Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWainwright Central District Heating & Power Generation Project Vol I 1982WAINWRIGHT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEATING — AND tn ey POWER GENERATION PROJECT EXTENDED FEASIBILITY STUDY VOLUME ONE FEBRUARY 1982 WAINWRIGHT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEATING AND POWER GENERATION PROJECT Prepared for NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH VOLUME ONE : Prepared by Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. 420 L Street, Suite 406 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 February 1982 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA BARROW, ALASKA CY COPENHAGEN, DENMARK DENVER, COLORADO arctic slope HOUSTON, TEXAS OSLO, NORWAY technical services SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Incorporated 420 L STREET * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 * TELEPHONE (907) 276-0517 WASHINGTON, D.C. 15 February 1982 North Slope Borough P. O. Box 69 Barrow, Alaska 99723 ATTENTION: Irving Igtanloc Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Final Report on Extended Feasibility Study of Wainwright Central District Heating and Power Generation Project Gentlemen: Arctic Slope Technical Services takes pleasure in submitting herewith the subject final report. In preparing the final report, the consultants have taken account of comments received in the course of the NSB review of the draft report. When the draft report was submitted, the calculation of capital costs had not been completed. This has now been done, and when doing so, building costs have been estimated on the basis of approximate unit costs per square foot being currently experienced on the North Slope. The revised unit costs now indicate: o That it would not be economical to develop a mine for the purpose - whether interim or long term - providing coal solely for individual direct space heating by coal furnaces. o That coal-fired central district heating by a fairly small margin - $2,390 per annum versus $2,700 per annum for continued use of fuel oil for heating a 960 sg. ft. house - is the perferred alternative. In view of this narrow margin it may be advisable to take another hard look at the economics of the preferred alternative. In particular the following factors should be examined more carefully: o Whether the funding as set out by the Borough at the outset of this study is still applicable. North Slope Borough 15 February 1982 Page 2 Oo Detailed costs for the proposed buildings and the distribution system. o Whether the cost of a covered coal stockpile is unavoidable. Oo Whether other economics could be made in the building areas. o Whether labor costs used for the calculation are likely to attract villagers. It should be noted, that the cost of coal is quite high in the revised calculation. o $140 per ton at a production of 4,000 tons per annum for the preferred alternative. If coal were produced for export, for example to Point Lay and Point Hope and the quantity thereby were f. ex. 10,000 tons per annum, the cost would be only $93.60 per ton. Finally, if low cost natural gas for Barrow is likely to be a thing of the past five years hence, the production of coal at Wainwright for coal-fired generation of electricity for Wainwright and for transmission by the proposed intertie to Atqasook and Barrow may be worthy of investigation. We do feel that the project final report is comprehensive and adequate, but if you have any questions or need any further details, please do not hesitate to call us. We will only be happy to clarify any doubt there might be. Very truly yours, ARCTIC SLOPE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. y Leland A. Johnson, P.E. tur Saa Meh President LAJ: mm Enclosure WAINWRIGHT Central District Heating System A STUDY commissioned by the North Slope Borough in an effort to relieve Wainwright and other North Slope viliages the threat to their nities posed by the 4.0 5.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 1920 ~20.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL BACKGROUND ...-ceeeececccccccccccccccceccce EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..ccccccccccccccccccrecrccvcccccce EXPLORATORY DRILLING PROGRAM (VOLUME 2) “cecccsccvvcccccccccccccccscccecscccsecee GEOLOGIC DATA EVALUATION AND 2 PRELIMINARY MINE DESIGN (volume 3) ..ceececccccceee PERMIT AND LICENSING ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION ...ceeeeeceeee SL Introduction ..ccecccccccccccccccescccsescseee BaSic ASSUMPTIONS 2... .ceeecccccccrccccccsccens Approach to Information Gathering ............ RESULTS cece ccccccccccccccrccccccecrcvccccccccs SUMMALY ceceeecercccceccccsccvecsvcsvseccseves Additional Studies Recommended ........ceeeeee Muon ur oe ee OU Wh MINE-MOUTH OPERATION ..ccceccccvccerecccccesccccccs RECOMMENDATION AS TO MINE LOCATION AND MINING METHOD ..ccecceecccescrevceccnccervccevecees ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE GENERATION .eccescccccccccves - INTERIM MEASURES ..cccscwccccccscccccccsesesecsecces VILLAGE VIEWS .ccceereccecccccceccecevccvccsscevece CONCLUSIONS —- RECOMMENDATIONS ...ceecceecsccccccves CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....... PHASING cose ecers cere ccrccec eres eceeseseseseceseees 10): 6230) 0) F) Re CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ..cceececcreccscecscccveccecece RECURRENT COSTS AND RATES .ccceecesreccccsccecccvees SOURCES OF LOCAL MATERIALS ...eecccevevevccvccvvece SERIOUS OBSTACLES TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ......-ee. REVIEW COMMENT BY THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH AND THE CONSULTANT'S RESPONSE ..cccccccccsccccccces RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO FURTHER WORK .eeeececreccccsee > 1 e a mama FP UNPENF FB BN ~ ! hw @- ' h 1 ‘© 1 E ra . LIST OF FIGURES : Page 5.1 OSM PERMIT PROCESS ...cseecccccccccccccccsccceceeee 5-27 5.2 WAINWRIGHT REGULATORY PROCESS .......++eeeeeeeeeee 5-62 5.3 WAINWRIGHT REGULATORY PROCESS ......seceeceececees 5-63 8.1 STUDY FLOW DIAGRAM .....ccececccccececceceececcees 8-4 8.2 HOW THE ORMAT ENERGY CONVERTER WORKS ............. 8-8 8.3 COMPARISON OF RESPONSIVE ORC MANUFACTURERS ....... 8-16 9.1 PRILL'S COAL FURNACE .ssscceececcccccccccccccceee 995 9.2 CWO-B DUAL-FUEL FURNACE ...eececcecceccccceccecces 9-9 9.3 CWE SOLID-FUEL ADD-ON .....cecceccecceccecceeceees 9-11 9.4 YUKON DUAL-FUEL FURNACE ...cccccecceeccceccceccces 9-15 9.5 BUDERUS ADD-ON FURNACE .....eeccecceccccecccecceee 9-17 9.6 HS-TARM MULTI-FUEL FURNACE ccc cece cececcecceccees 9-21 9.7 | HS—TARM ADD-ON “FURNACE .......ecccececccccsccecces 9-23 12.1 MINE AND PLANT LOCATION ......ceeeeeccccccsccceees 12-7 12.2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ......cccccecccceccccccececess 12-8 12.3 CONCEPTUAL LAY-OUT 2... cc ceeccc cece ceccceccceseces 12-9 12.4 = PLAN VIEW wee cece cece cece ce eee eee e eee ecesececeeee 12-10 12.5 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION .eceeeeeccecccecccescceeeees 12-11 12.6 NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS ........cceeeceeecceeees 12-12 SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS .cceeececsecccccceeeeese 12-13 BIRD'S EYE VIEW ..ccccccecccccccccsccccccccsececees 12-14 ROAD-AND MAINS........cccccccccclsccecccccccceceves 12-15 ALTERNATIVE PIPE CONFIGURATIONS ...eeeeccccececees 12-16 TIME SCHEDULE ...cceccccccccccccccccccccceccccceee 14-2 LIST OF TABLES ‘ : # Page 15.1 CAPITAL COSTS wcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccee 15-2 "2722 WATER ANALYSIS .......ccccecccccccessccccsessseces 17-3 1.0 1.01 1.02 GENERAL BACKGROUND This feasibility study is an extension to an initial feasibility study entitled "Feasibility Study on District Heating System for Wainwright",: which was’ produced by this consultant and submitted to the North Slope Borough under cover of a letter dated July 31, 1980. The subject extension study is authorized by purchase order No. 14035, dated November 25, 1980, adjusted September 16, 1981 and in accordance with N.S.B. Standard Service Agreement date 19th November 1980. The object of this extension study is to narrow down the choice between several alternatives for power generation and space heating, which in the initial study were recommended for further study. A further object is to enable a choice to be made as to mine location and mining method. Also to enable the NSB to decide, whether power generation and heating fluid reheating should take place at the mine-mouth or at the village. Finally, two associated technologies were investigated for possible inclusion in a final recommendation, namely: - Organic Rankine Cycle power generation, and - Dual-fuel stoves or furnaces for interim use of coal for space heating of individual homes. 1-1 shatgehe® 1.03 During negotiations with the NSB about the work program for the subject extension study, mention was made of the need to study the influence of possible retrofit energy conservation measures on the future space heating energy demands. The NSB felt at the time, that this should be tackled on another occasion. This subject will be taken up under our recommendations for further work to be done. During the work performed under the subject extension study and in formulating the recommendations we have been conscious of the need to provide speedy interim relief to villagers in the form of coal supplies for direct heating of the individual homes pending the implementation of a Central District Heating System, if the indications are, that the latter requires a fairly long time-span for implementation. 2.0 2.01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Outline of Work Program The work program for the subject study was divided into the following main tasks: Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task 1: Designing of exploratory drilling program. Permit acquisition for exploratory drilling program. : Permit and licensing analysis for construction and operation. Contracting for field drilling. Implementation of exploratory drilling program. Production of geological data. Geologic data evaluation and preliminary mine design. Selection of alternatives, evaluation of alter- natives. Investigation of Organic Rankine Cycle genera- tion. Investigating interim house installations. Ascertaining the views of the Wainwright village people. Production of final, report including scope of further work required for implementation. 2-1 2.02 2.02.1 2.02.2 2.02.3 Essence of Recommendations Our recommendations can be briefly summarized as follows: Mine location: Location A-B, about 1/2 mile northeast of Wainwright's outskirts, is recommended as the most suitable mine location, as shown in plan 12.1 following page 12-1. Mining method: It is recommended that a 6 ft. coal seam about 120 ft. under the surface be mined underground using a “dintheader" excavator and shuttletrucks. Mining will take place in short periods, which will be scheduled to avoid the summer period and all important hunting and ‘fishing seasons. Central District Heating During the course of our work under the subject extension study we have concluded that we should recommend that the long term development should be based on alternative A-II (coal-fired low pressure heaters providing central dis- trict heating, the existing diesel generating plant pro- ducing electricity). Alternatives A-1l (counterpressure steam co-generation) and A-2 (condensation steam genera- tion coupled with space heating by electricity) are no longer regarded as methods to be recommended for reasons given in Section 11.0. 2-2 It is recommended that implementation takes place in the undermentioned phases: Phase 1: Development of preferred mine site, storage facilities and means of transportation to enable mining to take place under limited permit (20 tons per annum per household) for individual home heating and capable of being expanded into phase 2. , Installation of coal-burning stoves or furnaces for interim use and later back-up in individual homes, if village people show sufficient interest in such interim usage. Implementation of retrofit energy conservation measures. Phase 2: Central District Heating based on coal-fired low pressure heaters. Phase 2 could be subphased to coincide with require- ments of the NSB as regards funding and new housing - developments. 2-3 2.02.4 2.02.5 Phase 3: - Introduction of ORC-generation to supplant diesel- generation, as ‘and when warranted by prevailing» conditions and needs also by emerging experience with commercially available ORC-plant. - It is noted that the Alaska Power Authority are proposing to fund a pilot ORC-generation plant in a Northwest Alaskan village based on the firing of a solid fuel. Consideration should be given to seeking to have this pilot operation sited in Wainwright. Timing of Development Subject to obstacles to development described in Section 18 being resolved, and subject to village confirmation of this view, it is recommended, that the primary aim be to pursue development of the Central District Heating concurrently with the mine development reference Section 13.0, Volume 1. Further Work Prior to Final Design It is recommended that further work be undertaken in preparation for final design of facilities as set out in Section. 20.0. 