V-34 NAME: Steam Turbine-Generator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Skid-mounted, single-cylinder condensing geothermal steam turbine with lube oil system and air-cooled synchronous generator with brushless exciter. DESIGN CONDITIONS: Duel-inlet turbine - High-pressure steam - 73,150 lb/hr, 81 psia, 1184.2 BTU/Ib; Low-pressure steam - 85,300 Ib/hr, 15.5 psia, 1156.3 BTU/Ib; Condenser pressure - 2.5" HgA; Generator - 7,300 KW, .85 lagging power factor, 13.8kV, 39. WEIGHT: 150,000# COST: $2,750,000 COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298INO 1198 (12.15 87) V- 35 NAME: Main Steam Condenser QUANTITY: One TYPE: Air-Cooled, finned-tube, A-frame condenser with four-100 hp thermostatically controlled motor-driven fans, includes transition piece and ducting. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 64°F Dry bulb temperature at 1% for summer conditions; O°F Dry bulb temperature for winter conditions; wind velocity maximum 150 mph; 2.5” HgA; 148,000,000 BTU/hr; 1,100’ plant elevation. MATERIAL: 3045S CONNECTED HP: 400hp COST: $1,800,000 (Price also includes complete non-condensable gas and condensate system as these components would be purchased as a package.) COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298INO 1198 (12.15 87) V- 36 NAME: NC Gas Removal System QUANTITY: One TYPE: Two-stage steam jet ejector system with two 100% capacity jets; includes water cooled inner-condenser and after-condenser. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 2.5” HgA condenser pressure, 6.1 psia first stage jet discharge pressure, 16.0 psia second stage jet discharge pressure, 2600 pph steam consumption. MATERIAL: 304SS COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298IND 1198 (12/15.87) V ind 37 NAME: Condensate Receiver QUANTITY: One DESIGN CONDITIONS: Full vacuum to 100 psi, 338°F. MATERIAL: 304SS SIZE: 48” ID, 96" S-S WEIGHT: 1,800#4 COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 29B8IND 1198 (12:15/87) V -38 NAME: Condensate Pumps QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Vertical Turbine Can-Type DESIGN CONDITIONS: 326 gpm at 75’ TDH, 12’ NPSHR. CONNECTED HP: 10hp/pump MATERIAL: 304SS COST: Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE: Vendor Quotation 298iND 1198 (12/15/87) Vv 7 39 NAME: Instrument Air Compressors QUANTITY: Two TYPE: Reciprocating, oil-free compressor with dryer, air receiver and control package. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 100 psig discharge pressure, 50 scfm. CONNECTED HP: 10/compressor COST: $35,000 COST SOURCE: Factored from Similar Job 298IND 1198 (1215/87) V-40 NAME: Gantry Crane QUANTITY: One DESIGN CONDITIONS: 30-ton, 40 ft. travel, 30 ft. span. CONNECTED HP: Hoist- 15 hp Travel -2hp Trolley -2hp COST: $131,496 COSTSOURCE: SimilarJob 298IND 1198 (12-15-87) V - 41 NAME: Emergency Generator QUANTITY: One TYPE: Diesel engine-generator with breaker type transfer switch, battery charger, controls and fuel storage tank. DESIGN CONDITIONS: 100 KW, .80 power factor, 480V, three-phase, seven-day fuel storage tank. COST: $25,000 COSTSOURCE: Vendor Quotation 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) V-42 ‘START-UP 7 PRODUCTION WELL SPARE PRODUCTION WELL 316 Low PRESSURE FLASH SEPARATOR CONDENSATE RECEIVER CONDENSATE PUMP NON-CONDENSABLE. GAS SYSTEM 228 STREAM NUMBER i 2 3 | « 7 5 6 7 @ 9 40 14 12 3 | 4% DESCRIPTION FEED TO HIGH FEED TO | HP STEAM | HP STEAM | LP STEAM i INC'S TO NC NC’S ICONDENSATE | INJECTION HP FLASH | PRESSURE | LP FLASH TO TO TO ‘SEPARATOR GAS a) TO FLOW ‘SEPARATOR ‘STEAM SEPARATOR | TURBINE | EJECTORS | TURBINE (QUID OUT} SYSTEM JATMOSPHERE| INJECTION | TO WELL TOTAL FLOW 10° PPH 963.8 75.8 T 908.0 73.2 2.60 6.3 622.7 -661 -540 161.1 963.8 HO 10° PPH 977.9 75.6 902.3 85.3 617.0 -422 -264 161.1 978.4 Tos 10° PPH 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 NON-COND'S 10° PPH 212 242 -205 -007 246 355.7 1184.2 286.5 1184.2 1184.2 1156.3 196.3 92.0 | 178.2 Tes 777 INJECTION WELL ISSUED FOR INFORMATION PRESSURE, PSA O TEMPERATURE. “F [1] © STREAM NO. 46° CS-STD-WT J J P ct | 16x42 16x12 x = 1/7 e B 8 PRODUCTION e oo 477 ‘SPARE PRODUCTION WELL ><<t— + INJECTION WELL 16° CS-STO-WT 14" CS-STO-WT 2) 24° CS-STD-WT 16° CS-STD-WT TO 16° CS-STD-WT 24° CS-STO-KT RECEIVER CONDENSATE PUMP TO PLANT CONTROL, SYSTEM 14° CS-STO-"T 14° CS-STO-WT DI 6° SS-STO-WT NON-CONDENSABLE GAS SYSTEM = axscayor 1787/2" CS XS 8 # cs-sto-WT ; ATHOSPERE — c 0 E F 6 OXYGEN SCAVENGER CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM — 4 = 3 & bee a & oe I J ISSUED FOR INFORMATION br BLP \LIEA DESCRIPTION ‘DATE | BY REFERENCE DRAWINGS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY t UNALASKA ISLANO GEOTHERMAL PROJECT CONCEPTUAL P&ID VI. STATION REQUIREMENTS POWER Engineers, Incorporated Vi. STATION REQUIREMENTS GENERAL Having reviewed the Base Case report in conjunction with other available information, POWER has determined that the Base Case proposal is adequate. Using equipment and material lists as a guide to developing comparable cost estimates, Base Case and Alternate scenarios were estimated assuming that each respective station would have a similar or identical layout. The significant difference in total station costs is due to the elimination of Switching Station “A” from the Alternate route. The following subsections present the expected station requirements for each of the two Alternate routes. A brief explanation of each station is followed by a tabulation of the estimated costs for that station. At the end of each section is a summary of the station costs for that route. Station costs are broken down by structure and equipment costs, followed by lump sum costs for installation of structures, equipment, foundations, and all other equipment. The cost for all other equipment includes: fencing, grounding, buswork, cable and conduit, and transmission dead ends. The estimates of the Base Case route were developed using information from the Base Case report. Although single line diagrams and material lists from the report were available, no specific information on station layouts, structure types and arrangements, site size, etc. was available. Cost estimates, therefore, based on station layouts developed by POWER 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Vi = 1 will not be a direct comparison to Base Case cost estimates. The costs developed for this report for both the Base Case route and the Alternate route are based on identical structures and equipment where applicable. This provides a direct comparison of costs. Mobilization and demobilization costs are estimated as individual station costs within the project. Project mobilization and demobilization costs will be estimated separately. All costs are approximate current costs (1987) for the equipment and service indicated. ASSUMPTIONS e Adequate space is available at all station locations There are no significant obstructions at the station locations such as swamps, rock outcrops, streams, rivers, etc. e Access to sites is not restricted. No road construction has been included in station costs. BASE CASE ROUTE The Base Case route would take delivery of power (generated at 4160 volts) at the main substation adjacent to the generating plant. The 4160-volt power would be transformed to 34.5kV and delivered to the system. The following stations would be required: e Substation; 4.16-34.5kV 6/8/10 MVA XFMR, 34.5kV circuit breaker and associated switches, equipment and structures. @ Switching Station “A” - Overhead conductor to underground cable terminal; switches and associated equipment and structures. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) VI-2 e@ West Terminal Switching Station - Underground cable to undersea cable terminal; switches, spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. e East Terminal Switching Station - Undersea cable to overhead conductor terminal; switches, spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Vi - 3 BASE CASE STATION COST BREAKDOWN Substation, 4.16-34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA Unit Quantity STRUCTURES 34.5kV Switch Str. 34.5kv Dead Str. EQUIPMENT: 4.16 - 34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA XFMR 34.5kV Circuit Breaker 34.5kV Switch (GOAB) 34.5kV Grounding Sw. 34.5kV Voltage XFMR Switchboard Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12.15/87) L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. VI - Unit Cost 1,500 6,000 95,000 35,000 3,500 2,000 4,500 25,000 3,900 26,900 13,600 42,900 5,000 12,500 5,000 Subtotal Extended Cost 1,500 6,000 95,000 35,000 7,000 2,000 13,500 25,000 3,900 26,900 13,600 42,900 5,000 12,500 3,000 $294,800 Switching Station “A” Unit STRUCTURES: Dead End Str. Switch & Terminator Str. EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization & Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1°98 (12:15:87) Quantity Unit Cost 1 6,000 1 3,500 3 600 3 600 3 500 3 700 L.S.* 4,800 L.S. 4,000 L.S. 8,400 L.S. 24,000 LS. 5,500 LS. 2,200 Subtotal VI-5 Extended Cost 6,000 3,500 1,800 1,800 1,500 2,100 4,800 4,000 8,400 24,000 5,500 2,200 $65,600 West Terminal Switching Station Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES: Switch & Terminator 2 3,500 $7,000 EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 6 600 3,600 35kV Grounding Switch 4 600 2,400 35kV Terminator 7 500 3,500 22kV Surge Arrester 4 700 2,800 Install Structures L.S.* 3,600 3,600 Install Equipment L.S. 6,800 6,800 Foundations L.S. 6,600 6,600 Furnish and Install All Other Equipment L.S. 15,600 15,600 Mobilization & Site Prep. L.S. 6,000 6,000 Demobilization L.S. 2,400 2,400 Subtotal $60,300 *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Vi =| 6 v= East Terminal Switching Station Unit STRUCTURES: Deadend Str. Switch & Terminator EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization & Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.: Lump Sum 298iIND 1198 (12/1587) Quantity N OD L.S.* L.S. L.S. ES: LS. L.S. VI - Unit Cost 6,000 3,500 600 600 500 700 6,600 6,800 11,700 28,000 7,700 3,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $6,000 7,000 3,600 2,400 2,000 2,800 6,600 6,800 11,700 28,000 7,700 3,000 $87,600 ALTERNATE CASE The Alternate Case would take delivery of power (generated at 13.8kV) at the main substation adjacent to the generating plant. The 13.8kV would be transformed to 34.5kV and delivered to the system. The following stations would be required: e Substation; 13.8-34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA XFMR, 34.5kV circuit breaker and associated switches equipment and structures. e@ West Terminal Switching Station - Overhead conductor to undersea cable terminal; switches, spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. e East Terminal Switching Station - Same as West Terminal Switching Station. The elimination of Switching Station “A” provides significant cost savings and adds reliability. It also allows the West and East terminal switching stations to be identical in design, resulting in additional savings of operation and maintenance costs. 298IND 1198 (1215/87) Vi -8 ALTERNATE CASE STATION COST BREAKDOWN Substation, 13.8-34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA Unit Quantity STRUCTURES 34.5kV Switch Str. 34.5kv Dead Str. EQUIPMENT: 13.8 - 34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA XFMR 34.5kV Circuit Breaker 34.5kV Switch (GOAB) 34.5kV Grounding Sw. 34.5kV Voltage XFMR Switchboard Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) won = = L.S.* L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. LS. L.S. VI-9 Unit Cost 1,500 6,000 95,000 35,000 3,500 2,000 4,500 25,000 3,900 26,900 13,600 42,900 5,000 12,500 5,000 Subtotal Extended Cost 1,500 6,000 95,000 35,000 7,000 2,000 13,500 25,000 3,900 26,900 13,600 42,900 5,000 12,500 5,000 $294,800 West Terminal Switching Station Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES: Deadend Str. 1 6,000 $6,000 Switch & Terminator 2 3,500 7,000 EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 6 600 3,600 35kV Grounding Switch 4 600 2,400 35kV Terminator 4 500 2,000 22kV Surge Arrester 4 700 2,800 Install Structures L.S.* 6,600 6,600 Install Equipment L.S. 6,800 6,800 Foundations LS: 11,700 11,700 Furnish and Install All Other Equipment LS. 28,000 28,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. L.S. 7,700 7,700 Demobilization L.S. 3,000 3,000 Subtotal $87,600 *L.S.: Lump Sum 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) Vi-10 East Terminal Switching Station Cc nit STRUCTURES: Deadend Str. Switch & Terminator EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization & Site Prep. Demobilization | *L.S.: Lump Sum 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Quantity N = fo L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. * VI-11 Unit Cost 6,000 3,500 600 600 500 700 6,600 6,800 11,700 28,000 7,700 3,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $6,000 7,000 3,600 2,400 2,000 2,800 6,600 6,800 11,700 28,000 7,700 3,000 $87,600 Summary of Station Costs - Base Case Station Substation, 4.16-34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA Switching Station “A” West Terminal Switching Station East Terminal Switching Station TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION Summary of Station Costs - Alternate Case Station Substation, 13.8-34.5kV, 6/8/10 MVA West Terminal Switching Station East Terminal Switching Station TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) VI- 12 Estimated Cost $294,800 65,600 60,300 87,600 $508,300 Estimated Cost $294,800 87,600 87,600 $470,000 Vil. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM POWER Engineers, incorporated Vil. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INTRODUCTION POWER investigated the adequacy of the Base Case transmission system and prepared cost estimates for both Base Case and Alternate scenarios. Conclusions regarding each aspect of the transmission system are discussed below. SYSTEM VOLTAGE AND CONDUCTOR TYPE POWER concurs with the Base Case proposal for a system voltage of 34.5kV. This voltage will adequately transmit 10,000 KW at an 85 percent power factor and an acceptable level of regulation and losses. Another apparent advantage of the 34.5kV system voltage is that the existing Unalaska system is 34.5kV, thereby eliminating the need for transformation at Dutch Harbor. POWER conducted load flow runs of three overhead conductor types, assuming 4/0 AWG conductors for the submarine and underground cables. Please refer to Table 7-1 fora summary of the analysis. At this level of study, it is reasonable to assume that any of the three overhead conductors would be acceptable for use on this project from a system loss and regulation standpoint. However, with asmaller diameter, the 336 kcmil conductor 298IND 1198 (12/°5/87) Vil-1 TABLE 7-1 A - Base Case Load Flow Results Receiving Voltage End Drop, kV Voltage, kV 556ACSR | 4.92% 33.94 kV 516.5 @ 69.38 kVA 5.04% 33.90 kV 5.23% | 513.6@67.06 kVA 336 ACSR 1.88kv [ 33.75kV | 5.69% | 541.6 @64.18'kVA Note: Load flow is based on 6.5 miles of overhead, 3.5 miles of underground, and 3.5 miles of submarine cable at a base voltage of 34.5kV. The source voltage is assumed to be 1.0333 pu or 35.65 kV and the load is 7 MW @ 0.85 PF. kVA Loss Mag. @ Angle Overhead Line Type Voltage Regulation B - Alternate Load Flow Results Receiving End kVA Loss Mag. @ Angle Voltage Overhead Line Type 556ACSR | 5.20% 1.79 kV 33.84 kV 582.1@ 74.06 kVA 477 ACSR | 5.37% 33.79 kV 5.59% | 575.5@70.87 kVA 336ACSR | 6.05% | 2.09kV | 33.55kV 6.32% | 618.2 @ 66.67 kVA Note: Load flow is based on 10 miles of overhead and 3.5 miles of submarine cable at a base voltage of 34.5kV. The source voltage and load is the same as in the Base Case load flow. Voltage Regulation 298IND 1198 (12:03:87) Vil ba 2 would result in less transverse loading. This is a significant consideration given the extreme high winds occurring within the project area. To help determine which of the three conductors would be used in the Alternate cost estimate, comparisons of strength to weight were made. Conductors (ACSR) Rated Strength Weight per 1000’ Str. Wt. ORIOLE 336.4 kcmil 17,300 527.1 32.82 HAWK 477 kcmil 23,800 747 31.86 EAGLE 556.5 kcmil 27,800 872 31.88 ORIOLE has a slightly better strength-to-weight ratio than the other conductors. Considering electrical performance, diameter, and strength, POWER chose ORIOLE as the conductor for its Alternate proposal. In the final analysis, an AACSR conductor may be specified because of the extra strength this type of conductor offers. SUBMARINE AND UNDERGROUND CABLE The Base Case study proposed a 4/0 AWG conductor for both the submarine and underground cable portions. The Base Case recommends a 350-foot separation between the four, single-conductor submarine cables for reliability reasons. POWER concurs that a wide spacing of the submarine cables should be specified for this project. Telephone communication with the harbor master at Dutch Harbor informed POWER as to the prospect of increased shipping in the Broad Bay, Hog Island and English Bay waters. Due to expected increase in bottom fishing activity, Dutch Harbor anticipates a significant increase in shipping occurring as early as 1988. Associated with increased shipping traffic is the higher risk of damage to the submarine cables due to anchor dragging. Pirelli Cable Corporation has specified and priced out a 250 kcmil copper conductor for the submarine cable. Because of the 350-foot spacing, Pirelli’s engineers feel that a 250 kcmil submarine cable should be selected for this project. Therefore, both Base Case and Alternate cost estimates are based on 250 kcmil submarine 298iND 1198 (12/15/87) Vil = 3 cable. A conductor optimization study may determine that a smaller cable could be specified. OVERHEAD GROUND WIRES (OHGW) The Base Case suggests the transmission line be fitted with OHGW. The OHGW is depicted in Figure 2-7 of the Dames & Moore report. POWER includes the associated costs with OHGWs in the Base Case cost estimate. However, POWER has not included OHGWSs in its Alternate proposal. POWER’s investigation determined that Unalaska Island is in a very low isokeraunic area. Conversations with the City of Unalaska personnel indicated that lightning storms are extremely rare. Therefore, POWER did not include OHGWS in the design and cost estimates associated with the Alternate transmission. OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE On Figure 1-2, Section I, is a diagram of the road and transmission line routing for the Base Case and Alternate scenarios. The Alternate routing of the transmission line generally follows the road proposed by POWER’s project team. This road would emanate from Broad Bay, traverse the length of Makushin Valley to its head, then proceed up the south slope over the small plateau on the south and east sides of the canyon. It would then transverse the west side slope of the plateau down to the river, cross over a bridge, and proceed up the slope of the plateau to the well/production plant site. A route generally paralleling the road was determined to be the best route for the transmission line because construction costs would be less, and operation and maintenance of the line would be more efficient and less costly. POWER is proposing the use of wood-pole structures for this project. Preliminary analysis indicates that H-Frame wood structures would be the best choice for the first 6.2 miles of the line and a single-wood pole for the last 3.5 miles to Broad Bay. The H-Frame section of the line would emanate from the well/plant site, cross the creek east of the site, and traverse the plateau on the east and south sides of the 29BIND 1198 (12-15/87) Vil = 4 canyon to Makushin Valley. The H-Frame section would terminate at the beginning of the marshy area in the Makushin Valley. The single-pole section would continue from this point to Broad Bay for a total distance of 3.5 miles. The single-wood pole structures would be located between the road and adjacent hillside for most of the 3.5 miles, allowing conventional installation of the wood poles to take place without requiring piles or undergrounding. The advantages of POWER’s Alternate routing of the transmission facility are: 1. Elimination of the underground line segment resulting in reduced construction costs. 3. By eliminating the underground line segment, a terminal station is also eliminated resulting in additional cost savings. 2. Possibly less exposure to high winds than Base Case routing because the line from Sugarloaf to the switchbacks would be exposed to extremely high winds from the Bering Sea. POWER’s routing would be located against the valley sides at a lower elevation and would be partially protected from the high winds expected in the Sugarloaf area. 4. The transmission line would follow a road designed for transportation of heavy equipment that may be needed if major maintenance of the line is required. Heavy equipment would not have to be barged to Driftwood Bay for maintenance of the line or plant. OVERHEAD DESIGN POWER developed the following data that is included in the Appendix. Sag & Tension 556 kcmil ACSR EAGLE Sag & Tension 336 kcmil ACSR ORIOLE Allowable windspans (three cases) Maximum span limited by pole strength (three cases) 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) Vil iM 5 Design Criteria: Base Case Alternate Voltage 34.5kV 34.5kV Overhead Line Length 6.5 miles 10 miles Conductor 556 EAGLE 336 ORIOLE Ruling Spans 600 feet 600 ft & 300 ft Structure Configuration H-Frame wood H-Frame & Single- Pole Wood Loading Zone NESC Heavy NESC Heavy High Wind 120 MPH 120 MPH An analysis of Base Case H-Frame structure design determined that the H-Frame structure with six foot, nine-inch spacing would experience uplift problems. POWER’S calculations show that uplift or walking of the poles would occur at a span length beyond 200 feet, unless bog shoes are used. The use of bog shoes may not be cost-effective for rocky foundation conditions. Therefore, under POWER’s Alternate scenario, pole spacing was increased to 16.5 feet to allow a 600-foot ruling span. A single 20 kip, cross-brace would be used. The pole class was reduced from Class H to Class 1, because the cross-brace strength and uplift are more restricting than pole strength under this scenario. POWER recommends single-pole structures with a 300-foot ruling span for the lower Makushin Valley line segment. Because the structures would be located adjacent to the road on a slope, the most cost-effective construction would be with single poles. Given the loading conditions, a 300-foot ruling span was selected for this line segment. Figures 1 and 2 at the end of this section depict typical H-Frame and single-pole structures proposed by POWER. COST ESTIMATE The Base Case transmission scenario calls for nine miles of overhead line. However, POWER’s scaling of the proposed Base Case route shows approximately 6.5 miles of 298iND 1198 (12/15/87) Vil =m 6 St) tl Cc In 298. 11 ne ta re line. Consequently, POWER based the overhead line costs for Base Case scenario on 6.5 line miles. H-FRAME STRUCTURES (BASE CASE) The labor for 70-foot single poles was based on a loaded labor rate of $55 per hour at 47 hours for installing both poles of each H-Frame structure. For the seventy-five, three-pole structures, the labor was based on a $55 per hour labor rate with 73 man- hours allowed for installing the poles. For the pole top assemblies (PTAs), the labor component was $55 per hour and 22 man-hours for tangent and light-angle PTAs. For the medium- and large-angle structures, the man-hours for the PTA installation was calculated using 18 man- hours. Fewer manhours are used for the medium- and large-angle structures as there is less drilling with them than with the tangent and light-angle PTAs. The former require one bolt for the deadend suspension bells while the latter require four holes for the post insulator. The labor for the deadends was calculated at 44 man-hours at $55 per hour. The labor for guys and anchors was based on $55 per hour with three man-hours for the guys and 14 man-hours for the anchors. Conductor labor was calculated using a cost of $500 per tension-puller setup with three setups per pull calculated. Added was a cost of $1,800, multiplied by the conductor weight, and then multiplied by the number of conductors. This figure was then divided by 5.28 into 1000-foot units and then divided by the three conductors to arrive at the unit price. An average pull length of one mile was assumed. Example: (4500 x 3) + (1800 x .871 x 3) = $1130 Per Unit (5.28 * 3) 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) VIl-7 m~ © a iA nn 4 a AO tH io A rast 7 nA aor 4 + COST ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE CASE 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 3.5 MILES BROADBAY TO DUTCH HARBOR 34.5KV SUBMARINE LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL SUBMARINE(4 CONDUCTORS 3.50 MILES) 3.5 338,286 1,184,000 314,286 1,100,000 652,571 2,284,000 FIBER OPTIC (SUMMARINE TYPE) 3.5 90,000 315,000 7,920 27,720 97,920 342,720 TOTAL COST FOR 3.5 MILES $2,627,000 COST/MILE $750,000 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT BASE CASE SUMMARY CONTRUCTION TYPE H-FRAME (WOOD) UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBMARINE CABLE TOTAL COST (BASE CASE) ALTERNATIVE CASE SUMMARY CONTRUCTION TYPE SINGLE POLE (WOOD) H-FRAME (WOOD) SUBMARINE CABLE TOTAL COST (ALTERNATIVE CASE) cost $857,515 $2,170,000 $2,627,000 $5,654,515 cost $349,635 $642,295 $2,627,000 $3,618,930 SEnTTLeE 20 JACOBSON BROTHERS, INC. la Caper FACSIMILE MESSAGE COVER SHEET FAX NO: (206) 789-2851 ATTN: Jou al Me Geew pate:___ /0- 4-84 COMPANY : “use Caraweerss ner; JGrO226-R4 FROM: iy Shen J NUMGER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER): | A ‘ October 6, 1987 Power Engineers, Inc. 1020 Airport Way Hailey, Idaho 83333 Attn: Mr. John McGrew Re: Cost Estimates Unalaska Geothermal Project In reference to the above subject project, at your request we have done a cost estimate tor the 3.5 miles of underground and 3.5 miles of submarine cables. ALTERNATE #1 - 4 1/C Submarine and 3 1/C Underground Cable Design (Water & Underground) 1/C 250 KCM copper conductor. Suggest both submarine and underground portions be armored with #6 BWG galvanized steel armor wires. Armor wires on underground portion will give additional tensile strength required due to land portion shifting, and provide required strength during installation. Cable Cost Estimate: Water Portion 18,500'x4 74,000' @ $16.00/Ft = $1,184,000 Land Portion 18,500'x3 55,500' @ $16.00/Frt 848,000 $2,072,000 Installation Cost Estimate: Estimate includes: « Receiving Submarine Cable Scattle Port + Transportation of Submarine Cable to Site » Mobilization and Demobilization of Marine Equipment and Specialized Cable Laying Equipment (Linear Tensioner, Winches, Positioning Equipment, Etc) » All Labor for Water and Land Installation + Conventional Submarine Cable Splice Kits and Materials for Water to Land Splice Points - terminations, Testing and Final Commissioning of Subsea Cable System » Cargo Insurance for Cable and Cquipment 5355 - 28th AVENUE N.W. / SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 » PHONE: (206) 782 1618 TELEX: 32-1192 (JACOBSON SEA) + TELEFAX: (206) 789-2851 A PIRELLI GROUP COMPAS 1 Estimate Excludes: .» Any local, state or federal taxes » Pre-lay survey or Post~inspection . Any special