2-4 3.0 EXPLORATORY DRILLING PROGRAM The report on the exploratory drilling program called for in the work plan for. the present study is for convenience of reading being presented as a separate volume, Volume 2. This covers tasks 1,2, and 3 of the work plan. GEOLOGIC DATA EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY MINE DESIGN The report on geologic data evaluation and preliminary mine design is likewise being presented as a separate volume, Volume 3. This cover Task 4 of the work plan. 4-1 5.0 5.1 PERMIT AND LICENSING ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Introduction: Scope and Purpose This section discusses those: federal and state envi- ronmental permits, licenses, and other authoriza- tions that will and will not be required for the construction and operation phases of the project. In the course of this discussion, applicable laws, regulations, agency concerns, and permit application requirements, fees, and processing time frames are identified. Two critical path diagrams summarizing the necessary environmental authorizations and associated processing time frames are found at the end of this chapter. The above information is intended to provide the North Slope Borough with a useful framework for determining when and how to apply for each environ- mental permit or license, as well as a better understanding of any particular environmental con- cerns that an agency may have. We are aware that various additional authorizations may be required (e.g., a Water Rights Permit from the Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources, a Public Utilities Certificate from the Alaska Public Utilities Com- mission, and various State building approvals and requirements); however, the discussion of such authorizations is beyond the scope of this report in 5.2 5.2.1 that they are not expressly environmental in nature. Nevertheless, of all the authorizations required, it is those discussed in this section that will demand the bulk of the Borough's time and energies to obtain. This analysis is complicated by the fact that all the proposed project sites are situated within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and on village native corporation (Olgoonik Corporation) lands. Hence, subsurface rights to minerals are owned and- controlled by the federal government, while surface rights are owned and controlled by the Olgoonik Corporation. As will be discussed later, this rather unusual situation has led to jurisdic- tional uncertainties with respect to the Bureau of: Land Management and the Office of Surface Mining. Basic Assumptions Since final project design is not yet known and final site selection has not been completed, certain assumptions were made concerning the mining opera- tion and electrical generating facilities. These assumptions are stated below. Project Options The following two project options--each with its own set ofbasic assumptions--are discussed throughout this section. 5-2 5.2.1.1 Full Scale Coal Mining, Processing, and Power Generation This preferred pption (herinafter referred to as the "Full Scale Development Option") would involve the excavation and operation of a mine occupying an area of up to two acres per year ‘(total area of 60 acres or less) over a 20- to 30-year lifespan, with up to 10,000 tons per year of coal mined, the construction and operation of power generation facilities either at the mouth of the mine (most likely) or in Wain- wright, and the construction of related facilities such as storage piles and roads. Any liquid mine wastes generated through subsurface mining would be used in the formation of ice backfill to be placed in the mined-out rooms. Power generation facilities most likely would consist either of new low pressure coal-fired water heaters or new coal-fired boilers connected with steam turbines that, in turn, are coupled to elec- trical generators. Design of these facilities would be the same as that of one of two recommended alter- natives referenced in the July 1980 initial feasibility study report entitled Wainwright Central District Heating System: Alternative A-1l (coal- fired steam turbines), with a rating of approxi- mately 31 million Btu/hour; or Alternative A-II (low pressure coal-fired water heaters), with a rating of approximately 21 million Btu/hour. 5-3 5.2.1.2 Small Scale Coal Mining This option (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Option") would ,involve only the excavation of coal to be used expressly for domestic heating purposes, with a maximum of 20 tons of coal mined per family per year (i.e., a total of approximately 2,400 tons per year) for burning in the home. This option would not involve processsing, power generation, water use or wastewater generation, or the construction of any facilities related thereto, and would be temporary in nature. It would also involve the construction of related facilities such as storage piles and roads. Either option could entail surface or subsurface mining, although the latter is the most economically feasible and, hence, the preferred option. Neither option would require the construction of a basecOmp; current residents of the town of Wainwright would "commute" to the mine from home during all phases of the project. Neither option would involve = any activity affecting the Kuk River (e.g., inwater work, above-ice travel, bank distubances, water withdrawals, and discharges of wastewater, mine tailings, or other materials into the River). Neither option would require any coal preparation/ cleaning plant with thermal driers or pneumatic cleaners; only crushers and screeners might possibly be needed in the preparation of the coal. 5-4 5.2.2 5.3 5.4 5.4.1 ' Site Options As noted elsewhere in this report, of the three potential project areas that have been considered (Areas A-B, C, and D), Area A-B is the preferred project area. The project will be sited to avoid any individual native allotments. Approach to Information Gathering First, the State of Alaska's "Directory of Permits" was screened for all possibly relevant federal and state environ- mental requirements. Next, applicable laws, regulations, and other appropriate materials were researched and analyzed. Finally, representa- tives of federal and state environmental agencies were contacted in order to obtain their views as to the manner in which such laws and regulations will be interpreted. Results The results of the regulatory analysis that follows are organized by individual agency, grouped in terms of federal and state agencies. Federal Agencies 5-5 5.4.1.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) A. Coal Lease and License to Mine » 1. Jurisdictional Authority Title 43, Group 3400, of* the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), entitled "Coal Management", describes the BLM's authority and responsibilities for managing coal on "Federal lands" pursuant to various federal laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et _seg.), the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired lands of 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 351-359 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seqg.). "Federal lands" are defined as lands owned by the United States, without reference to how the lands were acquired or what federal agency administers the lands, including mineral estates or coal estates underlying private surface, but excluding land held by the United States in trust for Indians, Aleuts or Eskimos (43 CFR 3400.0-5(t)). As noted above, the project areas would be situated within NPR-A lands, the subsurface estate of which is owned by the federal government and the surface estate of which is owned by a private corporation (the Olgoonik Corporation). The project would not involve any lands held by the United States in trust for the Eskimos. Hence, the project would be con- ducted on "Federal lands" subject to BLM management. 5-6 “The BLM's responsibilities for managing coal on Federal lands includes the authority to issue Coal Leases and Licenses to Mine. a. Coal Lease The Full Scale Development Option. cannot be implemented without a BLM Coal Lease (Gal, 1981, Clithero, 1981), the specific regulations for which are contained in 43 CFR 3420 and 43 CFR 3422. How- ever, under present law and regulations, the BLM is not authorized to issue Coal Leases within the NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976 (P.L. 944-258); 43 CFR 3400.2(a)(7)). Were an application for the Full Scale Development Option submitted today, the BLM would have no alternative but to deny a Coal Lease for that proposal (Gal 1981). Hence, the Full Scale Development Option is not a viable option at present. Nevertheless, a movement is currently afoot to open the NPR-A to coal leasing. In the latter part. of 1980 -- through a stipulation in P.L. 96-514, the U.S. Department of the Interior's 1981 appropria- tions bill -- the NPR-A was opened to petroleum leasing (Gal 1981). In July, 1981, U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski wrote then-North Slope Borough Mayor Jacob Adams that he was investigating the possi- bility of introducing legislation allowing the Borough to mine coal within the NPR-A (Murkowski 1981). The BLM Fairbanks Office has also informally 5-7 requested BLM headquarters in Washington, D.C. to investigate the prospect of similar legislative initiatives allowing the BLM to lease coal within the NPR-A (Gal 1981). While, as of this writing, the NPR-A is still closed to coal leasing, the possibility of a reversal of this policy in the offing is sufficient to further consider the Full Scale Development Option through- out the remainder of the report. b. License to Mine The Interim Option was conceived as an interim means of partially meeting Wainwright's domestic heating needs until such time as the NPR-A can be opened to coal leasing for a full scale coal development pro- ject. Section 8 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and 43 CFR 3449 authorize the BLM to issue a License to Mine, within the NPR-A as elsewhere on federal lands, to a municipality for a period of four years (subject to renewal), provided the mining is for nonprofit, household uses only and that no more than twenty tons of coal per family per year is mined (Clithero 1981, Gal 1981). The Interim Option, as presently contemplated, would meet the above criteria and would, therefore, qualify for a License to Mine. 5-8 2. Application Requirements, Processing, and Fees a. Coal Lease If the NPR-A is opened to coal leasing, and coal land or deposits contained therein become available, they will be divided into suitable leasing tracts by the BLM and leased competitively. Prior to a lease sale, the BLM will publish a notice of the sale in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the sale. The notice will show the time and place of the sale, whether it will be by public auction or sealed bids, the description of the land, and where a detailed statement of the terms and conditions of the lease offer may be obtained. The successful bidder must reimburse the Government for the cost of publishing that notice, as specified in the detailed statement. The applicant must provide with his bid a statement of citizenship, a complete and accurate description of the land, and a description of the coal deposit located therein. Total holdings in licenses and leases for coal may not exceed 46,080 acres. On the day of the sale, each bidder must submit one- fifth the amount of his cash bonus bid. Bids are received only until the hour on the date specified in the notice of competitive leasing. All sealed bids are read. If the procedure calls for sealed bids followed by oral bids, the oral bidding will begin at the level of the highest sealed bid received. After the oral bidding has ceased, the highest bidder will be announced. No decision to accept or reject a bid is made at this time. The successful bidder is notified in writing after the sale and the deposits on all rejected bids are returned. Four copies of the lease are sent to the highest bidder who must execute them within 30 days after his receipt thereof, pay the first year's rental, and file any bond required. The balance of the cash bonus -is to be paid in four equal installments, payable on the first four anniversary dates of the lease. It generally takes approximately 90 days for the BLM to issue a Coal Lease from the date it receives a complete application, provided an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required (see further discussion of Environmental Assessments (EAs) and EISs under Section 5.4.1.1(A)(2)(c) below) (Clithero 1981). Coal leases will be issued for twenty years and extended for as long thereafter as coal is produced in commercial quantities. The lessee must pay an annual royalty of 12-1/2 percent of the value of the coal from a surface mine, or eight percent of the value of the coal from an underground mine. b. License to Mine Four copies of the official BLM application for a "license to mine coal for domestic needs" must be filed with the BLM State Office having jurisdiction over the project areas (43 CFR 3440.1-l(a)). A non- refundable fee of $10.00 must accompany each such application or renewal application (43 CFR 3473.2- l(a)(2)). Provided application is made during the summer, it ordinarily takes approximately 30 days 5-10 for the BLM to issue a License to Mine from the date it receives a complete application, including time allocated for EA preparation (Gal 1981) (see further discussion). c. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) EA/EIS Requirements For the purposes of NEPA, the BLM would most likely be the lead agency where a Coal Lease or License to Mine application is involved. An EA, not an EIS, would most likely be prepared before either of these two BLM authorizations are granted (Gal 1981, Clithero 1981, Reynolds 1981). Although the time frame for preparation of an EA could be variable, it would be particularly brief for a License to Mine application, since such application generally takes a total of only 30 days to process (Clithero 1981). The applicant can expedite the process by helping to provide the needed environmental data (Reynolds 1981). For both Coal Lease and License to Mine applica- tions, EA preparation would entail a routine assessment of possible archeological resources, endangered species, and individual native allotments at the selected projects area. The latter two factors are expected to be non-existent at all potential project areas; however, if archeological resources are discovered (also an unikely possi- bility), a Federal Antiquities Permit (43 CFR 3) might be required if the applicant is unable to avoid such resources. If such resources cannot be avoided, and if the BLM, after consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (Anchorage), 5-11 determines that such resources need to be excavated for preservation purposes, then the BLM must apply to the National Park Service for an Antiquities Permit. Issuance of such a permit takes 30-60 days from the time application is made, thereby slowing the BLM's licensing/leasing process by a corresponding amount of time: (Clithero 1981). Before. finalization, the BLM's EA is first sent to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Environmental Conservation, and other State agencies for review and comment (Reynolds 1981). B. Other BLM Environmental Authorizations 1. Free Use Permit for Disposal of Mineral Materials a. Jurisdictional Authority 43 CFR 3620 authorizes the BLM to issue a Free Use Permit to municipalities and other government units wishing to use, free of charge, mineral materials (including gravel) situated on Federal lands. Since the North Slope Borough would need to excavate gravel for both project options in the construction of associated storage piles, access roads, and other facilities, the Borough would first have to obtain a Free Use Permit if it intended to extract such mineral materials from Federal lands. 5-12 b. Application Requirements and Review Process Applicants for a Free Use Permit should submit to the BLM a completed Form 5510-1 entitled "Free Use Application and Permit." Where a License to Mine is also required, applications for both authorizations may be submitted simultaneously (Gal 1981). The BLM would, in this case, prepare an EA covering both applications. Since a village native corporation controls the surface estate of the project areas, that corporation's concurrence with the proposed project would be required before a Free Use Permit could be issued. As with the License to Mine, it ordinarily takes the BLM approximately 30 days to issue a Free Use Permit from the date it receives a complete application, assuming application is made during the summer. The Free Use Permit is usually issued for a total of two years (one year initially plus one year extension), although it may be issued for a maximum of ten years for such governmental units as the BorouhF(Clithero 1981, 43 CFR 3621.1(b)). 2. Right-of-Way Right-of-Way easements, licenses, or permits from the BLM, pursuant to 43 CFR 2800, are not required for any of the project areas or options because the entire affected surface estate is owned by a village native corporation, not by the Federal Government. 5.4.1.2 Office of Surface Mining (OSM) A. Jurisdictional Authority The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)(30 USC 1201) established the OSM with the view of regulating all surface coal mining operations, including, by definition, the surface effects of underground mining. Section 506 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 700 through 899--the OSM's final regula- tions implementing SMCRA--require all persons seeking to engage in surface coal mining and reclamation operations to obtain a permit either from the OSM or from a State with a federally- approved program, as appropriate. Although Alaska is not yet a transfer State for the SMCRA permitting program, it is currently in the process of sub- mitting a State plan for primacy under SMCRA. Where State plans have been approved, this transfer pro- cess has generally taken from six to eight months (M. Smith 1981). It is uncertain at present whether SMCRA regulations apply, and, therefore, whether a permit from the OSM would be required within the NPR-A for the two options contemplated. Interviews with various government officials revealed that no consensus of opinion exists on this subject. Former North Slope Borough Attorney Conrad Bagne takes the position that SMCRA regulations do not apply within the NPR-A (Bagne 1981). Since SMCRA regulations apply only to surface mining on Federal lands, and the surface portions of the project sites are all situated on private (Olgoonik Corporation) lands, it might be argued that these sites are, therefore, all located 5-14 “outside the jurisdiction of the OSM and its SMCRA regulations. Bob Gal, former BLM Acting Project Manager for the NPR-A (Fairbanks); Bill Clithero, BLM Realty Specialist (Anchorage); Murray Smith, OSM Chief of State and Federal Programs (Denver); and Mary Josie Smith, member of an OSM team that is presently rewriting the’ SMCRA regulations (Washington, D.C.) are all uncertain as to whether SMCRA regulations apply within the NPR-A (Gal 1981, Clithero- 1981, M. Smith 1981, M.J. Smith 1981). Carl Close, OSM Assistant Director for State and Federal Programs (Washington, D.C.), is fairly certain that present SMCRA regulations and OSM permitting requirements *do* apply within the NPR-A and directly to the Wainwright project (Close 1981). To complicate matters, the OSM is, as of this writing, revising its SMCRA regulations, with publi- cation of these revised regulations expected in the Federal Register by mid-1982 (M.J. Smith 1982). Despite the present uncertainty as to whether the Wainwright project options will need an OSM permit, the following discussion assumes that both will. B. Application Requirements The following information on SMCRA application requirements is derived from Joyce (1980). Extensive information is required in OSM permit applications. Data required can be classified into 5-15 three basic categories: (a) legal, financial, compliance and related information; (b) envi- ronmental resource information; and (c) reclamation and operation plans. Differences exist between data required for the mine plan area and for the permit area. For example, information on hy- drology must cover the entire mine plan area, while soil resource data need describe only the permit area. OSM defines mine plan area as "the area of land and water within the boundaries. of all permit areas during the entire life of the surface coal mining and reclamation operations. At a minimum, it includes all areas that are or will be affected during the entire life of those operations." Permit area means “the area of land and water within the boundaries of the per- mit which are designated on the permit application maps." The permit area may be smaller than or equal to the mine plan area. 1. Minimum Legal, Financial and Related Information An application must include names and addresses of the applicant, operator, property leaseholder, principal shareholders, and company officers. Previous permits held since 1970 by these persons must be noted, as well as whether any permits were revoked or suspended in the previous five years. A history of any bond forfeiture must be included as well as a list of previous violations of state or federal surface mining-related law. Other types of permits needed to mine coal, such as those under state law or for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, must be listed, as well as information on 5-16 any area. that eventually may be unsuitable for mining under the regulations' unsuitability criteria. : 2. Minimum Information on Environmental Resources Most of the permit preparation work will be dedi- cated to acquiring information on the environmental resources of the permit and adjacent areas. The data requirements are as follows: a. Geology Description Test borings and core samples down to and including the stratum immediately below the lowest coal seam to be mined are required. Also to be included are the physical characteristics of each stratum, analysis of the coal seam, and location of subsur- face water. Waivers from these requirements can be obtained. Preliminary exploratory core drilling that ASTS completed in July, 1981 may be insufficient to meet the permit requirements. Coal quality analysis should be sufficient to meet these requirements. b. Ground and Surface Water A description of ground water for the mine plan and adjacent area must be supplied. Streams, lakes, ponds, and springs in the mine plan and nearby areas Must be identified. Extensive information describing surface water is required. If mining could adversely affect the water users in the area, the permittee must identify alternative sources of water. 5-17 c. Climatological Information The regulatory authority may request precipitation, wind and temperature data. Such a request will likely be made if climatic conditions -- winds, temperatures, rainfall -- have led to past problems with revegetation or air pollution. Air quality monitoring may be requested as part of OSM's air quality rules. d. Vegetation Information The regulatory authority may also request a map and description of vegetation in the proposed permit area. If adjacent areas happen to be important habitats for the area's fish and wildlife, they must be described. A map and description of "reference area" vegetation (used as a basis for measuring revegetation success) may also be required. e. Fish and Wildlife Information An operator must include a fish and wildlife study for the mine plan area if mining is expected to affect those resources. The regulatory authority, after consultation with federal and state fish and wildlife experts, will set the level of detail for required information. As with other permit applica- tion data, existing data may suffice if available; otherwise, the applicant must generate the infor- mation. 5-18 £. Soil Resources All applicants must provide a map and description of soils in the ,proposed permit area. Each soil cate- gory must be described, as well as information on present and potential productivity. If overburden is to be used as a topsoil substitute, the results of chemical analyses and field site trials or green- house tests must be included. g. Land Use An application must include a description of land capability and productivity, such as average yield of food, fiber, forage or wood products’ before mining, for the permit area. Also to be listed are land uses and classifications under local law for the mine plan and adjacent area. Available data will suffice for this requirement. Details of any previous mining activity must be outlined. h. Maps An operator must draft maps that depict different geographical or legal (ownership) characteristics. Eleven geological characteristics must also be mapped, including location of ground and surface water and elevations and locations of test borings or core samplings. 5-19 3. Minimum Information on Reclamation and Operation e ' Plan The third major part of a permit application must describe how "the operator plans to comply with the rules during mining and reclamation. Most plans are to be prepared for the permit area, but others, particularly those for protecting hydrologic balance, must apply to the mine plan area. a. Operation Plan Methods and the amount of coal to be mined must be described, as well as how the operator will use and then remove struc- tures necessary for mining. A description of existing struc- tures and proof that they meet the performance (but not design) standards of the rules must also be prepared. By performance standards, OSM means desired results such as effluent levels, safety factors, revegetation levels, etc. Design standards are engineering specifications that set down how a structure must be built, such as those that apply to embankments and ponds. b. Blasting Plan (Surface Mines Only) Blasting plans must be detailed, showing proposed drilling patterns and charges, packing of holes, types of fuses and detonation controls, and sequence of firing. Methods for monitoring and for warnings must be described, as well as procedures for site- access. , 5-20 c. Maps and Plans More mapping beyond that needed for environmental resources reporting is required. Besides showing the areas to be affected by mining and reclamation, maps must show buildings, coal and spoil storage areas, water treatment and control stuctures, air pollution control facilities, waste sources and disposal sites, ponds, explosive storage sites, and wildlife control facilities. Maps for coal storage, topsoil and spoil storage, explosives storage and ponds and impoundments must be prepared under the supervision of a registered professional engineer or professional geologist. dad. Air Pollution Control All surface mines must outline plans for fugitive dust control methods. e. Fish and Wildlife Plan The operator must describe how effects on wildlife will be minimized, and how the operation will "achieve a condition which clearly shows a trend to- ward enhancement" when revegetation is complete. If a "trend toward enhancement" cannot’ be_ shown, reasons must be given. The operator must describe measures he will take to protect threatened or en- dangered species and other species protected by state or federal law, as well as their habitats, if 5-21 they will be affected by mining. These habitats in- clude wetlands, riparian areas, and areas offering special shelter or protection to these classes of wildlife. f. Reclamation Plan The reclamation plan must show methods of back- filling, soil handling and stabilization, grading, revegetation and other reclamation methods,. and a schedule for their completion. Methods to protect water quality and quantity, ownership of water rights, and procedures that will be followed to restore recharge capacity and water quality must be explained. A description of probable hydrologic consequences of mining for both the permit and adjacent area is also necessary, as well as proposed spoil disposal methods. g. Post-Mining Land Use Applications must describe proposed post-mining land uses, along with comments on such uses from the sur- face landowner and state agencies. h. Water Control Plan Applications must include a general plan for each proposed sedimentation pond, water impoundment, and coal processing waste bank, dam or embankment, and explain how they will meet performance rules. A geotechnical investigation must be made of proposed - waste dams and embankments. Operators must also describe proposed stream diversions. i. Effect on Roads Each application must describe in detail proposed haul roads, conveyors or rail systems to be used, and how they will be built. Effects on public roads must be outlined if mining is proposed within 100 feet of the right-of-way line or if a public road is to be relocated. The outline must include a descrip- tion of how public and. private landowner interests will be protected. j. Protection of Public Parks and Historic Places If mining is expected to adversely affect public parks or historic places, applications must describe what measures will be taken to mitigate these effects. k. Disposal of Excess Spoil Applications must describe, using maps and cross- section drawings, how and where spoil will be disposed. A geotechnical investigation of the proposed site is necessary. l. Transportation Facilities Applications must describe each road, conveyor or rail system to be built or used within the permit area. The description must include a map, cross- sections, and specifications for road width, gradient, surface and cut, fill embankment, culvert, bridge, drainage ditch and drainage structure. 