interface or protection between water and land » Embedment or burial of submarine cable The installation for the land portion of the cable would be to place the cables in a common pre-dug trench adjacent to the access road. This road would be constructed by others. We have included excavation and back-fill of the trench in our estimate, but have not included any special select back-fill. Water Portion $1,100,000 Land Portion 1,025,000 Total Installation Estimate $2,125,000 ALTERNATE #2 This alternate provides estimates using a single 3/C 250 KCM copper conductor armored cable for the water portion and 3 1/C 250 KUM copper conductor cables for the land portion. Cable Cost Kstimate: Water Portion 18,500' @ $35.00/Ft $ 647 ,500 Land Portion 18,500x3 - 55,500' @ $16.00/Ft $88,000 Total Cable Cost Estimate $1,535,500 Installation Cost Estimate: Includes same items as Alternate #1 and same method of land installation, Water Portion $ 750,000 Land vortion 1,025 ,000 Total Installation Estimate $1,775,000 These estimates are in 1987 dollars. We trust this information will assist you in your project. Sincerely, JACOBSON BROTHERS, INC. BJ /mm TATA! PLA @) (») (1) a aces (+) (2) ® 1 ' 1 { 4y comTe Ie = TH-1R SECTION 8-8 OeTall I rains PLATE OF TAIL (ivPica 2 PLACLS) LIST OF MATERIAL ceRCAIP Tio Cy... Ss eer ee Fats Ot Ve Moon 00/0 own wt Pall.) Orin OT wrt 8/8" + 28" MOK OT «Pa NOTES: tanec Sau Sam aK aut ere as mouiN We OOLT LET WILL VARY LTH POLE S17E STALL SPRING CLIP WASHERS HORI LONELY TO IMC LTT ORO VIAL STARLES Seale OE SPACED 2 FELT ahaa CACEPT FOR THE DISTMCE OF @ FEL! ABE GAOLRO \ Int (0 7 FET OOo FOR TOP OF PAL EM STAMES Sunt ACEO 6 SIN) INES araat FOR REFERENCE ONLY PHOTO REDUCED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSULO FOR APPROWA FEVISIONS uta wt ONTH-SUD. 7 en eS 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 1 5 1 6 | 7 | 8 LIST OF MATERIAL I TEM|GTY DESCRIPTION 3 ]HORIZ. POST INSULATOR, 115KV, POLYMER MFR. LAPP, CAT. NO. F152207-12 2 3 | SUSPENSION CLAMP, 556.5 SSAC. W/AR a MFR. ANDERSON, CAT. NO. HAS-162-N 3 3 [¥-cuevis EYE. 30 KIPS TYPICAL TYPICAL 7 6 ——- (Xe Xs) } PLACES wo MFR. ANDERSON, CAT. NO. YCS-13-90 4 3 | ARMOR ROD, 556.5 SSAC MFR. PREFORMED, CAT. NO. AR-0135 5 7 | MACHINE BOLT, 3/4° X LENGTH REQ’D. W/NUT 6 8 | CURVED SQUARE WASHER, 3/4", 3° X 3° X 1/47 Ot MFR. JOSLYN, CAT.NO. J6823 a 7 | 6 [ROUND WASHER, 3/4" MFR. JOSLYN, CAT. NO. J1089 8 | 7 | SPRING LOCKWASHER, 3/4” MFR. JOSLYN, CAT. NO. J140 Q | 4 | SQUARE NUT, 3/4° MFR. JOSLYN, CAT. NO. J8564 10 | 4 | BONDING CLIP, 3/4” MFR. HUGHES, CAT. NO. 2727.7 W % | STAPLES, GALVANIZED 8 MFR. JOSLYN, CAT. NO. J1672G6 12 | % |NO. 6 SOFT ORAWN COPPER WIRE 13 | 2 | SIGN, “HIGH VOLTAGE MFR. LIMITED PLASTICS, CAT. NO. HV-1 % AS REQUIRED Z\ OWNER FURNISHED MATERIAL OOO} spires TYPICAL 3 PLACES 12" i TYPICAL | = 3 PLACES TYPICAL AS REQUIRED 5'-6* : Guy ATTACHMENT LOCATION (SEE NOTE 5 77. TYPICAL SEE NOTE 3 ~s PLACES NOTES ¢ t. THRU-BOLT LENGTHS WILL VARY WITH POLE 2. GROUND WIRE STAPLES SHALL BE ALL BOLTS SHALL BE SONCED 3. “HIGH VOLTAGE” SIGNS F: WISKV TC MAXIMUM OF 3° BELOW LOWFST TRANSMISSi-t oc 4. ALL POLES SHALL HAVE CATE NAILS GUY ASSEMBLY LOCATIONS WHEN AFGUIAFT (C7, C7B, C77, C8) | a Es 8'-0" e'-6" tay (Ci, wn TO CENTER OF U.8. CROSSARM 2 . | on ' CENTERLINE oF . L SURVEY a t AX! = [tssueo ‘on constauction _ ~. jf _ FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION B\ - | Issueo BIDOINS E web ae ZA\! -_|1ssu€o 6A APPROVAL TPA K {ZONE | REVISIONS ‘DATE: BY APO. (2°-10) TRANSMISSION POST ANGLE : (TPA) * R JOB NO. 1007 lz DRAWING No. [REV. - FT HAILEY IDAHO 1 1 2 1 3 | 4 | 5 1 6 | 7 W/O 9606-39 B/S 1954 8 ED 1502 Vill. SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS POWER Engineers, Incoroorated Vill. SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL The Base Case scenario does not discuss in detail SCADA and communication design for the project. Consequently, POWER developed design assumptions for a SCADA system that would adequately meet the objectives of all unattended operations. POWER’s discussions of the SCADA design, SCADA points, and cost estimates are applicable to both the Base Case and POWER’s proposed Alternate concept. SCADA SYSTEM POWER proposes a distributed control system using programmable logic controllers (PLCs). PLCs will be located at the generation facility to monitor and control breakers, power transformer, relays, generator synchronizing, metering, and ancillary substation and generation functions. A list of typical SCADA points is included. The SCADA system will be integrated with the geothermal generation distributed control system for monitoring and producing hard copy reports from the geothermal generation master control center. A remote SCADA terminal in the generation facility would be located at the Dutch Harbor control center. This remote terminal would consist of a computer (CPU) with memory, CRT, keyboard and printer. Functions available at the remote terminal will be all SCADA functions, geothermal generation monitoring, and remote generation control for scheduling generation. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) VIII 7 1 A fully redundant SCADA system, including PLCs and a remote terminal, would also be incorporated for reliability. The PLC system would be programmed in “ladder logic” for all SCADA functions. This type of programming allows ease of operator modification for expansions, changes, and operating scenario variations. A fiber optic communication link would connect the SCADA system to the remote terminal at Dutch Harbor. This link would provide reliable remote monitoring and control of the generation facility. SCADA POINTS Monitoring: Breakers Open/Close Transformer Temperature | Transformer Sudden Pressure Battery Voltage Station Service Voltage Station Temperature Station Intrusion Metering: Amps Volts Watts Vars KWH Power Factor Control: Breaker Position Generator Synchronizing Relay Operations: Line Overcurrent Substation Differential Generator Trip Functions 29BINO 1198 (12/15/87) Vill -2 ] Alarms: Breaker Trip Transformer Temperature Battery Voltage Over/Under Loss of Station Service Low Station Temperature FIBER OPTIC CABLE It is assumed for this analysis that figure eight aerial optical cable with four single- mode fibers each with a 0.5 db/km maximum average attenuation will be installed for both the Base and Alternate Case overhead line segments. The underground wire segment of the Base Case will be a direct bury optical cable with four single- mode fibers each with a 0.5 db/km maximum attenuation. The submarine type optical cable for both cases will be four single-mode fibers. COST ESTIMATES Vendors were contacted to determine SCADA equipment prices. Pirelli Cable Corporation and Alcoa Fujihura LTD were contacted for fiber optic cable prices. Installation costs are based on project experience. 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) Vill - 3 SCADA COSTS PLC Hardware $ 20,000 Remote Terminal 10,000 Software Development 30,000 Fiber Optic Terminals 15,000 Installation 15,000 Test 10,000 TOTAL $100,000 Note: The fiber optic cable costs are included in the transmission line cost estimate. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) VIll-4 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/ ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES POWER Engineers, Incorporated IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/ ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL POWER’s environmental review was limited to a brief examination of the Base Case proposal to identify key issues and the types of permits required as well as estimate the amount of time required to obtain permits. POWER’s Alternate proposal was reviewed to compare environmental issues and permitting requirements. Key Issues The key issue identified in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) reconnaissance study was the potential impact of discharging spent geothermal fluids into surface waters. Under the Base Case proposal, the fluids would be injected and erosion and sedimentations would be controlled by appropriate engineering design and construction practices. In comparing Base Case road and transmission line routing with POWER’s Alternate scenario, potential impacts to fish rearing and spawning in streams are less likely to occur in the Alternate scenario, according to ADF&G (see Appendices for meeting notes). ADF&G does not believe that air pollution would have a significant impact on fish and wildlife. However, the Base Case proposal recognizes that Alaska’s air quality standards would be exceeded and that a variance would have to be granted, or emissions controls installed. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) IX-1 The key issue that has not been completely addressed is land status. Unalaska Island was withdrawn from the Aleutians National Wildlife Refuge in the 1930s. The project area is within lands selected by the Aleut Corporation, and transmission line (as well as the access road under the Alternate proposal) is within land selected by Ounalashka Corporation. The corporations have received title under interim conveyances, which are not subject to further regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Land in the project area not withdrawn for other purposes has been returned to USFWS as part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS does not have jurisdiction over the marine waters within the project area; however, it does have jurisdiction over lands adjacent to Driftwood Bay (Bill Mattice, Realty, and Leslie Kerr, Refuge Planning). The draft refuge management plan will be available in January 1988, and these lands would remain under minimal management. The Driftwood Bay access road (Base Case proposal) would transverse these lands. The Alternate scenario access road would remain on lands conveyed to Ounalashka Corporation. Consequently, it is likely that fewer regulatory constraints would be encountered in permitting the Alternate case due to the simplicity of dealing with the local Ounalashka Corporation. PERMITTING lf the Driftwood Bay access road were utilized, a Special Use Permit would be required from USFWS. The application process is lengthy (as described in the Anchorage/Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study), and permit may not be granted, as geothermal power development is not allowed in wildlife refuges (Dames & Moore 1987, p. 3-1). If the access road were constructed near or adjacent to the transmission line on regional and village corporation lands, it would be possible to obtain the necessary permits for constructing the project in less than a year. For startup in May 1989, permit applications should be submitted no later than October 15, 1988. The air quality permit may require additional time, but would not be required until 1990. It is essential, however, to determine that a variance would be granted; otherwise there would be an additional expense of installing emission control equipment. The process outlined on page 3-3 of the Base Case report is a reasonable approach, with the addition of a public hearing. A recommended budget is based on these steps. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) IX-2 Recommendations Additional information is required on fish utilization of side channels, groundwater upwelling, and soils (see Appendices for meeting notes). Sufficient borrow sources will have to be located, and beach materials probably cannot be used. The land conveyance and refuge planning process should be monitored, and rights-of-way will have to be obtained. ACCESS ROADS The estimate of the Base Case was done on the scheme provided in the Base Case report. However, there is some concern on the ability to construct the “floating” road section over the lower portion of the Makushin Valley due to the extremely soft soils underlying the area. The concern lies in the ability to traverse and dump hauling vehicles on the road surface during construction, since the road is capable of handling only very light loads. Therefore, small hauling vehicles with a tight turning radius must be used for hauling. In the Alternate scheme, the road was realigned to the south side of the valley. Although the original DNR study indicates that the slopes along this area are susceptible to avalanches, it is felt that the risk--prevalent only a few months each year--is overshadowed by the benefits of a higher capacity road that will permit hauling heavy plant equipment. This DNR study was a preliminary analysis based solely on steepness of slope data. No avalanches have been reported on these slopes and visual observations did not indicate high avalanche danger. The road will not be for general public use and steps, such as providing overnight facilities at both ends of the road for plant personnel, have been taken to mitigate any potential hazards. The road will be constructed over a high performance geotextile for the first five miles and then diverge away from the valley slope and align with the old road. Just below the switchback road at the head of the valley, the road will turn south and cross the upper reach of the stream and proceed upslope crossing the small plateau alongside the stream. It will then transverse the side slope down to the river, cross over a bridge and proceed up the slope of the plateau to the plant location. 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) IX -3 The road will be constructed at a nominal 20-foot width with a 24-foot base. In cost, the 24-foot base will remain to allow adequate safety on the slopes. DOCKING FACILITIES A pile-supported dock will be provided in both schemes studied. The cost of identical docks was estimated in both cases. The dock was estimated to be a steel- pile, L-shaped structure with a steel supported timber deck. This type of structure will permit the off-loading of barges by crane for transferring the load to trucks backed onto the dock. A timber pile breakwater was included in the estimate. If the project goes to detailed design, however, consideration should be given to revising the breakwater _ design to allow fish passage. If a floating breakwater is not technically feasible, then an L-shaped, sheet-pile dock allowing barge unloading in the sheltered interior of the dock may be a more cost-effective alternative. Dock construction will be the first work begun, commencing at the same time as road construction equipment mobilization. It is anticipated that piling and a pile driver would be delivered to the site first. Equipment for road construction could not use the dock which would not be completed until road work would be well underway. However, the dock would be completed in the first summer, allowing it to be used for all plant construction and subsequent maintenance. 298IND 1:98 (12:15:87) IX-4 ROAD & DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS Broad Bay to 2nd Bridge Dock at Broad Bay Geofabric Excavate pumice Haul pumice Place pumice Surface treatment Gravel fill 36” CMP 2nd Bridge to Plant Cut and fill Clearing grub 60” CMP 24" CMP Bridge Bridge Bridge abutments Rebar Forms 2981ND 1198 (12/15/87) BASE CASE 1 200,000 26,500 26,500 26,500 7,639 19,800 600 3,150 18 40 400 1600 640 106 15,900 3,060 IX-5 Us! SY: CY. cuy! CY. GAC CY. Ft. Gy A.C. S.F. S.F. Cy! 1b S.F. $1,594,000 3.00 6.50 2.50 9.55 10.00 11.05 60.00 Subtotal $ 9.55 500 121.50 28.72 200 200 200 2.00 10.00 Subtotal Total $1,594,000 600,000 172,250 66,250 253,075 76,390 218,790 __ 36,000 $3,016,755 $ 30,083 9,000 4,860 11,488 320,000 128,000 21,200 31,800 30,600 $ 587,031 BASE CASE ROAD & DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS (CONT.) Repair of Existing Road 24" CMP 240 L.F. $ 28.72 $ 6,893 C.I.P. Concrete 10 GY: 200 2,000 Fill 80 Gry! 9.55 764 Regrade 5000 Gly 9.55 47,750 Subtotal $ 57,407 Bridge Steel 1600 S.F. $200 $ 320,000 Concrete 53 Gy! 200 10,600 Re-bar 7950 Lbs. 200 15,900 Forms 1530 S.F. 10.00 15,300 Subtotal $ 361,800 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $4,022,993 Construction Surveys $ 107,850 Onsite Engineer 58,500 Soil Testing 58,500 Subtotal $224,850 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $4,247,843 298IND 1198 (12/15 87) IX 7 6 ALTERNATE CASE ROAD & DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS No. Unit Rate Total Broad Bay 5 Miles Dock at Broad Bay 1 L.S. $1,594,000 $1,594,000 Geofabric 200,000 S.Y. 3.00 600,000 Fill 43,000 Cy. 11.05 475,150 Surfacing 1500 CY. 11.05 16,575 Culverts 60 “” 180 ft. 121.50 21,870 24" 180 ft. 28.72 5,170 Bridge 1000 S.F. 200 320,000 Abutments 1 ES: 40,000 40,000 Subtotal $3,072,765 Plant 5 Miles Cut and fill 113,333 CY. 9.55 1,082,330 Surfacing 1,500 GY. 11.05 16,575 Bridges 1,600 S.F. 200 320,000 Abutments 2 LS: 40,000 80,000 Culverts 60” 120 L.F. 121.50 14,580 24” 120 EE 29.72 3,446 Subtotal $1,516,931 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $4,589,696 Construction Surveys $ 107,850 Onsite Engineer 58,500 Soil Testing 58,500 Subtotal $ 224,850 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $4,814,546 2981ND 1198 (12 15:87) IX-7 X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE POWER Engineers, Incorporat X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE For the purposes of developing costs for the operation and maintenance, the following criteria were used: LE Line/station operation and maintenance would be conducted by two individuals once a week, eight hours a day for a total of 832 manhours a year. Road/dock maintenance and snow removal would average out to two individuals for one day every two weeks during summer months and one day every week during winter months, eight hours a day for a total of 624 manhours a year. Wages at $26.10 per hour and benefits at $7.00 an hour plus an overhead multiplier of 2.1 for both operation and maintenance labor costs were used (this will not apply to contract labor costs). The truck and work boat includes capital cost; repair, and fuel. A full-time plant operator and supervisor will be required. These two individuals will travel to the plant four days per week, weather permitting, and will monitor, from the plant or the remote monitoring location, plant operations on the day shift, seven days per week (five-day work weeks for each man are assumed). The total manhours per year are 4,160. 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) X-1 10. A full-time plant engineer to supply technical, maintenance, and operations support will be required for 2,080 manhours per year. Assume this individual's annual salary, with benefits, is $75,000 per year. Plant maintenance for the Alternate has two components, routine maintenance and an annual shutdown for major maintenance requirements. The routine maintenance will be performed by local personnel and will require 2,080 manhours per year. The annual shutdown will last seven days per year and be staffed by two, five-man crews (16 hours per day) contracted out of Anchorage. Total for the contract maintenance help is 560 manhours. For these individuals $80 per hour is assumed for their wages, overhead and contractor's profit. Per diem at $80 per manday and transportation costs related to these crews will be $12,600. The Base Case maintenance labor costs are assumed to be 1.4 times the Alternate. This is based on the ratio of the Base Case mechanical equipment capital cost to that of the Alternate and rests on the assumption that the larger quantity of equipment will require proportionately more maintenance. Plant maintenance parts cost are assumed to be 50 percent of maintenance labor. Plant diesel fuel and expendable supplies costs are assumed to be $20,000 per year for the Alternate and $50,000 per year for the Base Case (to account for periodic isopentane replacement in the binary units). 298iNO 1198 (12/15/87) X- 2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS DESCRIPTION BASE CASE ALTERNATE CASE Line/Station Labor Costs $ 57,832 $ 57,832 Parts 10,000 10,000 Road/Dock Labor Costs 43,374 43,374 Truck 22,000 22,000 Work Boat 25,000 25,000 Expendable Supplies 55,000 25,000 Plant Operating Labor Costs 364,162 364,162 Plant Maintenance Labor Costs 287,773 201,981 Plant Parts 141,387 100,991 TOTAL O&M COST $1,006,528 $850,340 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) X- 3 XI. APPENDICES POWER Engineers, incorporated XI. APPENDICES Transmission Supporting Data Power Plant Support Data Habitat Impact - Notes From ADF&G Meeting 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) Aw D> APPENDIX A Transmission Supporting Data Load Flows Sag and Tension Data H-Frame Spans (6’-9” Spacing) H-Frame Spans (16’-6” Spacing) Single Pole Calculations and Spans Cost Estimate Support 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) LOAD FLOWS 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UACASES ‘ UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; POWER ; 336 ACSR OVERHEAD ; NO-LOAD.? LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 52.55 1E-2 -52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 1E-2 2E-2 B-Phase 52.55 1E-2 -52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 1E-2 2E-2 C-Phase 52.55 1E-2 ~-52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 -1E-2 2E-2 Neutral 2E-7 0 oO P Total 157.6 3E-2 -157.6 -.0237 100 3E-2 BE-2 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node ( A-Phase .3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 B-Phase .3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 ( C-Phase .3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. “AMP. TO BUS CAP. kV kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft) Iv OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV “VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 122.1 122.1 1.977 1.977 .3731 .3731 20.59 103.3 24.6 3E-2 7E-2 0 0 3E-2 -122.1 1E-3 -122. 3 52800 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.30 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.30-2E-5 -43.3 4 16480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID , DATA BASE- A: UACASES DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING i FROM/ NODE . CAP, CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA #CUST MWh ‘2 2 0 0 1.1¥ 0 336 ACSR 62800 FT ABN #0 0 WOME 3 2 0 0 24.6 Y 0 CD= 6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 oO 0 24.6 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 4 2 oO oO 13.5 ¥ oO CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 Srey an 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASEO UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; POWER + 336 AC 2 OVERHBAD ; 7MV @ 0.85 PE. LOADFLOV ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 3 iterations kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2889. 2414. 1586. 83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 B-Phase 2689. 2414. 1586. 83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 C-Phase 2889. 2414. 1586. 83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 Neutral 3E-5 O oO Total 8667. 7243. 4759. 83.57 84.99 244.8 567.7 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.25 5 103.3 2 B-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.255 103.3 2 C-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.25 5 103.3 2 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 8686. 8327. 140.6 140.6 26.54 26.54 19.73 99.05 24.6 181.6 381.7 0 0 7243. 4794. 7061. 4413 3 52800 3 7 ABC a ao SUB 8366. 8214. 141.3 141.3 48.07 48.07 19.37 97.25 13.5 63.12 186.0 0 0 7061. 4485. 6998. 4299 8 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8234. O 141.6 0 48.18 0 19.37 97.25 0 1E-2 5SE-2 6999 4338 6998. 4337. 0 0 5 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASE6 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA = #CUST MW! 0 11.1 Y oO 336 ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 O NONE 0 24.6 Y CD= 6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 0 24.6 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #O 0 NONE 0 13.5 ¥ 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 oO 13.5 Y Oo 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #O 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 O O 0 0 0 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 O 0 0 SPOT CN 2333 1440 O 0 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UACASE3 = = =a UNALASKA ‘LOAD FLOW ; POWER ; 477 ACSR OVERHEAD NO-LOAD" Seabee Eset ts LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 53.41 9E-3 -53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 -0261 B-Phase 53.41 QE-3 -53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 .0261 ‘ C-Phase 53.41 9QE-3 -53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 2E-2 Neutral 3E-7 O oO Total 160.2 2E-2 ~-160.2 -1E-2 100 2E-2 7E-2 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At ( Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase = .2982 2 3 477 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 B-Phase .2982 2 3 477 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 ( C-Phase .2982 2 3 477 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. ZAMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr f TO H_ LENGTH( ft) IN OUT IN OUT Iv OUT kV “VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 123.3 123.4 1.998 1.998 .2982 .2982 20.59 103.3 25 2E-2 7E-2 0 0 2E-2 -123.3 1E-3 -123. © 3 52800 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.29 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 1E-3 “4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.29-1E-5 -43.3 4 18480 ( & 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASE3 C DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING (- FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVA ST #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA #CUST MWh 4 2 2 oO oO 11.5 Y 52800 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 3 2 0 0 25 YY 0 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 ‘ 3 2 0 Oo 25 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 4 2 0 oO 13.5 ¥ 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 - een 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UACASE4 : . > UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; POWER ; 477 ACSR OVERHEAD .; 7MW @ 0.85 PR. LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2867. 2395. 1576. 63.53 84.99 139.3 62.87 181.2 B-Phase 2867. 2395. 1576. 83.53 84.99 139.3 62.87 181.2 C-Phase 2867. 2395. 1576. 83.53 84.99 139.3 62.67 181.2 Neutral 1E-5 0 oO Total 8603. 7186. 4729. 83.53 84.99 188.6 543.7 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 47.84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 103.3 2 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW TO H LEWGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT Iy OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN 2 ABC 477 ACSR 8623. 8322. 139.6 139.6 20.84 20.84 19.86 99.71 25 126.3 360.3 0 0 7186. 3 52800 3 4 ABC art SUB 6361. 8211. 140.3 140.3 47.72 47.72 19.50 97.93 13.5 62.22 183.3 0 0 7060 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232. 0 140.6 0 47.84 0 19.50 97.93 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998 5 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASE4 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING kVAr kW OkVAr In OUT OUT 4765. 7060. 4405 4480. 6998. 4296 4335. 