5-23 C. Review Process (Joyce 1980) 1. SMCRA allows citizens and public and private agencies to participate in the permit review process. Besides publishing a notice of application for a permit in a local newspaper, an operator must allow the public to examine his complete applica- tion. Citizens can challenge applications or revisions and call for an informal conference with the regulatory authority. Citizens can have access to the mine area to gather information for such a conference. Some information contained in the application is confidential, however, including the operator's analysis of the chemical and physical properties of the coal to be mined. Data on potentially toxic mineral or elemental contents of coal to be mined is not confidential. 2. It ordinarily takes the OSM one year to issue a permit from the date on which a complete application is received (M. Smith 1981). 3. A citizen may challenge an approval or denial of an application within 30 days of its issuance. A hearing must be held within 30 days of the challenge, and the hearing authority then has 30 days to rule. A decision may be appealed by the citizen to a local court. 5-24 “4. Approval Criteria To obtain a permit, an applicant must prove to the regulatory authority that mining and reclamation under the performance standards is feasible, and that land to be affected is not located on areas designated (or under consideration for designation) as unsuitable for mining. He must show proof that his reclamation fees on existing operations have been paid, and must submit his performance bond before receiving the permit. 5. No application will be approved unless’ the applicant can prove that existing structures on the site will meet performance’ standards. If an existing structure cannot be rebuilt to meet those standards without harming the environment, it must be abandoned. 6. If an operator who is currently mining applies for another permit, he must show that he is either not currently violating any state law or regulation related to air, water or soil protection, or show that his violation is being remedied or is under formal appeal. The regulatory authority will pay special attention to an applicant's record of compliance with SMCRA. 7. Once a state program is approved, an operator has eight months to obtain a permit. Also, if an informal conference on the application is held after a citizen request, a permit application must be processed and acted upon within 60 days after the close of the conference. 5-25 5.4.1.3 5.4.1.4 D. Permitting Process (Joyce 1980) Figure 5.1, below, summarizes the OSM's permitting process. » U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) The project will be sited to avoid any individual native allotments, and none of the project areas constitute "Indian lands" as defined in 25 CFR 177.101. Hence, the BIA's regulatory authority over surface exploration, mining, and reclamation of Indian lands pursuant to 25 CFR 177 does not apply. Nor are BIA Rights-of-Way or Land Lease Authorizations for Indian lands required pursuant to 25 CFR 161 and 25 CFR 131, respectively (Cronister 1981, Clithero 1981). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) A. Jurisdictional Authority The COE'S permit program is authorized under Section. 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). These laws require permits (collec- tively referred to as Section 10/404 permits) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" (including adjacent wetlands) and for structures and work in or affecting "navigable waters of the United States" (a subset of "waters of the United States"). 5-26 COAL EXPLORATION RECLAMATION ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL, FINANCIAL & OPERATION RESOURCES & COMPLIANCE PLAN REPORT DATA PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL, PUBLIC NOTICE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS FILING OF BOND PERMIT ISSUED PERMIT REVIEW REVISION RENEWAL PROJECT NO. 80-540 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY FIGURE 5-1: Summary of OSM Permit Process(After US Dept. of Interior) The North Slope of Alaska contains vast areas of moist tundra and wet tundra, much of which the COE's Alaska District has been classifying as "adjacent wetlands" subject to its Section 404 jurisdiction. While the District is presently undertaking an extensive program to map all Alaska wetlands under its jurisdiction, this program will not be completed for years. Hence, in the interim, the District is continuing to make wetlands jurisdictional determi- nations on a case-by-case basis (Wolfe 1981, Reeder 1981). The COE has reviewed the three proposed project areas, and has found each to contain tundra constituting "adjacent wetlands" subject to its Section 404 jurisdiction (Rockwell 1981). A COE permit would be required for both the Full Scale Development and Interim Options at all three areas because both options would entail the discharge of fill material (gravel, crushed rock, mine tailings, etc.) into "adjacent wetlands" for the purpose of constructing storage piles and roads and disposing of mine tailings (Rockwell 1981, Caruth 1981). The Kuk River, situated adjacent to Project Area C, constitutes a "water of the United States." Hence, any discharges of dredged materials into the Kuk River -- while not presently contemplated -- would also require COE authorization under Section 404 (Rockwell 1981). 5-28 B. Application Requirements Applications for COE permits should be submitted on ENG Form 4345 and should include a detailed project description (in- cluding volume, type and configura- tions of fill materials and dimensions of struc- tures) and a project plan, cross-section, and location map (33 CFR 325.1(b) and (c)). Since the project would occur within the coastal zone, the applicant must provide, along with ENG Form 4345, a certification that the project will comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. C. Review Process Shortly after receipt of all required information from the applicant, the COE issues a public notice describing the project proposal and stating. the COE's preliminary determina- tion of the need for and/or availability of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (33 CFR 325.3). (This public notice is issued jointly with the Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning's "Notice of Application for Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program" and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's "Notice of Application for State Water Quality Certifica- tion.") The COE has indicated that an EIS would probably not be required for either of the two project options and that, even if it were, the BLM, “not the COE, would be the lead agency involved in its preparation (Wolfe 1981). 5-29 “Copies of the public notice are sent to various federal, state, and local agencies, as well as to individuals and private organizations. These parties are, in turn, afforded a time period -- usually 30 days in duration, but in no case exceeding 75 days -- in which to forward to the COE comments on the public notice (33 CFR 325.2(d)(2)). The Alaska District generally receives the bulk of such comments from the following agencies (Wolfe 1981): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Department of Fish and Game o 00 0 Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning ° Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation In considering the comments of the above agencies, the COE fulfills, in part, Executive Order 11574's mandate that it consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US F&WS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and State fish and wildlife agencies throughout the Section 10/404 permit process. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has indicated further that the COE generally concurs with its comments, usually incorporating in the COE permit any stipulations that it may request in order to protect fish habitats (Milke 1981). Upon receipt of comments in response to the public notice, the COE forwards any adverse comments or objections to the applicant to afford him an opportunity to resolve or rebut them (33 CFR 325.2(a)(3)). The District Engineer has the 5-30 discretionary authority to hold a public hearing on the permit application (and often does so for controversial and/or major projects) where it will assist him in making a decision (33 CFR 327.4). In most situations where an EIS is not required the District Engineer is required either to deny a permit or to issue a draft permit for the appli- cant's acceptance within thirty days of one of the following, whichever is latest: Closing of the public notice comment period with no objections received; receipt of notice of withdrawal of objections; completion of coordination following receipt of applicant's rebuttal of objections; or closing of the record of a public hearing (33 CFR 325.2(d)(3)). The COE cannot issue a permit until Alaska's designated coastal zone agency, the Division of Policy Development and Planning, noti- fies the.COE that it concurs with the applicant's Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (33 CFR 325.2 (b)(2)(ii)). This concurrence, in turn, is generally not reached until after the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser- vation issues a State Water Quality Certification (Wolf 1981) (see further discussion under Sections 5.4.2.1 and 5.4.2.2.A of this chapter). It will take the COE approximately six months to issue (or deny) a permit for this project from the time it receives a completed application, assuming that the BLM requires no EIS (Wolfe 1981). The COE - bases its decision whether to issue or deny a permit on a general balancing process, wherein’ the following factors, among others, are considered: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general 5-31 *environmental conerns, historic values, fish and wildlife values, flood damage prevention, land use, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. No permit will be granted unless its issuance is found to be in the public interest :.(33 CFR 320.4(a)). D. Fees As an agency or instrumentality of local government, the applicant would be exempt from payment of any permit application fees (33 CFR 325.1(f)). 5.4.1.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) A. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit--Air Quality Neither project option would require a PSD Permit for the reasons discussed in detail below. Sections 160 through 169 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, authorize the EPA to regulate, through a PSD permitting program, the construction or modification of certain designated sources of air emissions. The EPA has promulgated final regula- tions implementing this PSD program (40 CFR 52.21, dated August 7, 1980), the purpose of which is to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas of the nation that are cleaner than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50) require. The Wainwright project areas are all situated within an area of the nation that is 5-32 cleaner that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards require. While the Clean Air Act provides for the transfer of the PSD program to the various states upon the, EPA's approval of a State Implemen- tation Plan (SIP), Alaska's SIP has not’ been approved to date (Hungarford 1981). Hence, all the Wainwright project areas potentially come under the EPA's PSD permitting jurisdiction. However, a PSD permit would only be required if the project entails the construction of a source of air emissions that Meets certain criteria as designated in 40 CFR 52.2.1. Sources of air emissions subject to PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21 consist of "major modifications" and "major sta- tionary sources." Since the project would involve a new source of air emissions, and “major modifications" pertains only to existing sources, -this category of sources is inapplicable. The only types of "major stationary sources" that the project might potentially entail are: ° Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million Btu/hour heat input that emit, or have a potential to emit, 100 tons/year or more of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air = Act (40 CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(a)). 