0 0 #CUST MWh FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR_ kVA 2 2 0 0 11.5 Y 0 477 ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 0O NOWE 3 2 0 oO 25 =s¥ 0 CcD= 7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 oO 25. sY oO 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 Y 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 O SPOT AN 2333 1446 0 5 2 0 0 0 oO CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0 SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 ooo ooo ve eg 10-23-1987 Start Node= 2 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASE1 UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; POWER ; 556 ACSR OVERHEAD ; NO-LOAD. LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.9 Convergence reached in 1 iteratio: 2 kV ns kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 53.84 7E-3 -53.84 -.0135 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 B-Phase 53.84 7E-3 ~-53.84 -1E-2 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 C-Phase 53.84 7E-3 -53.64 -1E-2 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 Neutral 2E-7 0 0 Total 161.5 2E-2 -161.5 -.0135 100 2E-2 8E-2 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 2751 2 3 SS6ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 B-Phase .2751 2 3 SS6ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 C-Phase .2751 2 3 556ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. ZAMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC SS6ACSR 124.0 124.1 2.008 2.008 .2751 .2751 20.59 103.3 25.2 2E-2 7E-2 0 0 2E-2 -124.0 1E-3 -124 3 52800 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.30 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.30-1E-5 -43.3 4 18480 : 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UACASE1 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA 9 #CUST MWh 2 2 oO 0 11.7 ¥ oO 556ACSR 52800 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 3 2 0 0 25.2 ¥ 0 CD= 25 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 25.2 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 Y 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 10-23-1987 Start Node= 2 Power Engineers, Inc., DATA BASE- A: UACASE2 UNALASKALOAD ELOY; POWER .j 956 ACSR OVERHEAD ; .7MW @ 0.85. PR LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage = Hailey, ID 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kVAr IN kW OkVAr OUT OUT 4780. 7060. 4403 4479. 6998. 4296 #CUST MWh kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2862. 2386. 1581. 83.35 84.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 B-Phase 2862. 2386. 1581. 83.35 64.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 C-Phase 2862. 2386. 1581. 83.35 684.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 Neutral 1E-5 0 0 Total 8587. 7158. 4743. 83.35 84.99 159.9 559.7 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.10 5 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.10 5 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.10 5 103.3 2 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW TO H LENGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN 2 ABC 5SS6ACSR 8607. 8321. 139.3 139.3 19.09 19.09 19.89 99.88 25.2 97.93 376.9 0 0 7158 3 52800 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 6361. 6211. 140.0 140.0 47.64 47.64 19.54 98.10 13.5 62.00 182.7 0 0 7060. 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232. 0 140.4 0 47.76 0 19.54 98.10 O 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998 5 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UACASE2 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST ~- TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA 2 2 oO Oo 11.7 ¥ 0 S56ACSR 52800 FT ABCN # O oO NONE 3 2 0 0 25.2 Y 0 CD= 25 3-PH 19.92kvV 0 $0 3 iii 0 25.2 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ oO CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ oO 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN # O 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 O 5 2)11)||9) 0 0 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 O SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 ooo ooo ro 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE~. A: UNALASGN DNALASKA ‘LOAD FLOW ; DAMES AND MOORE ; 336 ACSR_QVERHEAD ; NO-LOAD.’ LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 86.76 3E-2 ~-86.76 -3E-2 100 4.215 3E-2 6E-2 B-Phase 86.76 3E-2 ~-86.76 -.0366 100 4.215 3E-2 6E-2 C-Phase 86.76 3E-2 -86.76 ~-.0366 100 4.215 3E-2 6E-2 Neutral 2E-7 O Oo Total 260.2 QE-2 -260.2 -3E-2 100 9E-2 - 1865 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103,3 2 103.4 5 B-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 C-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS “%AMP. “AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW okVAr) =okKW) OKVAr) = kW OVAr— kW VAr TO H_ LENGTH(ft) IN OUT In OUT IN OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IW Iu OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 224.7 224.8 3.639 3.639 .6866 .6866 20.59 103.4 26.9 7E-2 .1660 0 0 QE-2 -224.7 1E-2 -224. 3 34320 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 138.6 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 ‘1E-2 0 0 1E-2 -138.6 1E-3 -138 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.32 43.32 .7009 .7009 .2384 .2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.32-3E-5 -43.3 5 18480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: USALAS3N DATA BASE BODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA @CUST MWh 2 2 oO oO 11.1 Y¥ oO 336 ACSR 34320 FT ABCN # O oO NONE 3 2 0 0 26.9 ¥ 0 CD= 6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 26.9 Y Oo 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN # O oO NONE 4 2 0 0 29.7 ¥ oO CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 oO 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ Oo CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, DATA BASE- A:UNALASKA ID UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; DAMES AND MOORE + 556 ACSR OVERHEAD i 7MW @ 0.85 PE? LOADFLOW AWALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2836. 2393, 1523. 84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 B-Phase 2836. 2393. 1523. 84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 C-Phase 2836. 2393. 1523. 84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 Neutral 3E-5 0 0 Total 8510. 7180. 4569. 84.36 64.99 181.9 483.4 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 47.63 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.63 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.63 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2 FROK/ P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS Y%AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP TO H LENGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV %VOLTS kVA 2 ABC SS6ACSR 8530. 8350. 138.1 138.1 18.92 18.92 20.14 101.1 27.5 3 34320 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 8394. 8313. 138.8 138.8 47.24 47.24 19.95 100.1 29.7 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8360. 8212. 139.6 139.6 47.51 47.51 19.59 98.38 13.5 5 18480 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232. 0 140.0 0 47.63 0 19.59 98.38 0 6 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UNALASKA DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# 2 2 0 0 11.7 Y¥ oO SS6ACSR 0 3 2 0 0 27.5 ¥ 0 CD= 25 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 27.5 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN # 0 4 2 0 0 29.7 Y 0 CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # 0 5 2 oO 0 13.5 Y 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 5 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN # 0 6 2. 0 0 0 Oo CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD REINF#-YR LOAD COST TYPE kW 62.52 240.6 0 57.72 60.96 0 61.66 181.7 0 0 kVAr 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 kW IN co. kV kVAr kW kVAr IN OUT OUT + 4006. 7117. 4365 - 4450. 7059. - 4478. 6998. . 4336. 0 0 NN. A #CUST MWh NONE SPOT SPOT SPOT AN 2333 BN 2333 CN 2333 1446 1446 1446 ooo voor 10-23-1987 Start Node= 2 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UNALAS-N 7 « UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ; DAMES AND MOORE ; 956 ACSR OVERHEAD ; NO-LOAD. teins meted te LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 87.93 2E-2 ~-87.93 -2E-2 100 4.272 2E-2 6E-2 B-Phase 87.93 0201 -87.93 -.0229 100 4.272 2E-2 6E-2 -43.92-2E-5 kVAr OUT OUT .3 1E-2 -220. -138.6 1E-3 -138. 43.3 C-Phase 87.93 .0201 ~-87.93 -.0229 100 4.272 2E-2 - 0632 Neutral SE-7 O 0 Total 263.8 6E-2 -263.8 -2E-2 100 6E-2 - 1898 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase - 7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 B-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 C-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS %AMP. “AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW TO H LENGTH(ft) If OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV %ZVOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN 2 ABC SS6ACSR 226.3 226.4 3.665 3.665 .5020 .5020 20.59 103.4 27.4 4E-2 .1694 0 0 6E-2 3 34320 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 138.6 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 ..0158 0 0 1E-2 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.32 43.32 .7009 .7009 .2384 .2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 5 18480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UNALAS-¥ DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD 2 2 0 3 2 0 3 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 5 2 0 Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW 0 11.7 ¥ 0 SS6ACSR 34320 FT ABCN #0 O NONE oO 27.4 Y 0 CD= 25 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 0 27.4 Y Oo 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN#O O NONE oO 29.7 Y 0 CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 oO 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #O 0 NONE 0 13.5 ¥ oO CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 KVAR kVA #CUST MWh 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA. BASE- A: UNALAS47 ” bot UNALASKA LOAD FLOW ;. DAMES AND MOORE ; 477 ACSR OVERHEAD ; 7MW @ 0.85 PF: LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kW kVAr Ckt. kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2840. 2399. 1520. 64.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 B-Phase 2640. 2399. 1520. 84.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 C-Phase 2840. 2399. 1520. 84.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 Neutral 3E-5 0 0 Total 8521. 7198. 4560. 84.47 84.99 200.2 473.0 Max% Conductor Mint At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 47.68 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.26 6 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.68 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.26 6 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.68 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.26 6 103.3 2 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS %ANP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW okVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft) IN OUT IN OUT IW OUT kV “ZVOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 3 ABC 477 ACSR 8541. 6351. 138.3 138.3 20.64 20.64 20.12 101.0 27.3 80.58 229.8 O 0 7198. 4597. 7117. 4367 34320 3 : ABC 4/0 35KV URD 8395. 6313. 139.0 139.0 47.29 47.29 19.92 100.0 29.7 57.86 61.10 0 0 7117. 4451. 7060. 4390 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8361. 8212. 139.8 139.8 47.56 47.56 19.57 98.26 13.5 61.80 162.1 0 0 7060. 4479. 6998. 4297 5 18480 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 68232. 0° 140.1 0 47.68 O 19.57 98.26 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998. 4336. 0 0 6 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UNALAS47 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 0 11.5 Y 0 477 ACSR 34320 FT ABCH #0 O NONE 3 2 0 oO 27.3 ¥ oO CcD= 7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 27.3 Y oO 4/0 35KV URD 16480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 Oo 29.7 ¥ 0 CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #0 O NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5 Y 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 5 2 0 oO 13.5 ¥ oO 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #O O SPOT AN 2333 1446 O 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 O 0 0 SPOT CN 2333 1440 O 0 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A; UNALAS4N ee . cae UNALASKA LOAD FLOV ; DAMES AND MOORE ; 477 ACSR OVERHBAD ; NO-LOAD? LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 87.61 2E-2 -87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 6E-2 B-Phase 687.61 2E-2 ~-87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 +0604 ‘ C-Phase 87.61 2E-2 ~-87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 -0604 Neutral 2E-7 O 0 ' Total 262.8 ‘7E-2 ~-262.8 -2E-2 100 7E-2 +1813 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At ( Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node 7 A-Phase - 7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 B-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 ‘ C-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA kVA AMPS AMPS AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr kW kVAr t TO H LENGTH(ft) IW OUT IN OUT IW OUT kV “VOLTS kVA LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 226.0 226.1 3.659 3.659 .5462 .5462 20.59 103.4 27.3 SE-2 .1608 0 0 7E-2 -226.0 1E-2 -226. ‘ 3 34320 3 7 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 138.5 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 1E-2 0 0 1E-2 -138.5 1E-3 -138. i 18480 4 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.31 43.32 .7009 .7009 .2384 .2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.31-2E-5 -43.3 18480 ‘ 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID ( DATA BASE- A: UNALAS4¥ DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING ‘ FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST CODE - #PH L-WN kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR KVA #CUST MWh 2 2 oO oO 11.5 ¥ 0 477 ACSR 34320 FT ABCN # O 0 NONE 3 2 0 oO 27.3 Y 0 CD= 7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 ( 3 2 0 oO 27.3 ¥ Oo 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN # O oO NONE 4 2 0 0 29.7 ¥ 0 CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 \ 4 2 0 oO 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN # O oO NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5 ¥ 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A:UNALAS33 UNALASKA LoAD FLOW ; DAMES AND MOORE ; 336 ACSR OVERHEAD '; 7MW @ 0.85 PRs LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node= 2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage = 19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF% LD.PF% Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2853. 