5-33 “oO Any stationary source (including fossil fuel- fired steam electric plants of less than 250 million Btu/hour heat input) that emits, or has a potential. to emit, 250 tons/year or more of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(b)). As noted in Section 5.2.1.1 of this chapter, the Full Scale Development Option would entail the construction either of coal-fired steam electric turbines designed with a heat input of + 21 million Btu/hour (Alternative A-1) or low pressure coal- fired water heaters designed with a heat input of+21 million Btu/hour (Alternative A-II). Hence, both alternatives of the Full Scale Development Option would consititute "major stationary sources" if, as "any stationary sources," they had the potential to collectively emit 250 tons/year or more of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air ‘Act. However, since preliminary samplings of coal at the project areas reveal very low ash and sulfur con- tent, both Alternatives A-l and A-II are expected to emit much less than 250 tons/year of each of such pollutants. AS a consequence, a PSD Permit would not be required for the Full Scale Development Option (Nye 1981). Since the only pollutant that the Interim Option would entail is fugitive dust (a non-point source), and non-point sources cannot trigger a PSD review, this option would also not require a PSD Permit (Nye 1981). 5-34 B. Compliance With New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) NSPS are air emission limitations that apply to construction of any new stationary source of air pollution for which the EPA has issued performance standards. Pursuant to the Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, the EPA has issued and published performance standards in the Federal Register for certain stationary source categories. To date, no performance standards that apply directly to the atmospheric emissions from new source coal mines have been published. Nor are the EPA's new stationary source performance standards for electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR 60, dated June 11,1979) or for coal preparation plants (40 CFR 250) applicable to either project option (Nye 1981) for the following reasons: ° The standards for electric utility steam genera- ting units apply only to such units with a heat input of 250 million Btu/hour or greater. Both Alternatives A-1l and A-II of the Full Scale Development Option have heat inputs of less then 250 million Btu/hour. The Interim Option would not include any electric utility steam generating unit. o The standards for coal preparation plants apply to those capable of processing more. than 181 metric tons (200 short tons) of coal/day, and entailing thermal dryers, pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, and/or coal handling and storage equipment. As was stated in the "Basic 5-35 Assumptions" above, neither project option would involve thermal driers or pneumatic cleaners. Furthermore, even if such a preparation plant were contemplated, neither project option would generate anywhere near 181 metric or 200 short tons of coal/day for preparation. C. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit -- Water Quality Section 402 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344) requires any owner or operator of a point source planning to discharge a pollutant into “waters of the United States" to obtain first an NPDES permit. The EPA regulations imple menting Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are contained in 40 CFR, Parts 121 -through 125. NPDES permits are obtained either from the EPA or from the State, where the State program has been approved by the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 123. Alaska does not yet have an approved State program; hence, applicants must still obtain NPDES permits from the EPA. "Pollutant" is defined under 40 CFR 122.3, to mean "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radio-active materials (except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded equip- ment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, muni- cipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water." "Point source" is defined, under 40 CFR 122.3, to mean "any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to 5-36 any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concen- trated animal feeding operation, vessel, or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged." 7 As noted in the "Basic Assumptions" section of this chapter, the Interim Option: would not involve the construction of a base camp or any water use or wastewater generation. Nor would it involve any other activities that could result in point sources of pollution subject to NPDES permit requirements. Hence, an NPDES permit would not be required for the Interim Option (Nasset 1981). The "Basic Assumptions" also state that no base camp would be needed for the Full Scale Development Option; hence no associated gray water or sewage disposal facilities are anticipated. However, it remains uncertain whether this option would involve water use and wastewater discharges associated with mining operations and/or with steam turbines. Hence, technically speaking, the Full Scale Development Option could entail the point source discharge of pollutant(s) into "waters of the United States" and, if so, would require an NPDES permit. However, the EPA has informed us that, due to severe budget and staff cutbacks, it has been directed to require NPDES permits only for the most major point sources of water pollution (Nasset 1981). Since the Full 5-37 “Scale Development Option would not entail major 5.4.2 5.4.2.1 point source(s) of water pollution, the EPA would not require an NPDES permit for it either (Nasset 1981). » State of Alaska Agencies Office of the Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning (DPDP) A. Jurisdictional Authority The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (PL 94-370) provides for the protection, restoration, and management of the coastal zone, and includes provisions for coastal states to prepare their own coastal management plans (CMP's). States with a federally approved plan are granted jurisdictional authority to implement the CZMA's goals and provi- sions. The federally approved Alaska CMP is based on the State of Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977, which established a program of shared local and State coastal management responsibility. This Act requires local government units or districts in organized areas, such as the North Slope Borough, to develop coastal programs within a specified time period. Since the North Slope Borough's district coastal program has yet to be approved, the coastal program for this area of Alaska is still executed at the State agency level. 5-38 The DPDP, as the lead agency for the Alaska CMP, is responsible for reviewing the consistency of State and federal actions with the Alaska CMP. Since a COE permit and other federal authorizations are required for both project options, both probably will also require from the applicant a Certification of Consistency with the Alaska CMP and the DPDP's concurrence therewith (33 CFR 325.2(b)(2)(ii), Wolf 1981). It is the unusual ownership status of the project areas that makes the requirement for DPDP concurrence a probability rather than certainty. State-established guidelines for implementation of the Alaska CMP state that the coastal zone boundary excludes "federal lands." Whether the project areas -- the subsurface estate of which is under federal control -- constitute "federal lands" as defined in these guidelines, is uncertain (Wolf 1981). Never- theless, the DPDP's concurrence will probably be required in any case because of the “spill over" effect that the project could have on such State lands as adjacent river bottoms (Wolf 1981). B. Application Requirements The DPDP requires no application per se. However, the North Slope Borough must submit to the COE, along with its COE permit application, a signed certification ("Certification of Consistency") that the proposed activity will comply with the Alaska CMP. The COE provides the applicant with this cer- tification form, which he then signs and returns. 5-39 Contents of the certification are appended to the COE public notice, serving as a separate public notice announcing application for the DPDP's concurrence with the certification. C. Review Process (Wolf 1981) The DPDP's review process begins with the COE's distribution of its joint public notice. Copies of this public notice are sent to the DPDP, which in turn routes them to various other State agencies for comment within a twenty-day period. These agencies send their comments to the DPDP, which in turn reviews them and determines whether to concur with or deny the COE applicant's Certification of Con- sistency. Where the comments of different State agencies conflict, the DPDP attempts first to recon- cile such conflicts at the departmental level. If reconciliation at this level is not possible, the Governor reconciles the differences. When the DPDP reaches its final decision, this decision is incorporated, along with the comments of the various other State agencies, in a letter to the COE representing the Governor's official response to the COE public notice. From the date on which the DPDP receives a copy of the COE public notice, it ordinarily takes approximately 75 days for the DPDP to concur officially with the applicant's Certifica- tion of Consistency, where a State Water Quality Certification is also required (as in this case). If the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva- tion denies a State Water Quality Certification, the DPDP is legally required to deny the Certification 5-40 of Consistency. If the Alaska Department of Fish and Game denies a Critical Habitat Permit or an Anadromous Fish Protection Permit, the DPDP has the discretionary authority to deny the Certification of Consistency (and usually does so). : D. Fees No fee requirements are associated with the DPDP's review or approval process. 5.4.2.2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) A. State Water Quality Certification 1. Jurisdictional Authority Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344) requires any non-federal applicant for a federal license or permit for any activity that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into “waters of the United States" to obtain State certi- fication that such discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Since a COE Section 10/404 permit will be required for both project options, so, too, will a State Water Quality Certification (hereinafter referred to as a “401 Certification") be required for both options (Bateman 1981). The DEC is the State of Alaska agency vested with the authority to issue the 401 Certification. 5-41 “2. Application Requirements and Review Process (Bateman 1981) When the COE receives an application for a COE Section 10/404 permit, it customarily forwards to the DEC a copy of this application which in turn serves as an application to the DEC for a 401 Certi- fication. The COE Section 10/404 public notice is published jointly with the DEC, announcing that a 401 Certification from the DEC has also been applied for and soliciting comments for the DEC within a thirty-day comment period. A public hearing may be held at the close of this comment period if the DEC deems one necessary. However, assuming that no EIS is required, the DEC's Fairbanks Office usually makes its recommendation whether to issue or deny a 401 Certification within ten days of the closing date of the public notice comment period, applying the State Water Quality Standards as recited in 18 AAC 70. The Fairbanks Office's recommendation is forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of the DEC in Juneau, who either issues (or denies) the 401 Certi- fication. From the time a COE public notice is issued, it ordinarily takes 45 days to issue a 401 Certification. A 401 Certification obtained for the construction of a facility is valid for additional federal permits or licenses subsequently required for the operation of the facility. The 401 Certification is an important prerequisite for the DPDP's Certification of Consistency and the COE's Section 10/404 permit. As noted above, the DPDP cannot sanction a Certification of Consistency 5-42 unless and until a 401 Certification is issued, and the COE, in turn, cannot issue a Section 10/404 permit until the DPDP sanctions the Certificate of Consistency. » 3. Fees No fee requirements are associated with the DEC's 401 Certification. B. Wastewater Disposal Permit 1. Jurisdictional Authority In accordance with 18 AAC 72, any person planning to conduct an operation that results in the disposal of wastewater into or upon the waters or surface of the land of the State or into a publicly operated sewerage system must obtain a Wastewater Disposal Permit from the DEC before the operation begins. "Wastewater" means sewage, waterborne industrial waste, laundry liquid effluent, shower or sink water, or other wastes that are waterborne or ina liquid state (18 AAC 72.100 (27)). "Waters" include marshes, and all other bodies of surface and under- ground water, that are in the State or under the State's jurisdiction (18 AAC 72.100 (28)). The DEC asserts its jurisdiction within the NPR-A just as it does anywhere else in Alaska (Lowery 1981). . Given the assumptions that no base camp ‘(with its associated sewage, gray water and disposal facili- ties) would be required, and that the Interim Option would involve no wastewater generation, a Wastewater Disposal Permit would not be required for this 5-43 “option. However, a Wastewater Disposal Permit would likely be required for the Full Scale Development Option if liquid power plant wastes or other liquid wastes are generated and disposed of on-site (which possesses wetlands and other "waters" within the definition of "waters" of the State) (Lowery 1981). 