2411. 1526. 84.49 84.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 B-Phase 2853. 2411. 1526. 84.49 84.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 C-Phase 2853. 2411. 1526. 84.49 64.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 Neutral 1E-5 O oO Total 8561. 7233. 4579. 84.49 84.99 235.9 487.5 Max% Conductor Min% At Max% At Ampac. From To Type Volt. Node Volt. Node A-Phase 47.89 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 97.83 6 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.89 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 97.83 6 103.3 2 C-Phase 47,895 6 4/0 35KV SUB 97.83 6 103.3 2 FROM/ P BRANCH TYPE/ kVA KVA AMPS AMPS “AMP. %AMP. TO BUS CAP. kW OkVAr)—okKW)O«VAr kW okVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft> IN OUT IN OUT IW OUT LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IW IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 8580. 8354. 138.9 138.9 26.21 26.21 20.04 100.6 26.9 115.2 242.0 0 0 3 34320 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 8397. 8315. 139.6 139.6 47.50 47.50 19.84 99.62 29.7 58.37 61.65 0 0 7118. 4454. 7060. 4392 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8362. 8212. 140.4 140.4 47.77 47.77 19.48 97.83 13.5 62.35 183.7 0 0 7060. 4481. 6998. 4297 5 18480 5 6 ABC “ot SUB 6232. 0 140.8 0 47.89 0 19.48 97.83 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998. 4336. 0 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, ID DATA BASE- A: UNALAS33 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/ NODE CAP. CAP. GEN. GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/ PHASE/ REINF#-YR LOAD CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST. REF# ST. CODE - #PH L-N kV BILL# COST TYPE PH kW KVAR kVA = #CUST MWh 2 2 0 oO 11.1 Y 0 336 ACSR 34320 FT ABCN #0 O NONE 3 2 0 0 26.9 ¥ 0 CD= 6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 26.9 ¥ Oo 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 oO 29.7 ¥ 0 CD= 26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7 Y oO 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 O NONE 5 2. 0 0 13.5 ¥ 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 5 2 0 Oo 13.5 ¥ 0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 O SPOT AN 2333 1446 0 0 0 6 2. 0 0 oO 0 CD= 27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0 0 0 SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 0 0 SAG AND TENSION DATA 29BIND 1198 (12/15/87) WEIGHT= .5271 LBS. AREA= ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA DIAMETER= .74068 IN. -32590 SQ. IN. ULT.= 17300 LBS. DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-773 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN= 300 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE F IN. -40.0 -00 .0 -00 0 50 20.0 00 32.0 00 32.0 -50 32.0 00 32.0 00 40.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 -00 80.0 00 100.0 00 120.0 00 167.0 00 212.0 00 SPAN= 600 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE F IN. -40.0 00 0 00 0 -50 20.0 -00 32.0 -00 32.0 50 32.0 -00 32.0 00 40.0 -00 60.0 -00 60.0 -00 60.0 00 60.0 -00 80.0 00 100.0 -00 120.0 00 167.0 00 212.0 00 -0 FEET WIND PSF 00 -00 4.00 00 00 -00 00 6.00 -00 00 00 -00 90 -00 00 -00 00 00 aun .0 FEET WIND PSF 00 00 4.00 -00 00 00 _ 00 6.00 00 00 00 00 90 00 -00 00 -00 00 awa UNALASKA HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT SAG LB/F FT. 5271 1.36 5271 1.91 1.7225 4.20 -5271 2.32 5271 2.61 1.2988 4.22 2.6925 5.82 -6442 2.94 -5271 2.82 5271 3.38 6442 3.67 . 7658 3.93 2.3378 5.98 -5271 3.97 5271 4.26 -5271 4.55 -5271 5.23 5271 5.88 HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT SAG LB/F FT. -5271 6.67 -5271 8.42 1.7225 13.42 -5271 9.35 5271 9.91 1.2988 13.17 2.6925 16.68 6442 10.55 -5271 10.28 -5271 11.21 -6442 11.76 - 7658 12.29 2.3378 16.72 5271 12.06 -5271 12.53 5271 12.99 -5271 14.07 -5271 15.09 FINAL TENSION LB. 4361. 3098. 4621. 2556. 2274. 3469. 5219. 2470. 2105. 1755. 1977. 2194. 4408. 1496. 1393. 1305. 1135. 1010. FINAL TENSION LB. 3560. 2820. 5793. 2541. 2397. 4448. 7295. 2753. 2310. 2121. 2469. 2811. 6317. 1971. 1898. 1831. 1690. 1577. AN WWUOWWMNMDM HOWDY rer 1 1 10. 16. 9 10. ll. 13. 14. 5 6 3 7 8 12. 6 8 8 9 9 ORIOLE 336.4 30/7 ACSR INITIAL SAG TENSION FT. LB. 35 4402. 71 3460. -16 4668. 97 3008. -16 2749. 95 3701. 82 5219. 51 2892. 29 2585. 69 2207. 04 2387. 36 2568. -83 4521. 14 1888. 64 1631. 15 1430. 22 1138. .87 1012. INITIAL SAG TENSION FT. LB. 67 4185. 86 3460. 01 5972. 55 3143. 00 2969. 23 4789. -68 7295. 85 3281. 30 2861. 08 2615. 87 2942. 58 3261. 36 6456. 89 2402. 70 2221. 51 2065. 36 1780. 84 1603. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD 11.1.2 CONDUCTOR LOADING DATA: 1.Rai =LOADING ZONE ICE(IN)........ cece cece eee eee cece 2.Flz =LOADING ZONE WIND(PSF)...........eeeee cece reece 3.K1z =LOADING ZONE CONSTANT.......-. eee e cece cece eeeeeee 3.Fwh =FASTEST MILE WIND(PSF).......-- eee cece cece eee eee 4.Fsh =INSULATOR HIGH WIND(PSF).......-.- 5.Fih =HEAVY ICE RADIAL(IN)..........eee eee e eee a 6.Wic =DENSITY OF ICE(LBS/FT*3)........e- see e reece ee eees 7.Wcb =WEIGHT OF BARE CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT).......-..----- 8.Dcb =DIAMETER OF CONDUCTOR(IN).........--eeeee eee eeeee 9.Wub =WEIGHT OF BARE UNDERBUILD(LBS/FT) 10.Dub =DIAMETER OF UNDERBUILD(IN).......+--eeeeeeeeeeee THE UNIT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES FOR LOADING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE WERE CALCULATED USING THE EQUATIONS SHOWN BELOW. LOAD FOR GALLOPING IS 1/2 INCH ICE WITH 2 PSF WIND. WeisWic*PI*((Dcb+2*(Rai))*2-(Deb)*2)/(4*144) +Wcb Pei=Dci*F1z/12 Wek=((Wcoi)42+(Pci)*2)*.5+K1Z FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WCI(LB/FT) PCI(LB/FT) WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.298 0.290 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.527 0.370 “<> INS SWG HIGH 0.527 0.555 --- HIGH WIND 0.527 2.276 2-7 1.298 0.580 1.722 HEAVY ICE 2.691 --- a FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WCI(LB/FT) PCI(LB/FT) WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.022 0.250 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.400 0.250 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.400 0.375 --- HIGH WIND 0.400 1.538 aan 1.022 0.500 1.438 HEAVY ICE 2.265 “-- a =PC0025KL 2 AREA= ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA DIAMETER= .95297 IN. WEIGHT= .872 LBS. ULT.= 27800 LBS. -53910 SQ. IN. DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-773 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN= 600 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE F IN. -40.0 00 0 00 0 50 20.0 -00 32.0 00 32.0 -50 32.0 00 32.0 00 40.0 -00 60.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 00 80.0 00 100.0 00 120.0 00 167.0 00 212.0 00 .0 FEET WIND 4 awn P SF 00 00 00 00 .00 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 90 .00 00 00 .00 00 UNALASKA HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT LB/F -8720 -8720 2.1913 -8720 .8720 7758 3015 9937 .8720 -8720 9937 1275 -0575 -8720 .8720 -8720 .8720 .8720 wore wre SAG FT. 6.30 8.00 11.84 8.92 9.48 12.06 14.85 9.91 9.86 10.79 11.16 11.54 15.34 11.70 12.58 13.04 14.12 15.14 FINAL TENSION LB. 6228. 4908. 8344. 4403. 4144. 6642. 10034. 4518. 3987. 3644. 4014. 4405. 9001. 3361. 3127. 3016. 2786. 2600. EAGLE 556.5 30/7 ACSR SAG FT. 5. qe ll. 7. 8. 11 14 8. 8 9. 9. 10. 15. 10. 10. ll. 13. 15. 83 06 62 77 22 42 -85 76 53 32 82 32 10 13 94 75 58 03 INITIAL TENSION LB. 6731. 5560. 8505. 5053. 4776. 7009. 10034. 5108. 4604. 4215. 4561. 4926. 9145. 3880. 3593. 3347. 2896. 2619. PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD 11.1.2 CONDUCTOR LOADING 1.Rai =LOADING ZONE ICE(IN)...... cece eee eee eee eee es 2.Flz =LOADING ZONE WIND(PSF). 3.K1z =LOADING ZONE CONSTANT........... 3.Fwh =FASTEST MILE WIND(PSF).......-eeeeeeeeees 4.Fsh =INSULATOR HIGH WIND(PSF) 5 6 7 8 DATA: .Fih =HEAVY ICE RADIAL(IN)....... eee eee eee reer eee recess .Wic =DENSITY OF ICE(LBS/FT*3)........eeeee eee eee eee 57 .Wob =WEIGHT OF BARE CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)........-+--+eees 0.872 .Dcb =DIAMETER OF CONDUCTOR(IN)..........eee seer eeeeee 0.953 9.Wgb =WEIGHT OF BARE OHGW(LBS/FT).........+eeeeeeeeeeee 0.273 10.Dgb =DIAMETER OF OHGW(IN)......--.seeeeeee eee eeeeeeee 0.359 THE UNIT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES FOR LOADING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE WERE CALCULATED USING THE EQUATIONS SHOWN BELOW. LOAD FOR GALLOPING IS 1/2 INCH ICE WITH 2 PSF WIND. Wei=Wic*PI*( (Dcb+2*(Rai))A2-(Deb)*2)/(4*144)+Web Pei=Dci*F1z/12 Wek=((Woi)*2+(Pci)*2)*.5+K1z FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WC1I(LB/FT) PCI(LB/FT) WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.775 0.326 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.872 0.477 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.872 0.715 --- HIGH WIND 0.872 2.930 --- 1.775 0.651 2.191 HEAVY ICE 3.301 --- iit FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WC1(LB/FT) PCI(LB/FT) WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 0.807 0.227 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.273 0.180 a INS SWG HIGH 0.273 0.269 --- HIGH WIND 0.273 1.104 --- 0.807 0.453 1.226 HEAVY ICE 1.963 --- re =PCO0025KL 2 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34X POLE HT-CL 60 -3 60 -2 60 -1 65 -3 65 -2 65 -1 70 -3 70 -2 70 -1 75 -3 75 -2 75 -1 80 -3 80 -2 80 -1 85 -2 85 -1 90 -2 90 -1 DTE 12. 25 12 12 13. 13. 13. 15 14. 14. 16. 16. 16 18. 17. 17. 19. 19 21. 75 20 25 25 SPAN 555 728 932 489 635 813 430 568 722 377 503 657 335 458 595 409 539 378 488 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 748 738 734 * 683 673 667 * 622 615 608 * 568 560 553 * 514 511 503 * 464 458 * 421 414 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL UPLIFT 669 637 719 * 687 772 * 740 674 644 720 690 771 * = 741 672 644 722 694 773 745 666 640 716 690 775 749 654 629 719 694 774 749 709 686 768 745 708 686 758- 736 * + VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 HS= 800 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34XX HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 POLE HT-CL 60 -3 60 -2 65 -3 65 -2 70 -3 70 -2 75 -3 75 -2 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2 85 -1 90 -2 90 -1 DTE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 ~25 -25 25 25 25 25 SPAN 747 978 744 964 738 957 729 947 683 906 774 987 671 861 1203 1192 1138 1126 1081 1069 1030 1018 981 967 910 896 * 857 843 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 7 486 523 507 542 526 562 541 579 552 598 602 647 613 650 UPLIFT * * * * * * * * 461 498 483 518 503 539 518 557 531 577 582 626 593 631 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 HS= 800 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 H-FRAME SPANS (6’-9" SPACING) 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD 1I.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34VOX POLE HT-CL 60 -3 60 -2 65 -3 65 -2 70 -3 70 -2 75 -3 75 -2 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2 90 -2 DTE 13. 13 14. 14. 16 15. 18 17. 20 19. 21 23 25 aun 75 25 SPAN 604 791 530 689 467 611 416 549 373 501 454 425 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 730 724 * 666 656 * 607 600 * 548 543 * 495 492 * 446 * 402 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL UPLIFT 654 622 707 675 659 630 704 675 658 630 707 679 647 621 699 673 636 612 698 674 690 667 687 666 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 2199 2228 2046 2043 1866 1892 1631 1683 1401 1482 1282 1062 HS= 800 2115 2146 1952 1949 1760 1788 1509 1565 1264 1351 1137 903 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34VOXX POLE HT-CL 60 -3 65 -3 70 -3 75 -3 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2 90 -2 90 -1 DTE 10 10 10 10. ll. ll. 12. 13 13 25 25 25 25 5 25 SPAN 972 968 961 901 738 972 830 720 919 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 1203 1138 1081 1026 964 951 * 894 839 828 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 9 UPLIFT 486 * 461 * 507 * 483 * 526 * 503 * 538 * 516 * 542 * 521 * 588 * 567 * 592 * 572 * 600 * 581 * 640 * 620 * VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 2611 2611 2611 2578 2447 2447 2318 2160 2189 HS= 800 2555 2555 2555 2519 2380 2380 2242 2074 2105 ‘EI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD ™I.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34V4X POLE {T-CL 60 -3 65 -3 65 -2 70 -3 70 -2 75 -3 75 -2 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2 90 -2 DTE 17 18. 18. 20. 20. 22. 22. 24. 24. 26. 28. 75 75 ou 75 SPAN 765 659 845 575 739 491 643 431 571 508 453 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 801 729 716 * 664 651 * 601 589 * 546 533 * 481 * 431 * * ~ \N LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PC. -25KL 10 UPLIFT 602 * 572 602 * 575 644 * 616 601 575 642 * 617 590 566 635 * 611 582 560 634 612 626 605 623 603 * * * VERTICAL SPANS BY VEE BRACE STRENGTH THETA= 0 DEG. THETA= 0 DEG. HS= 750 HS= 800 3522 3296 3123 2870 3110 2857 2731 2452 2716 2435 2237 1925 2271 1961 1805 1465 1846 1508 1419 1052 964 567 HS= 750 3522 3123 3110 2731 2716 2237 2271 1805 1846 1419 964 HS= 800 3296 2870 2857 2452 2435 1925 1961 1465 1508 1052 567 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34V4XX HORIZONTAL SPANS POLE UPLIFT HT-CL OTE SPAN X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 300 80 -3 14.5 958 1010 513 * 492 * 90 -2 17.5 907 879 * 562 * 544 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 11 VERTICAL SPANS BY VEE BRACE STRENGTH THETA= 0 DEG. THETA= 0 DEG. HS= 750 HS= 800 HS= 750 4HS= 800 4098 3910 4098 3910 3372 3135 3372 3135 H-FRAME SPANS (16'-6” SPACING) 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR H16NX POLE HT-CL 60 -3 60 -2 60 -1 65 -3 65 -2 65 -1 70 -3 70 -2 70 -1 75 -3 15-2 75 -1 80 -3 80 -2 80 -1 85 -2 85 -1 90 -2 90 -1 DTE 9.25 9 9 10. 10. 10. 12. 12 11. 14 13. 13 16 15. 14. 17. 16. 19 18. 75 25 25 75 25 75 25 SPAN 574 762 967 510 673 866 460 605 777 410 546 717 368 504 656 457 601 426 549 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 400 940 934 924 * 859 852 846 * 788 779 772 * 719 714 711 * 654 652 647 * 592 588 * 540 535 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL UPLIFT 987 968 1069 1050 1144 1125 996 978 1072 1055 1150 1132 1000 983 1077 1060 1155 1138 992 977 1074 1058 1171 1155 979 965 1078 1063 1169 1154 1064 1050 1159 1145 1068 1054 1149 1135 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 HS= 800 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR H16NXX POLE HT-CL 60 -3 65 -3 70. -3 75 -3 75 -2 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2 85 -1 90 -2 90 -1 90 -Hl OTE aww “0 aon ao uo uo uo 75 75 75 75 4) 75 SPAN 990 988 984 831 1093 699 946 812 1057 717 921 1183 HORIZONTAL SPANS 1557 1481 1414 1337 1322 1256 1246 1171 1160 1103 1091 UPLIFT X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 400 753 * 737 * 7905 aT To 822 * 808 * 837 824 * 898 * 885 * 843 830 920 * 907 * 925 912 999 * 987 * 940 928 1003 991 1082 * 1070 * 1079 * * SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 4 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS= 750 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 HS= 800 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 SINGLE POLE CALCULATIONS AND SPANS 298IND 1198 (1215/87) PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.3 MAXIMUM SPAN LIMITED BY POLE STRENGTH (TP34) CALCULATIONS UTILIZING 70 FT,CLASS H1 POLES DATA: 1.Dvtv =VERTICAL SPAN (FOR ECCENTRIC VS ONLY) «Nc =NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS......... ee eee cece ee eee eens 3.0 .Ng =NUMBER OF OHGW...... eee cece cee cee eee ee eee 1.0 .F1Z =LOAD ZONE WIND(PSF)....... cece eee eee eee eee eee eee 36.9 .OCFww=OVERLOAD FACTOR FOR TRANSVERSE WIND.............. 1.50 .Wubs =ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WOOD POLE(PSI).............. 8000 .Pci =LOAD ZONE WIND ON ICED CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)......... 2.276 .Pgi =LOAD ZONE WIND ON ICED OHGW(LBS/FT).............. 0.000 -Wcoi =WEIGHT OF ICED CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)................. 1.298 -Wgi =WEIGHT OF ICED OHGW(LBS/FT)...............000e00e 0.000 -Wins =WEIGHT OF INSULATORS (LBS).............eeeeeeeeee 30 .Dtg =DISTANCE FROM OHGW BRACKET TO POLE TOP(FT)....... 0 .Dtd1 =DIST. 1ST COND. ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)... 4 -Dtd2 =DIST. 2ND COND. ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)... 6. -Dtd3 =DIST. 3RD COND. ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)... 8.00 -Lndl =LENGTH OF IST COND. ARM(FT)............... eee eeee 2 -Lnd2 =LENGTH OF 2ND COND. ARM(FT).............. cece sees 2 -Lnd3 =LENGTH OF 3RD COND. ARM(FT)..............00 2 ee ee CWOWINDMEPWNHOWONDH PWN -Hgl =POLE HEIGHT ABOVE GROUNDLINE (FT)................ 61.00 -Da =DIAMETER OF BASE POLE AT GROUNDLINE(IN) 19.67 21.Dt | =DIAMETER AT TOP OF POLE (IN).........eeeeeeeeeeee 7.96 22.WNDp1=WIND MOMENT ON BASE POLE(FT-LBS)...............6. %100845 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HORIZONTAL WINDSPANS WERE CALCULATED USING THE DATA ABOVE AND THE FORMULAS LISTED BELOW. THE LOADS APPLIED WERE WIND ON POLE, WIND ON CONDUCTOR, AND VERTICAL LOAD OF WIRES FOR TWO SEPARATE VERTICAL SPANS. POLE STRENGTH WAS CALCULATED FOR EACH HEIGHT AND CLASS OF POLE AND THE ALLOWABLE SPANS ARE TABULATED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. THE DESIGNATION c,g,u,n REPRESENT CONDUCTOR,OHGW,UB,OR NEUTRAL RESPECTIVELY. Pt=Nc*Pci+Ng*Pgi+Nu*Pui+Nn*Pni Dr=(Nc*Pci*(Dtd1+Dtd2+Dtd3 )/3+Ng*Pgi*Dtg+Nu*Pui *Dtub+Nn*Pni*Dtn)/Pt WNDp1=OCFww*F 1z*(2*Dt+Da) *Hg1*2/72 Mins=(Lndl+Lnd2+Lnd3+.5)*Wins(1) Dvtm=0CFww* (Dvtv* (Wci*(Lnd1+Lnd2+Lnd3+.5)+Wgi*.5)+Mins) Sa=(Wubs*Da‘%3/122.23-WNDp1 -Dvtm) / (Pt*OCFww*(Hg1 -Dr) ) FOR THE BASE POLE LISTED ABOVE THE FOLLOWING VALUES WERE CALCULATED: SPAN SUM OF SPANS (FT) (FT) 371 742=PCOO25KL 5 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR HI6NVOX HORIZONTAL SPANS VERTICAL SPANS POLE UPLIFT X-ARM STRENGTH HT-CL OTE SPAN X-BRACE VS= 750 VS= 400 HS= 750 HS= 800 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD ALLOWABLE WINDSPANS TP34 POLE HT-CL SPAN SUM OF SPANS (FT) (FT) 50-3 221 442 50-2 292 584 50-1 375 750 50-H1 457 914 55-3 206 412 55-2 272 544 55-1 352 704 55-H1 440 880 60-2 258 516 60-1 330 660 60-H1 416 832 65-2 243 486 65-1 310 620 65-H1 393 786 65-H2 483 966 70-2 229 458 70-1 295 590 70-H1 371 742 70-H2 458 916 75-2 211 422 75-1 286 572 75-H1 355 710 75-H2 454 908 80-2 202 404 80-1 271 542 80-H1 340 680 80-H2 424 848=PCO0025KL 6 COST ESTIMATE SUPPORT 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) DOME 2rv0n2 recon ‘Engneers incorporated Project Name ity AD, Or Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. LAGS bbe pie ne, FileName a 7 1257 Date Time : Ext. Telephone Number TROD $8 OW872201 (6/1/87) OPA or ovcrcor (Engmneers InCOMpOraaS Project Name — i To: AL CoA. (ppt uver WII. EDF, Job Ph Sve. Task Sub. PAT _UetlAs KA File Name From: 2 . aunt q 12) oT : Date Time (206) G97. 45HO ix. Telephone Number : oO [ ; ” Fern = ae ae NN —___—_——_ ¥ T&D $8 OMB722-01 (6/187) CREE TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engineers incomporaied Nv s Project Name To: f yt € f te wv S : : * Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. SRERM DANS UNALASKA File Name crom: oe & are 9 12%) &2 11.20 Date Time Xasubator Costs To Seatete 80) 99 3 en. # Telephone Number ots Post # 4/635-70 “51.00 er oor mM ——— Su F200 ¥% wo" Sugp. 7 6200 Se C20 TELEPHONE RECORD Engneers incorporaied to: Baxter - | _ Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. 0 ean Bro Kesey — From: G a uMmic — | : Date Time subiec:) ) 2 Hy | 4g? 255 6 | 7 “ 22 : 26 = | Faseeres _ 72 S42 a | ld JOY, 454 yoors QE L022 76 osf7 Pi lces i 62 696 Sv 222 | —_ 5x a bao PEC q Sa PS. \ Ss! 396 T&O $8 OMB722-01 (6/1/87) CDE TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engmeers INCOmpOrEeS Project Name To: Ss ad tr Nid CaN : job J Ph. Sve. Task Sub. ilpala«e File Name l ! : Date Time Telephone Number Subject: Bus LY 20g 2adE2 FOK LPR CX Za gic ZA ZZ. $ Bow much w 2 glo \tew ay. +r ws 25 4% Back hoz BoM B32 JEXEMA Posey 15 Co myMeCsor J Pade Le1re yo Matar Thule Ce Fer) 144 Pace -Tprdor -/tai+ bR— Zon 25-30 /b% PAY Qe Chbve Ayo Lash 30m /-3 Dem Fue. JO1 Vy lie Tevson LMA INE ASN 3-, 6x6 Jauekes w/e Stanos 34 / elas Mechanar Ly 2 WH MA ees ll a 6} 2 NM apttaue ss XY’ Mse Jooes, iwerames, eS [Pa T-¥ C2 re AQNCCLS: RCOTPOTTIET SHEET NO.__OF BYLL OATEN CK. BY. DATE WWACASEZ SE CRY TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engmeers IMCOMPOTEIOS Project Name 1 (em Os 0ac 7a dl Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. FileName Date Time Telephone Number Subject: ven co nue722.01 (AT Lealas fA - C20 TELEPHONE RECORD (Engmneers INCOMPOTECS Project Name To: LA: LA fe ecg hT L7e : tl 7 Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. av Ves le -Ree hash UMAC4 SHA FileName Date Time (46 » 77- 6977 Ext, Telephone Number Subject: LarT7 le; lata et y~ xz Plat maretrAc 12-7 Begs 8 2. ao bib — ya au . * Poles Qa 5 Wailea lev Pe lac I 3B4BO FE" > ° wre. 2Io FT T&O 58 OM8722-01 (6/187) aC4SHA @2QUE/ TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engmeers INCOMPOMEIBS Project Name To: (ee I ee : ; r Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. — FileName From: =a a Oo 1S I : Date Time = Ext. Telephone Number Ll ¢ Bo PY c5evs Jere 7om - AAA ~ 272-£72/ : [ mn PaK MU eed ae 235 — / a i- 248 — i A Ce > ar Pal 777 ar e ACH A eK Pde CaAce c ov g Z Cows7= eZ “as 2 A ao eens Lj yaaes 2 3a (02 ToA— Fae il iii peAO ae ane fae Tor 24. 0c FT 4 eee Thorpe, S b On 2S 262 UrACASFTA Project Name Te: LYS i, job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. File Name Frem:: qa — hao Lt ——————— Date Time ( ) : Ext. Telephone Number Subject: nn. OI Z2 oe ee 7 Z Zaz feroconw cu £? free fez 2 Lp Zags ante We . 753 yew 35e5sr- F7 ° J202- books y vs KK 60g ae go PLEa~— SPAc ~—~OfPre T&D 58 OWG722-01 (6/187) APPENDIX B Power Plant Support Data @ Vendor Correspondence @ Cost Estimating Support Data 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) VENDOR CORRESPONDENCE 298INO 1198 (12/15/87) Engneers hcorparaed Projecto PhoneNo. ¢/5, -Z23 Te A Date Alls Z From Sf Lees: Time. @ DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engneers icorparared Project . Job No. -3/ To MAS ace Z , Phone No. f. AAS 7 Stu i / . pate ///Y Zp From LB. Z / Lege as Time Subject 7- GC i) eX 1 ? ie ve . “ant cd 2 nu — a a “w Bye _ 3.2 yn cc: q DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORD Engneers hcorparared F Project__ JobNo. _// -3f/- 3% To i, pf 1 Phone No. 2239/6 96-9, Date Time Subject Le ae A | : Z Los ot YY YY @ ZOU! TELEPHONE RECORD - Project 4 JobNo. _//78 Phone No. =, -23y4% — Feaheee Date JoJo “ep Time. Y . —_) CO DOWE! TELEPHONE RECORD Engneers icorparaie” Project Job No. 8 To [ ; sie, ey ee . . PhoneNo/ 39728 - 26 So 7. ‘bo, : . ‘ . Date_/v [22/27 From Cth Z eI JS Time. C20OUE TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engneers incorporated Project C DUE! TELEPHONE RECORD Engneers hcorparaed Project JobNo. £/76-3/ wr (2 ° Phone No. 7/ 3foor -B/58 - _uf3feg : Date f From rh Leeds: a elon Ae NC gc cc: Efe eA @ DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Engnears ihcorporared Project Job No. LL 2 8 Phone No. 224 - ft/s Date G6 SfE7 Cngneers hcorparaed Project i MINN I INIT MIM, (LI ‘Engneers heorporaed Project . JobNo. _//7f To 2 Date ///4 LB2 From : Time ero ty Subject Di FEF ‘ — KGa 2 ao. = -F a4 O-# Z 4 bos Bo re mo heel. — > 2 / | 428 ~_s2f/y ‘ Ze so 4, ds [| ekmn 2 = - Fans oh C7] wr AN 64 300 _ ” L\ 5 S = ee p tll Qs ZA r Engineers Incorporated November 2, 1987 Aerofin Attention: Mr. Kamal Moinzadeh Subject: Air-Cooled Condenser and NC Gas Removal System for Unalaska Geothermal Project - ev acen Quotation Dear Mr. Moinzadeh: Per our telephone discussion, the following design data should be used when preparing the budgetary quotation for the above referenced project: Option 1 - Turbine Exhaust Steam Flow . 159,125 pph Non-Cond. Flow 238 pph Non-Cond. Molecular Weight 41 Condenser Heat Load 148,000,000 BTU/Hr. Summer Dry Bulb Design Temp. 64° F Winter Dry Bulb Design Temp. 0° F Plant Elevation 1100 Ft. Design Pressure 2.5in. HgA Material of Construction . 304LSS Motive Steam Pressure 82 psia Option 2- Turbine Exhaust Steam Flow 50,000 pph Condenser Heat Load 46,000,000 BTU/Hr. Motive Steam Pressure 60 psia All Other Conditions - Same as Option 1 Please call if you have any questions on this information. Sincerely, POWER Engineers, Incorporated Vaya AN Wena William E. Lewis WEL:dm cc: John McGrew (POWER) File 1198 1020 Airport Way * P.O. Box 1066 ¢ Hailey, Idaho 83333 © (208) 788-3456 @ OWE TELEPHONE RECORD lf, J, Zz (Engneers Icorparared Project AL Job No. 1/9 L To ! i ZL e Phone No. 7at. / 2 54 GLLL _ Date_sO/2%3 LBZ From . ~ Time. Subject C DOWIE TELEPHONE RECORD ‘Cngneers incorporated 2 ae _f Pr of on 2 Xx BAEZ VP 47 Cle hz, Project JobNo. 9H —Z/-o5 Phone No. B-FLL oun_ ght Laz Time. 7, Ww @ DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORD Cha ; 7 Project Job No. To Don Brrcle, PhoneNo. 