2. Application Requirements An applicant is required to submit a completed application, (Form 18-106, which is provided by DEC) in duplicate, with descriptions of the process of treatment used and the disposal site. Specific information on operations is detailed in the permit application. Any additional data on the environment and the facility may be required if the DEC so re- quests. Instructions for completing the "Wastewater Disposal Permit Application" are also included with the application form. Applications should be sub- mitted at least 60 days prior to the proposed commencement of operations. 3. Review Process Upon receipt of the application, the DEC will issue a public notice in two consecutive issues of a news- paper in the area of the proposed activities. Public comments are accepted up to 30 days after the final public notice. Public hearings are not necessary, but-may be held if public interest so demands. Noti- fication of the proposed discharge must be given to 5-44 “the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Com- merce and Economic Development, and Department of Natural Resources for their review and comment. A Wastewater Disposal Permit will be granted upon a finding that the disposal will meet the State Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) and the requirements of 18 AAC 72. It ordinarily takes between 45 and 60 days for the DEC to issue a Wastewater Disposal Permit from the time a complete application form is submitted (Lowery 1981). 4. Fees There are no application or permit fees. C. Plan Review for Sewerage Systems or Water and Wastewater Treatment Works 1.. Jurisdictional Authority No person may construct, alter, or modify a sewerage system or treatment works or any part of one until detailed engineering reports, plans, and specifica- tions are submitted to the DEC and aproved by the DEC in writing (18 AAC 72.060). "Sewerage system" means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force mains, and all other appurtenant construc- tions, devices, and appliances used for conducting wastewater to a point of ultimate disposal (18 AAC 72.100 (21)). “Treatment works" means a plant, device, structure, disposal outfall, lagoon, pumping station, incinerator, area devoted to sanitary land- fills, or other works installed for the purpose of 5-45 ‘treating, neutralizing, stabilizing, or disposing of wastewater and sludges resulting therefrom (18 AAC 72.100 (27)). Since the Interim Option is not expected to result in the generation of wastewater (or sludge), a Plan Review would not be required for it (Lowery 1981). However, a Plan Review would likely be ‘required for the Full Scale Development Option, if liquid power plant wastes or other forms of wastewater are generated on-site (Lowery 1981). 2. Application Requirements and Review Process No specific application form is required for plan approval. However, the required engineering reports, plans, and specifications must be certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Alaska before they are submitted to the DEC. The DEC may, at its discretion, require that the designs for sewerage systems and treatment works in remote areas have a history of successful operation in comparabmu environmental situations. Sewerage systems or treatment works also must be designed to operate successfully under the conditions of seasonal frost or perennial frost encountered in the areas where the construction is proposed. 5-46 “If any construction or other activity is intended that might render waters of the State inaccessible or uninhabitable for spawning or propagation of salmon, or cause violations of the State Water Quality Standards, the required submission of plans must contain the following information: ° A detailed description of a timetable for the proposed construction.or other activity. ° Other information that the DEC requireu]V+ assess the impact of the proposed activity upon the waters. The DEC will generally within two to three weeks of receipt of complete plans, approve such plans (Lowery 1981), provided the applicant demonstrates that the sewerage system or treatment works will meet the requirements of 18 AAC 72.060 (Plan Review) and State Water Quality Standards. The DEC may attach terms and conditions to approved plans necessary to insure compliance with such requirements and Standards. For the purpose of reviewing plans, the DEC will use, where applicable, the design criteria contained in the following: ° Sewage Treatment Plant Design, Manual of Prac- . tice No. 8, 1976, and Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers, Manual of Practice No. 9, 1970; Water Pollution Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20016. 5-47 “oO Glossary--Water and Wastewater Control _ Engi- neering, Joint Editorial Board, American Public Health Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation, 1969; available from Water Pollution Control Federa- tion, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20016. ° Wastewater Engineering: : Collection, Treatment, Disposal, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1972, McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York, New York. o Recommended Standards for Sewerage Works, Great Lakes -- Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, Health Education Service, P.O. Box 7283, Albany, New York, 12224. (Copies of the materials referenced above are on file in the Lieutenant Governor's Office and may be reviewed in any of the regional offices of the DEC.) 3. Fees No fees are required for the Plan Review or approval. D. Solid Waste Disposal Permit 1. Jurisdictional Authority In accordance with 18 AAC 60, any person planning to establish, modify, or operate a solid waste disposal facility must obtain from the DEC a Solid Waste Management Permit, with several exceptions. However, the. only exception to this permit requirement that is even remotely applicable to this project is incinerator facilities having a total rated capacity of less than 200 pounds of solid waste per hour (18 AAC 60.020(3)). "Solid waste" is defined to include 5-48 “mine wastes, gravel pit and quarry spoils, and over- burden except that orginating from the construction of single buildings (18 AAC 60.130(15)). "Solid waste disposal, facility" means an intermediate disposal facility, transfer station, landfill, incinerator, composting plant, recycling or reclama- tion facility or any site utilized for the reduc- tion, consolidation, conversion, processing, or disposal of solid waste (18 AAC 60.130(16)). As noted above, the DEC asserts its jurisdiction within the NPR-A just as it does anywhere else in Alaska (Lowery 1981). A Solid Waste Disposal Permit is likely to be required for both the Interim and Full Scale Development Options, if the solid mine wastes (e.g., overburden) to be generated thereby are to be disposed of and/or processed on-site. 2. Application Requirements An applicant is required to submit two completed "Waste Disposal Permit Application For Solid Waste Management Activities" forms (no form number available) showing: a. Detailed plans and specifications for the facility (18 AAC 60.020(b)(2)). b.. Certification of compliance wtih local ‘ordinances and zoning requirments (18 AAC 60.020(b)(3)). 5-49 “c. A report detailing the proposed method of opera- tion, population and area to be served, the characteristics, quantity and source of material to be processed, the use and distribution of processed materials, method of residue disposal, emergency operating procedures, the type and amount of equipment to: be provided, and the proposed ultimate land use (18 AAC 60.020(b)(4)). Applications should be submitted at least 60 days prior to the proposed commencement of operations. 3. Review Process Upon the receipt of an application, the DEC will publish a public notice in two consecutive editions of a newspaper in the area of the proposed activi- ties. Public comments are accepted up to 30 ‘days following the final notice. Public hearings are. not mandatory unless dictated by public comment. Copies of the Solid Waste Disposal Permit application are sent to the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game, Health and Social Services, Commerce and Economic Development, and Natural Resources for their review and comment. The DEC will issue a Solid Waste Disposal Permit if the applicant demonstrates that the disposal facili- ty-meets the requirements of 18 AAC 50, 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 70, and 18 AAC 72, and that the establishment or continued operation of the disposal facility will not result in avoidable proliferation of such facilities in the affected area (18 AAC 60.020(h)). 5-50 “At the end of the 30-day public notice period, the DEC may act on the application. It ordinarily takes between 45 and 60 days for the DEC to issue a Solid Waste Disposal, Permit from the time a _ complete application form is submitted (Lowery 1981). 4. Fees There are no application or permit fees. E. Air Quality Control Permit to Operate 18 AAC 50.300 requires a Permit to Operate for certain point sources and levels of air pollution emissions. Since the only foreseeable source of emissions generated by the Interim Option would be fugitive dust, a “non-point source, a Permit to Operate would not be required for this option. However, the Interim Option would still be subject to the DEC emission standard requiring the "taking [of] reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne" (18 AAC 50.050(e)).. Besides generating fugitive dust from mining opera- tions subject to the above-mentioned emission stan- dards, the Full Scale Development Option would also entail the construction either of low pressure coal- fired water heaters or coal-fired steam turbines for the generation of electricity -- all point sources of. air pollution emissions. As noted in Section 5.2.1.1 of this chapter, design of these facilities would be the same as that of one of two recommended 5-51 - alternatives referenced in the July 1980 feasibility study entitled, Wainwright Central District Heating System: Alternative A-II (low pressure coal-fired water heaters), with a rating of approximately 21 million Btu/hour, and Alternative A-1l (coal-fired steam turbines), with a rating of approximately 31 million Btu/hour. The applicability of permitting requirements to each alternative, pursuant to 18 AAC 50.300, is discussed below: The ratings of both Alternatives A-l and A-II are less than the 50 million Btu/hour threshold (18 AAC 50.300(a)(1)(B)) above which a Permit to Operate is required for any fuel burning equipment that also requires an air contaminant emission control unit or system to comply with State emission standards (18 AAC 50.040 through 18 AAC 50.060). Hence, neither alternative will require a Permit to Operate, although they must still meet these State emissions standards, as applicable (Hungerford 1981). The following emissions standards are applicable to both alternatives: ° Visible emissions, excluding condensed water vapor, from fuel burning equipment may not result in a reduction of visibility through the exhaust effluent of greater than twenty percent for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour (18 = AAC ~ 50.050(a)(1)). 5-52 “oO Particulate matter emitted from fuel burning equipment may not exceed, per cubic foot of ex- haust gas corrected to standard conditions, 0.5 grains (Alternative A-II) (18 AAC 50.050(b)(1)), or 0.1 grains for steam generating plants burning as fuel coal and rated less than 250 million Btu/hour heat input (Alternative A-1) (18 AAC 50.050(b)(2)(B)). ° Sulfur compound emissions from fuel burning equipment, expressed as SO?2? and averaged over a period of three hours, may not exceed 500 pmm (18 AAC 50.050(d)). ° No person may cause or permit bulk materials to be handled, transported, or stored, or engage in an industrial activity or construction project without taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne (18 AAC 50.050(e)). F. Alaska Master Application 1. Jurisdictional Authority and Purpose Under AS 46.35, an applicant may request the DEC to process a “Master Application" for all the State permits required for a project. This program is aimed primarily at large or complex projects requiring numerous permits and approvals and theore- tically provides for an instantaneous, streamlined 5-53 , processing of all required State applications. Public notices and hearings, if necessary, are conducted jointly. Master Application forms may be obtained at any, Alaska Permit Information Center or local DEC office. 2. Review Process and Associated Fees a. Upon receipt of the Master Application at a State Permit Information Center, the following steps are taken: ° Copies of the Master Application and the site diagram are sent for review to all State departments and any municipality where the project is located. A statement is requested regarding agency jurisdiction and any permits that may be required for the proposed project. ° The above agencies must respond to the Permit Information Center within fifteen days. If the agencies have any jurisdiction over the project and require a permit, they will submit their individual application forms to the Permit Information Center with a statement as_ to whether a hearing is required. ° The Permit Information Center sends the indivi- dual application form to the applicant for - completion. Completed applications and required fees are returned to the Permit Information Center, which in turn forwards them to the appropriate agencies. 