4&5 / ¥E7-92726£ Fen. 4 $FEQeR Date ZS Time. . ‘DUuef TELEPHONE RECORD - Project ene , : Job No. ZL g 2 to DY Phone No. B. J eo Date, 7/3 /S From /op~ ares Time. @ DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORD Engneers hcorparated Project — : JobNo. to Yom perags Subject COST ESTIMATING SUPPORT DATA 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) wos NO UII ee NO._ZOF__ CAME DATE Adjes*/ (re ane cet cna, cas Pees IM Man NUnufas ba Geothuved Te aie! PA cg Vet a, wy genadixn TF, Ord i G| Berne elle dine eee uae Le puney ae ! seu 2 cr hk i ee fa ih ie ors ie rat (tre A coy cena For D#¥M me Nob Faas Cosf = Fan, 606 aly oly eli aafornt a oox, epost i ti8 Bai a aie flieal ae > ec oa hare t We UnLes ha Zz, ae egal Cane 4 Al @ost 6 ta fae uae ae £4™¢e eI Je ge eae Fe Ha deana tel tug) For Pewee Gage - Asste arob a eae pi a Moner , 455u— ie a ae age ee POTN aN Wk 5 Base Care Ad SEATTLE TO LINALASEA ISLAND MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILISATION cas a/S" Proceduact peor Wells and One 15 3/ Modify Eva for Helicopter Transport Rig Mobilization to Uralazka Tzeland Shapeiara te Unalaska Ielarnd (Driftwood Bay? Rarae and Twa Loadirra 1,100,000 16 @ 0.01776 Undead 1.100.000 16 @ $0.01/776 Terminal Dutch Haroor Warehouse (4 meriteie ) Truackira oor Ura lacka Fog Demota lization Landorna Craft Shigeeimg £2 Seattle Spot Char ae 14 contatimerse @ $125.40 per contain Stigeira St soa Te @ $0.1073/70 Terminal Total al ST ESTIMATE rast $40,000 47.00 1$0,000 it =e g 14.500 14.900 35 7.500 Zo, Gn 47.000 2 - J wn iT an b 1 a peer 606 Not ve ted, we Modify Evia for Helicopter Transport sero helicopter + Rig Mobilization to Unalazska TeTard a ed (asea~*® Beoud Ba (actagdes obey = Shapira te Unalaska Island Co hiceallrany —— b4,0o° BRar2ae and Tua =e Loadina 1,100,000 Te @ £0.01/76 : Undoadina 1,100,000 Te @ 0.01/77 Terminal Dutch Hartor Warehouse (4 months Truckinma on Urnalacka Ria Demobalizcatiorn Landina Craft Shereptrrs—ee seat 12 Spot” Charse To contatrers @ $125.40 per container Te Shireina Sug,c00 Te @ $0.1093/1b ae tr Terminal SS Total SESS ETE © Pie Faves 30 Sven \9g29 2 tid by boo ku ©83 sper /8,0r9 ff Zoo, 502 Sus = 7 ™ Ld - a My 7 ML SUBJECT. JOB NO. SHEET NO. __ OF CK. BY. DATE. 3 WJELL SL OAs oN slEé DoJ GLE Fine li FLASH 746, OL7 lo/ bw 659,202 (o/wwe 1114, 439 Offa Wo, 2497 b/w ST: Mo FLIWDS 3,24/ Shee 59,2906 of 3 2: | C.4 ese Tare La) 58814 tufpe [eps Fh (05,537 Ib /roe 70, 29% Ibi (31 pe arb 82,339 be (14.4 )25:. opin eee sel Eg ny 4, B St, 539 42 6,806,008 E y ete |, S/o) #2? 1265 Z, 12, 875 see Castle 363,947 7.0 g 10, 450 ee Curhtted ) 606,575 Lrlo) 850,750 aa Uinstehled) 703,627 5.8 786,820 Bllgs a) Services) 72.7, 840 ooo gee Yared ap roceneF 5 (81, 97% ee (255 22 fee ete 761,65! 4) 1, 378, 21S Pau Peay ot i) 170,152 sa lid it PB Gee72 ; 19, 0S7, 04 14, JOS, 435° Fob etaetinn Line 243,703 2, 504, 06 E-yy $ Fnpe 10 Cos of. Ex pen re . g./ ae eeuio ay i ya fae z ee othe us 2+! Ed pMeGrny Afr if 1968, a on cab Evsineer +’ cay ee eae Paenat Kill’ By Vad LO-720-WWMe t yo dhe, C nok A fijfllva ZL = Zo0o » /F7E72 Wi? ? > 5 Cond ¢ A. Li LU N-C Ene —= = JEN Sep bem Te Gas Ale Cae Ege 2 > 3a., 4S > $47s¥ / 00 3¢ (31 ZT \ rp ‘ 13 9 18 27 578 — 7 a Gncvehk Zz Zz 3 - Ss 330 2/6 4 13 Steel - - i} = - = Last. Ss zo 147 - Ele f - ¥%0 28¢ z/ Le. sul LZ g3 so _ Cacat _ = _~ = Tote Mat, 9327 yo Ff oY ¥,40/ 250 1wS Erect ian f Zee) 4° rl 29 43 [, 600 684 20 76 Sel y're ————= —_—— —_—— —_— —__— 288 Titel 99678 be 43 BL 1vq 6001 $186 os 2 SI q L tant 5 31vG 40 'ON 133HS Rea TAT HT ITT — ¢ DOWEs SUBJECT. eae een OES: ROOTES SHEET NO. 4. OF______ avrL/Z pare LZ. CK. BY. DATE nae Va ee aM eel [3.4 ce oly Er aim ea Ca ge la + es Jax Ae 2 ~1300/ of 7 ep zl Lone wellbs il Separator, Tl $200" bath Cam lle, “gn Yfe J dine Fran = Ale p- shoo Po / Mw Assan TA en son Jer Le + £ Par pen do, Z er i aang eA Asseunwe weet bead From hkl To omer SiporDor Assume ae é< Loop “eles 400 ” zo P'Pe [ans th Need 7 low ps ) LB- Jo? Elbour Have nS Pipe Mean TAT E/oous a lea INlAM ae eee 5-43 24” 40° LR & 3), sbY Fl, -20" Yea 4 775few 15-43 iso# “Re uN 4 Zloo —_—_———_—_- 7 Beltiups-ry” Zea a3/ea (S-72 (suf wfgcs bet x stad ‘se’ #186 1 S-44 Freld We ale teal! [rFew - ect haH welds 24" ste wt ST RN MMA e eh ream el Bae ements etal te 438,536 separates val ihe CAL cov < Big as iMenais TAARA 2500 LF We149f,,. Z25.3Mn/ 7 eam Crfo welding) ee! 4 153,678 63uS MH B6TSIMH @4 33.10 wn _4, 14,941 (1c Md lek. Cinel- welding) $37.6 Min 49.6 Mit Jew ra weld ida ) 38.4 MIH 8.3 MH Jen (6.6 MH 4M Hew 2400 Hew s-43 |3-76 CPU nome pee eee | SHE NO: op)! Each ee i a’ std Me Puze embel dil LL len +, actr ac BG ea ge Per Prat Tote emma => 2456 Gu ya i 36 ey Cow Stay [inurl fr alsts wt Pipe = 9% (9! embe dled ) Tor” ail K 1” x18" plate > Leg thew (z+00 4 ars Case /w Sisco) ee Heber ial = .Bley ile nit a” staowt ese o mu /reo’ +.6 mu hoetd ® 1434 42 MH 359 Mit > 401M No. bY4o Tige 417, 418/00 25 Mit /ive Cael welds ) Stide Plat Acsentalg Tyee, 10" Travel "1,776 75.5 Me Shaft hb epeavation o/ey Comerete 618 MI 2644 MH VA Pay | deer Pe Dei lhnget Pdaee corcvete Vor40 96-3MH 23 M4 4 * & # teotts = 44800 4 74439 4°2,770 + (401 +175,5 416-3 +23) 23.) a Bisa Ne = \o- 8 CRUD, 0 re Trarreers earporared SHEET NO.2_OF evA2£2 nate 1/7 ee | \cxley. DATE Pe hae - Assume 3° dol s// tt prbteg Me Il ell) IN| Mes 3.04 /,, U4 mit er for wy" Pia 3coo MH wath Al Tack "Br, 609 4S ere0 Summary - 24” Livy ths bs ogee Poe 4Aaber ¢ Matar s'als On fe (ype as7 306,536 Sapprts Cos fF SH, Me LUN eee WS, 8s? 4478, +98 (>-Sue Shwe Je ppot as CL 2¢" bee A sau F lamspa Z Golt- ups oe plat cectinn 13-44 Keelel Ee 260 ca 14 len Topat Batudlds -20" 3640 Mi A Iz0, 489 nasa pete Cite -loe) = 4600 © $3 yee B06, /Er oe ed ae 50 Press o/s" stoaelow phate + tie she gat Stee cr Mayas 1-3 M4) geal s./ 6760 MH w/e Tekef # 147,936 x 223, 756 See ee SpeveT ne ete al Pipe Caer 44 s6 033 Le ow Fu Gen ~~ Va dt 271, SOC Ta 4 965,6/3 CPU x= QOS NEOPAHT Zo 57g RUN ae ) Svoe 7 : std o ¢é Be’ 3s fa belhw en supporf5 , zo ( Long fLs (toowelly ‘ Evy Lov ae 453’ Crs Lecps, Sr apbsow je-43 Hae eee Ca aC eae oa Ee ao Sort froo’ = 22. MHY, (1/99 MH 421 1% A 36 039 S-¥ “” ‘i iH Ele v6 stp Flee 4097 fem 16.4 MH few Cofuel) LRwh # 652,6m tt Yo, OF Fre 228 JOB NO. CK. BY. DATE CDM 0 roe SHEET NO-5_OF__ BY. ZZ pare 11/2 Hee ee eee ee Leet GY, DATE Foinacg Sp Be, Ce 7) pt Ligenid [Tuo- Phase bing = Sov? std wt Ze 2 pin (Assure tapered suport He 19" fF v0” fin shi Wer ty , wonlt mele ba LF of di Kience as THs pres ave &£ aveed Le Common Su pot sq/m : Spooks . leon every Soo (i leops, ceil) ue! CPO F lange 7 belt pe ic. ¥3 14 sth oh Stool 4 9953/0. (7. ¥ fe (w/e weld in) Foy. Brit 4 173, WO 424,979 Pe ee Jo wird fed w fae Mons ) LR wn # crv BMH 16,095 42s 343 oe tovueld> r.7r7H fea F3R0LMH aia Bel) welds - yee 4 £04 2%6 Supp ~ots 163 Ow 499 few # 106,182 Cee previous “at feo to”) /S-8vr Igy hd $$ 2ouce fisivhe PF mH /LF 3 eek 31/ wfeel Jacke? K ee 129,378 (65,235 a7 4" - Sepanotor AL PAF Pips Coal 349,999 supgecty Case (06, 78 La sale tir Sai) 28 S, 563 Teta ( 7a fee 4 = CLUE x ne By4/Z4__ pare 22 se [5-43 eX Cia ~ a Zz ne Me ae oo cA Seah ants va we 7 an a Fae s - ShaehoOC -2) a PYovudes ie e aie 72 wid Ga’) ot Koss / oo a Me - ca AL ” Le ay oe Lt sf 7 | Sao Ase pac’ dda TK46- zeve So’TR I6-w> ee < 13.5 71ff/en fassanble) Adda = (29) (se) = 10, 2s5¢ Fine (ripe YY, YP on oe = Jt. A/C $s a stl wt Nessowevs <V A 7 : A Pf by ae- pale) + std ' 4 tJ 7 Tipe (1c 633 fo’ 10M Ao y Fair +. 6 36/=[/8 2 x? so. P' Pe olds ; yeen ©. 971 fen Se7,uvle ress / E1G 46 FR S fairs = 5 e03 = nd Go oe J talon! (Ele tey === _, DATE (ee Bevdap CF. Larger” Teass ava: Lec Qssune ¥ pr Nes /Lr Le erage spams ee SG) 381 2) B37 eas Lov’ Te / & a (A . Zat reo spor 7/) 246 Fv Zhan, off Cex ht - 5431S # a bo eet ee fot oe 65 7 Tele ee CPM re ‘reomparared SHEET NO. —7_ OF. evii/ZZ pare at eeu DATE Tots Ween L te Bx7 990 # Papp ort on 4 D/nces As senna Levu (L fez seul AJeed 177 F¥* f 7 eee or YY AOS spp? \ | T aa See Sg ae ee Sts? ofe 7 iz Say ae 13. cS 3). Jey 4o0s /f 7 Fy seo mat L CPUC, wm. enn nearparared LTE TENET MCE TTC TTT TTC eee: ey, ol egge TT) BY 442% oare___ CK. BY. DATE + iy va Sane /00 cba. fe pSvoleg 4 to¢ sae O18 tala Gi U7 Ailey ’ Cs b egy ee ee al Lisle 24 em CATS ee eect = 16 014 PF ee nn ele ea CF voce Guess zea ie eae Mn ee Jiro watt age eae Cahn Ged : Pee ee ee 47.15 mH oe Support Te ete Lobe id Gael PeoFo ogc! F o,04/ Lebar~ z/bo B57 S395 Few wwe k /548 5758 Z 5% AL Aes ae) F370 470 Geen 279770 6256 9, 226 A 20,46 [oe C2UMEr By2ZZ4__ vate Zé [ex Pang — Suef ots SUBJECT. Fie Buide res Tras Ses ie Viere Stee / JOO NO. 2 SHEET NO. ZoF___ CK. BY. DATE Ie tL tbe _ 21K, OFF Ssst $4,889 Bide B3,e¢3 3764/8 Bo 44 se) CY = an Peaparaed See PPE PEpE eer ger Ce py.4LZZ_ parte // wn By DATE (Rehan Ar _- > av - 1¢ ¢ Std T Pint L 7 / toes w ) 0 Fo 2xse¢0 - Asse. wo’ /any 4s wetd s = /i Richardson, 15-43 4 A-L ete io ? ee ye mM H lus 9 fz ld Ege aut ye vat IF-44, pre But utes : - A ea Pacey 2r500'@. y.54 fer , Tof =”, 350 Hs L})- bat '/ t Evedt te ll nn Pipe Cost * 34326 43 Mit iseaeMe Cebw Kate eee Assis jr ee reo = 833.8 766%) J LG 2 bec LU i 4 f well Land v. ves) = 4, So 289 : ; wetdeny O thar sets;cor cs Flan 5 0a 439 on «=o 29. MH 1 Gute Yash ve SSUES AR 4,6 HH /y? 4 \ Carn he! Valse 4 3000 e a Hiptastal, | Cie flue 7200 on 46 hit weld. so. To’ Flb 3 OUI en 2,1 met weld ny 1 Clow Avlie Fliliimn FA #500 cx BMH well / Ket B00 ew G4 4 5 Bolt-ags 13187 7.3 CROWES 200. 2) ee reopened ——_—_—__—C«CSHEEET.- NV COOP BwclZé pare _/a —_—_eeseeSséie wy DATE YT 7 nt Labor Sich, Flanges 43537 oO * fro ! Ga Ke SABO 160 Add (9 Vs fw Mrse Zo, sco tuain valve | vat Valves y OA, ete Exe § Reckhhil © (7,704 CY ae SHEET NO._oF___ QNBES NCOPAMET EEE " _ oare 2/2. -]—$—$ 1X. BY DATE oN NL te 4 Bch hie/ Lrrs00” Depth #0 Crd the v! ExceccheL ean jroo FFA (ford. Use beeb fs Lhe Ate ee Exc= (se 2 E1067 + .0(6 4% Gee sos/ fottr.) ( 2 Ba ey yds, er fb. Ly ~ i eee Bune Kah Baek Kioe Cahors 42a @ Ano, oe HA cy* Lena ae aaa iar | Ys ysfey Ere (ishw anh De Az, 089 TF Se eo a eine anc vl) = Ais 48 achO 4 Compation ! Lahn fy = Siss al) A ae Aiesnne Vitae (tah Genta =- Z2a,035 ey = W sc20 ee cael A eget YN glee oleetinch Bevin Z ey (ze6s ~ fin a A AR & a CPA TELEPHONE RECORD BETS IICOTDOTEBES ; Project Name TREW. fuchwage hosts yee roy Job Ph. Sve. Task Sub. Burs ess fra est = uate kz From: (ohR Kuncl PANE Date Time OO RO Nee ( 90 2 AI2.- 2ST) ex. Telephone Number L subiect: Labor ares Sot Un K Zi 7 Line Maw D610 Ra then Sts 7, O0hr = 220A | PERA Q d6:10 ke doe fos 4 os s 2 MECH DQAol!O be “ “ + ‘ GR oOuND MAY 19.957 we i“ 700 =e FSA NN Zwside Ve up a Oy 0x7 LU pe men OS Paha Zz 2. 22801 Sts = ZBB0% 4 APPENDIX C Habitat Impact - Notes from ADF&G Meeting 298IND 1198 (12/15/87) 127151987 16:57 HART CRUWSER HNCHURALE HK yor Ze clad rd Meeting with Kim Sundberg Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game October 5, 1987 General Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Habitat Division conducted a reconnaissance study, with no engineering information. The staff obtained good information on the mainstem, but additional information would be required on the side channels and side tributaries. There are fifty percent more side channels than currently shown on the topographic maps. After a proposed route is selected, an additional survey should be conducted in late August or early September for pink and coho salmon. With helicopter support, this could probably be accomplished in a day, otherwise, two to three days would be required. Helicopters are not currently stationed on a full time basis in Dutch Harbor. Stream Crossings Stream crossings will be difficult, as the streambeds are deeply incised through fine sediments in the floodplain through the lower valley (the first five miles), and the river is unstable. The silt consists of alluvium and loess rather than volcanic ash. The floodplain in the upper valley contains gravel. ADF&G's policy regarding stream crossings for anadromous streams is as follows: Spawning - a bridge is preferred, but a bottomless arch culvert would be permitted if it spanned the entire stream. Rearing - a bottomless arch culvert is preferred, but a round culvert is permitted if it is of sufficient diameter for proper burial. Installation and maintenance - the construction window for instream work is July 1 to July 20. During construction, sediment would have to be prevented from entering the stream by fencing or other measures. Rocks and grasses would have to be utilized to stabilize the banks. Bering Hairgrass would probably be suitable for the lower valley (it has been used successfully in U.S. Soil Conservation Service testing for reveqetatinag the lower onvnortionsa of the Terror take transmission line). Soil acidity should be tested to determine if liming would be required. Spawning occurs in the mainstem in the upper part of the lower valley, and rearing occurs in side channels and in the lower part of the mainstem. Borrow Areas The beach is a high-energy beach and could be destabilized by 12715-1587 16°56 HART CROWSER AINCHORAGE AK SOT 276 2104 P.O3 removal of material. Also, there are razor clams, mostly on the north side, and this is one of the few areas where they are present. If borrow pits could be developed near the upper valley, they could be used for fish mitigation and for waterfowl. Road_Construction There are groundwater springs along the hillside that could cause aufeis problems. These springs provide water to side-channel rearing areas and can't be diverted. In February, there were no juvenile coho salmon in the main channel; they were all in the Warmer side tributaries. The road would have to be constructed so as not to block drainage. The upwelling areas could most easily be identified in winter. Some can be identified by the presence of small "fans" adjacent to the hillside. Dock Rearing salmon move along the shore, and the river is the most important salmon stream in the area. A dock could be constructed so that the solid portion was above mean high water, and the rest was on pilings. Overhead Transmission Line An overhead transmission line in the lower valley is preferable to a buried transmission line in that there would be less disturbance to streambeds. The conductors should be spaced to be raptor proof. Threatened and Endangered Species Eagles are present, and emperor geese, which are protected by special conservation measures, use the beach. Other information There are no bear or caribou, but fox, ground squirrel, and other rodents are present. The snow was one. foot deep in the lower valley in February. Recommendations 1. Salmon survey in late August/early September after route is determined. 2. Winter survey for groundwater upwelling areas. 3. Soils survey to locate potential borrow sites and to determine acidity for revegetation purposes, 4. Track U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's maritime refuge Planning process (until the land transfer is completed).