5-54 “Oo The Permit Information Center makes the arrange- ments for a public hearing on the project, if a hearing is required. Within 30 days of receipt of the last applications, the Permit Information Center publ ishes a notice once a week for three consecutive weeks. The applicant is required to pay for the cost of publication. ° The public hearing is held in or near the muni- cipality where the major part of the proposed project is located. This hearing is held within - 20 to 30 days of the last publication of the notice. Members of the public and the applicant May be present. Any State agency that requires a permit for the project shall be represented at the hearing. ° At the close of the hearing, the chairperson establishes a date (within’90 days form the hearing date) for the final decisions on all project applications. The final decisions will be submitted to the DEC, which incorporates them into one document and submits them to. the applicant personally or by certified mail. 3. Efficacy of Master Application Process No formal "tracking record" has been established comparing how long it actually takes, with and without the Master Application process, to obtain all the necessary State authorizations for two comparable projects (Hughes 1981). However, in the two years since this process' inception, the DEC's Fairbanks office has seen a total of only eight 5-55 5.4.2.3 Master Applications (Hughes 1981), and a_ staff member at the DEC's Juneau office has seen only one (Hungarford 1981). It is felt by some that, while the Master Apphication is a well-intended reform of the lengthy permitting process, it is ineffective in practice because of the inordinate amounts of time and energy that it requires ‘of the DEC to coordinate and process it. In any case, the Master Application process is likely to be changed in early 1982, when the Alaska | State Legislature is expected to amend State laws governing the processing of State permit applica- tions (Wolf 1981). Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) Under Title 16 of Alaska Statutes, the DF&G requires an Anadromous Fish Protection Permit for activities that could affect designated anadromous fish rivers, lakes, and streams and a Critical Habitat Permit for activities to occur within established critical habitat areas. However, no established critical habitat areas, as defined in AS 16.20.230, encompass any of the project areas, and the only designated anadromous fish waterway in the project vicinity is the Kuk River, situated adjacent to Area C (Milke 1981). As noted above, it is assumed that the project would not entail any activity affecting the Kuk River. Hence, so long as this assumption holds, no permits are required from the DF&G (Milke 1981). 5-56 Nevertheless, while the DF&G has no jurisdiction to require any permits for the project, its advisory powers could be considerable. As mentioned above, Executive Order 11574 requires the COE to coordinate: with State fish and wildlife agencies throughout its Section 10/404 permit process. Part of the COE's coordination with the DF&G: entails the routing of the COE public notice to the DF&G for comment. Wherethe DF&G recommends that certain stipulations be attached to the COE permit in order to avoid or to mitigate adverse impacts to fisheries, the COE usually incorporates such stipulations in its permit (Milke 1981). The DF&G has already expressed the following com- ments on the project, portions of which comments are likely to be embodied in its response letter to any future COE public notice, depending upon which final project area is selected before application is made to the COE: Project Area A-B would probably be environmentally preferable, since it is located within a mile of Wainwright, thereby minimizing access road requirements and localizing disturbances. Project development in . . . Area C probably has the greatest potential for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. This site is the farthest removed from Wain- wright, which would necessitate a rela- tively long access road. Summer road traffic and project activities could disturb shorebird nesting and waterfowl nesting, moulting, and staging. The area is intensively used by black brant, old squaw, and eider during late summer and fall for moulting and staging. Activities 5-57 5.5 could also impact spotted seals, which commonly haul out at various locations along the Kuk River during the summer and fall. Also, the* Kuk River supports grayling, least cisco, boreal smelt, ninespine stickleback, and fourhorn sculpin.... Area C is located adjacent to the river, and any discharges into the watercourse could impact the fish populations (Milke 1981). Should Area C be chosen as the area from which the final project site is selected, it is conceivable that the DF&G would recommend, and that the COE would adopt, certain stipulations in the COE permit to mitigate any foreseeable adverse impacts there. On the other hand, selection of a final project site from within the preferred Area A-B should minimize DF&G concerns. Summary: Critical Path Diagrams The two critical path diagrams that follow this discussion (Figures 5.2 and 5.3) summarize the necessary environmental authorization and the minimum processing time associated therewith. As shown in these diagrams, if the OSM requires a Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Per- mit, it will take approximately one year from the time all the necessary applications are submitted to obtain all authorizations required for both project options. If the OSM does not require a permit, this time frame can be halved, with the COE Section 10/404 Permit then requiring the most time to secure. 5-58 ‘The filing of a COE permit application automatically triggers the Alaska DEC's State Water Quality Certi- fication process and the Alaska DPDP's Certification of Consistency process; thus, no separate applica- tions are required for either of these two authori- zations. The diagrams also indicate that, if the Full Scale Development Option is selected, the North Slope Borough should simultaneously file with the Alaska DEC applications for a Plan Review Sewerage Systems or Water and Wastewater Treatment Works and for Wastewater and Solid Waste Disposal Permits, in order to insure concurrent and expeditious pro- cessing. If the Borough pursues the Interim Option and needs to obtain gravel or other mineral materials from an as-yet unauthorized site, the Borough should simultaneously apply to the BLM for a Free Use Permit for Disposal of Mineral Materials and a License to Mine, also in order to insure concurrent and rapid processing. ; The following steps will also assist in controlling the regulatory time frame. Although these steps may not reduce the time periods from those depicted in the critical path diagrams, their use will help to ensure that these time periods do not lengthen. ° A pre-application conference with all potential regulatory agencies is extremely useful in identifying possible agency concerns. The con- ference can also provide vital insights into -areas of the applications that should be empha- sized, studies that may be required, and how 5-59 5.6 such studies should be conducted to arrive at the level of detail sufficient for agency decision making. ° Submission "of an application that is thorough and complete also facilitates the permitting process. Significant delays can occur if, at the end of its review process, an agency requests additional information or determines that. the application .is inadequate in some manner. ° Close personal contact should be maintained throughout the permitting process with each of the major agencies. A continuing demonstration of interest in expediting the process and the establishment of a close working relationship with agency personnel can be quite effective. The intent should be to establish informal lines of communication that can be used to provide additional information or to answer questions, rather than formal lines of communication that can require weeks rather than hours for the simplest of exchanges. Additional Studies Recommended Should the U.S. Office of Surface Mining require a Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Permit for either project option, extensive environ- mental and geotechnical studies would have to be undertaken as a part of permit application require- ments. Among the information that would need to be 5-60 gathered are detailed geological data (including test borings and coal samples, unless exploratory operations conducted by ASTS in July, 1981 are sufficient); hydrological, climatological, vegeta- tive, soil resource, fugitive dust control and land use (including haul road construction) information; a fish and wildlife study ‘for the mine plan area; extensive site mapping; plans for mine operation, minimization of impacts on fish and wildlife, mine site reclamation, and water control; and descrip- tions of spoil disposal sites and methods (requiring a geotechnical site investigation) and transporta- tion means to, from, and within the permit area. The above information is required irrespective of whether the mine will be surface or subsurface in nature. If the mine were to be a surface mine, a blasting plan would need to _ be submitted in addition to the information cited above. (For a more detailed discussion of the above informational requirements, please see pages 5-14 through 5-26 of this section). If Alternative A-1l (coal-fired boilers connected with electricity-generating steam turbines) of the Full Scale Development Option is chosen, a detailed engineering report would have to be submitted to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation before they could issue an Air Quality Control Permit to Operate (see pages 5-53 through 5-56 of this section for more details). 5-61 WAINWRIGHT REGULATORY PROCESS: FULL SCALE DEVELOPMENT OPTION COMPLETE APPLICATI oN——Vonth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 SUBMITTED Days 30 60 90 120 150 180 U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) : Coal Lease 90 Days: Lease Issued U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) : Free Use Permit for Disposal of Mineral Materials U.S. OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING (OSM) : Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Permit U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE): Section 10/404 Permit ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): State Water Quality Certification (Section 401-Clean Water Act) ALASKA DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (DPDP): Certification. of Con- sistency with Alaska Coastal Management Plan ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): Plan Review for Sewerage Systems or Water Treatment Works ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): Wastewater Disposal Permit 30 days: License issued 12 months: Permit issued — ] s: Joint ,COE/DEC/DPDP bab Pe notice issued and cir- Goordi culated for review & comment any 55 45 days: End of public notice comment period Permit issued Certification granted 45 days from date COE public notice issued Certification granted 75 days from date 14-21 days: COE public notice issued Plan approval 45-60 days: Concurrent process permit issued 45-60 days: Permit issued ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): Solid Waste Disposal Permit NOTE: Authorizations that are likely to be required, as well as those that will definitely be required, are shown in this chart. Where a dashed horizontal line is used in lieu of a solid horizontal line, the likelihood of the agency requiring the authorization represented thereby is uncertain. PROJECT NO. 80-540 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY FIGURE 5-2: Regulatory Process: Full Scale Development Option WAINWRIGHT REGULATORY PROCESS: INTERIM OPTION COMPLETE ; APPLICATION an SUBMITTED ays U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM): License to Mine U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) : Free Use Permit for Disposal of Mineral Materials U.S. OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING (OSM): Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Oper- ations Permit U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE): Section 10/404 Permit ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): State Water Quality Certification (Section 401-Clean Water Act) ALASKA DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (DPDP).: Certification of Con- sistency with Alaska Coastal Management Plan ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION (DEC): Solid Waste Disposal Permit NOTE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 60 90 120 150 180 30 days: Permit issued May be applied for and 30 d processed concurrently ays: License issued ‘15 days: Joint COE/DEC/DPDP ublic ngtice issued and cir- culated or review and comment 45 days: End of public notice comment period Permit issued Certification granted 45 days from date COE public notice issued Certification granted 75 days from date COE public notice issued 45-60 days: Permit issued the likelihood of the agency requiring the authorization represented thereby is uncertain. 11 12 12 months: Permit issued Authorizations that are likely to be required, as well as those that wil] definitely be required, are shown in this chart. Where a dashed horizontal line is used in lieu of a solid horizontal line, PROJECT NO. 80-540 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY FIGURE 5-3: Regulatory Process: interim Option PARTIAL LIST OF REFERENCES (EXCLUDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS) a eS RE ULA LIONS) Alaska, State of, Departments of Commerce and Economic Development and Environmental Conservation, 1979. Directory of Permits. Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc., 1980; Wainwright Central District Heating System, feasibility study, July 31. : Bagne, Conrad, 1981. Former Borough Attorney, North Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska. Personal communication, February 9. : Bateman, Paul, 1981. Field Officer, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Northern Regional Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, August 25. Boulding, J. Russell, 1980. Coal Mine Permitting, McGraw- Hill's Quick and Easy Guide. Caruth, James E. 1981. Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. Letter, October 21. Clithero, W.L., 1981. Realty Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Land Management--NPR-A, c/o U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, January 20, August 19, and September 15. Close, Carl, 1981. Assistant Director for State and Federal Programs, U.S Office of Surface Mining, Washington, D.C. Personal communication, August 25. Cronister, Lois, 1981. Realty Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, February ll. Gal, Bob, 1981. U.S. Bureau of Land Management--NPR-A , Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, February 12 and August 18. : Hughes,. Joan, 1981. Alaska Permit Information Center, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. Personal communication, August 26. 5-64 Hungarford, Stan, 1981. Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. Personal communication, February 12 and August 25. Joyce, Christopher R.,+1980. Final Federal Surface Mining Regulations, McGraw-Hill's Quick and Easy Guide. Lamoreaux, Bill, 1981. Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region xX, Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, February 17. Lowery, Doug, 1981. Regional Environmental Supervisor, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Northern Regional Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, August 27. Milke, Gary, 1981. Arctic Projects Review Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska. Letter, March 13, and personal communication, August 28. Murkowski, Frank, 1981. U.S.Senator. Letter to North Slope Borough Mayor Jacob Adams, July 23. Nasset, Bonnie, 1981. Chief of Water Permits, -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington. Personal communication, August 27. Nye, Raymond, 1981. Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region xX, Seattle, Washington. Personal communication, February 12 and 13, and August 27. Reeder, Larry, 1981. Chief of Enforcement Compliance Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, August 14. Reynolds, Pat, 1981. U.S. Bureau of Land Management--NPR-A, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, January 19. Rockwell, Ted, 1981. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, August 22 and 30. Smith, Mary Josie, 1981. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Technical Services Group, Washington, D.C. Personal communication, August 24. 5-65 Smith, Mary: Josie, 1982. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Technical Services Group, Washington, D.C. Personal communication> January 7. Smith, Murray, 1981. Ghief of Division of State and Federal Programs, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Denver, Colorado. Personal communication, August 20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, 1977. Alaska District Supplement to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program -- Guide for Applicants (EP 1145-2-1 dated November 1977). U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement OSM-IES-l1, Permanent Regulatory Program Implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Office of Surface Mining’ Reclamation and _ Enforcement, Washington, D.C. (January). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. A Guide to New Regulations for the NPDES Permit Program. Office of Water Enforcement (EN 335), Washington, D.C. (June). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment Guildelines for New Source Surface Coal Mines. Office of Environmental Review (EPA- 130/6-79-005), Washington, D.C. (December). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual (October). Wolf, Wendy, 1981. Planner 4, Office of the Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning, Juneau, Alaska. Personal communication, August 24 and September 2. Wolfe, M. James, 1981. Chief of Permit Processing Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. Personal communication, August 14, 17, 26 and 31. 5-66 6.0 MINE-MOUTH GENERATION The question of whether electrical generation and/or heating fluid reheating should take place at the mine mouth or at a location close to Wainwright has resolved itself by virtue of the fact, that the preferred mine location happens to be close to Wainwright. On account of residual stack emissions and a certain unavoidable incidence of coal dust, one would in any event propose siting a coalhandling and firing facility no closer than 1/2 mile from the village, and 1/2 mile happens to be the distance of the preferred site from the village. We have been informed by Mr. Leonard F. Nelson, engi- neering geologist with NSB, that it~ is proposed to construct a road from Wainwright village along the bluff overlooking the Wainwright Inlet (Kuk River) to a point about 2 miles short of drill area C, which is situated near the bank of the Kuk River about 8 miles South of Wainwright. In spite of this, drill area A-B close to Wainwright is still the preferred mine-site, for economic reasons alone. Aside from this the A-B site is more conveniently situated as a place to work. If the mine were located at drill-area C, the incline would be somewhat shorter at a saving of around $150,000. On the other hand, an additional two miles of road and a creek crossing would have to be constructed offsetting the above saving. In addition an 800 KW diesel generator would have to be provided. The capital cost would be further increased by the provision of a loader and a tipper truck since the mine haulers do not have the capa- city nor are they suited for road haulage. Altogether, the additional capital cost will be of the order of $1,000,000. The cost of transporting the coal from drill area C to a low-pressure boiler facility near the village would be in the order of $10.50 per. ton which would have to be added to the minemouth cost calculated for drill area A-B. Servicing of the additional capital will cost in the order of $80,000 per year which for a 10,000 ton pro- duction means additionally $8.00 per ton for a 5,000 ton production $16.00 per ton. The total extra cost of mining at drill area C would thus come to $18.50 per ton at 10,000 tons per annum and to $26.50 per ton at 5,000 tons per annum. 6-2 7.0 RECOMMENDATION AS TO MINE LOCATION AND MINING METHOD wae NE AEE LON AND MINING METHOD Having regard to the considerations mentioned in Section 6.0; it is recommended that mining takes place in drill area A-B 1/2 mile Northeast of Wainwright and that under- ground mining is carried out as described in Section 4.0. 7-1 8.0 8.0.1 ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE GENERATION General Remarks . The purpose of this part of the subject extension study is to investigate the suitability of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) electric generation in conjunction with a coal-fired liquid medium central heating system. One of the alternatives recommended for further study in the initial feasibility study was alternative A-II, which relies on low-pressure coal-fired heaters for reheating the liquid medium used for space heating. This alter- native provided for electric power to be generated by existing diesel electric generators. The Utilities Department of the N.S.B.° has expressed concern about a continued reliance on imported fuel oil for power generation and _ has requested that ORC- generation using coal as the prime energy source be investigated as an alternative to continued reliance on diesel generators to cover electric demand. Energy for the ORC-generators would be provided by a liquid medium with a temperature of 210°F heated in coal- fired low pressure heaters, the latter being of sufficient capacity to supply both electric and heating needs. 8-1 8.02 8.02.1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Annual costs were calculated for three makes of ORC machines on a similar basis to those given for Alternate A-II on Page 62 of the Initial Feasibility Study. The annual costs were based on prices given to us by equip- ment suppliers and on capital costs used in the Initial Feasibility Study on Page 54, increased where it seemed appropriate for changed conditions. The Ormat design has a good experience background, but its low price is offset by low efficiency and low net capability. The Rotoflow design has high efficiency, but this is off set by high price, the complication of a two- stage unit and the use of an inflammable fluid at over 500 psig as the working medium. The Mafi-Trench design is similar to Ormat's but their claimed efficiency is higher. Both Rotoflow and Mafi-Trench have had much less experience in package units. Cost calculations were made for various alternatives as shown in Sections 8.05.3.1 to 8.05.3.7., using two scenarios. Scenario A deals with the current situation, using the current cost of diesel fuel and the cost of coal forecast as a result of the completed mining study. Scenario III is one also used in the initial study and assumes hypothetical future costs of $ 5 per gallon for diesel fuel and $120 per ton for coal. Apart from the interim case, where bagged coal is used for direct home heating, alternative A-II shows the best economy in both scenarios. Of the three ORC makes, Rotoflow comes out best from the point of view of economy, but it is possible that Ormats greater experience with packaged units outweighs the difference in economy. 8-2 8.02.2 8.03 8.03.1 Recommendations It is recommended that ORC generation not be considered at this time because of its very high capital cost, $1,179 to $3,450 per KW, and low efficiencies, 8% to 14% for this application, hoth factors contributing to a high annual cost. Also, the experiénce background of ORC generation is very limited compared to that of Diesel, and therefore, there would be more risk involved with ORC. It is considered that conditions might change to make ORC generation desirable at some future time, consequently space might be provided to accommodate these machines, their auxiliaries, and the necessary additional boiler capacity and coal handling equipment. BASIS OF STUDY Temperature and Pressure Levels The study was based on the Operation of the heating system at a maximum temperature of 210°F with the idea of operating the boilers at 15 pounds per square inch gauge or.less. This pressure would be maintained on the heating liquid being circulated through the village by nitrogen gas above the liquid in the expansion tank as shown in Figure 8.1, "Study Flow Diagram." Higher pressures would allow operation of the system at higher temperatures, but resultant disadvantages do not, in our opinion, justify the accompanying advantages of higher operating efficiency of the ORC generators. 8-3 FLUID FLUID HEATER } ‘HEATER (COAL FIRED) (COAL FIRED) EXPANSION TANKS (PRESSURIZED WITH NITROGEN) HEATING FLUID HEATER (COAL FIRED), HEATING HEATING FROM BUILDING HEAT EXCHANGERS HEATING FLUID RETURN HEATING FLUID SUPPLY TO BUILDING HEAT EXCHANGERS ORC ELECTRICITY GENERATOR ORC ELECTRICITY GENERATOR HEATING FLUID CIRCULATING HEATING FLUID PUMPS TO ELECTRIC GENERATORS AIR COOLER FOR CONDENSER CIRCULATING FLUID (IF REQUIRED) FIGURE 8.1 ~ WAINWRIGHT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEATING WITH ORC ELECTRICITY GENERATION STUDY FLOW DIAGRAM ALTERNATE A-II-A The principal disadvantages of high temperature operation would be reduced safety, not only in the boiler and generator house, but also in all the homes and other buildings served by, the heating system because of the increased probability of leaks and burn injuries. For example, operating the system at a temperature of 250 F would require an operating pressure of about 20 psi gage (lo psi above the saturation pressure of 10 psi gage). +) A temperature of 300 F would require an operating pres- sure of about 55 psi gage. Hazards of high temperature hot water in homes and shops can be avoided by providing a heat exchanger at each point of use, each with a separate low pressure circulating system including pump and expansion tank. This additional equipment would greatly increase the cost of the heating system and would complicate its operation, both by the plant operators and by the individual users. A further complication of high temperature heating is the likelihood that the State of Alaska would require licensing of plant operators. Mr. R.D. Cather, Chief Engineer, Pressure Vessel Divi- sion, State of Alaska, was contacted by telephone on this matter. He said that. the State does not require opera- ting licenses of heating boilers at present, nor would continuous presence of operators be required if proper automatic controls were applied. We believe that this could change if heating boilers are operated at high temperatures. Further, the two most competitive ORC generator manufac- turers, Rotoflow and Mafi-trench were reluctant to work up designs for more than one liquid supply temperature +)glycol/water mixture 8-5 8.03.2 8.03.3 8.03.4 because different temperatures usually require different working fluids. Therefore, it was agreed that one tem- perature, 210 F would be acceptable. In the meantime, however, all our carrespondence with Ormat has been on. the basis of 248 F supply temperature. So their proposal was based on 248 F. Discussion with other manufacturers indicated that reducing supply temperature from 248 F to 210 F would cause a loss of efficiency of less than 2 percentage points. Capital Costs In line with "Capital Costs" of page 50, Section 7.01 of the feasibility study of July 31, 1980, capital costs of new equipment were figured on a 1980 basis in order to be comparable. The costs of new boilers were calculated at 80% of the 1981 costs on the advice of a representative of the boiler company. Costs of the ORC generators, how- ever, were not adjusted because the ongoing developments in this field make it difficult to estimate what a new design would have cost a year ago. Number of Units Proposed Because of back-up from the existing Diesel plant and because ORC generator is comparatively new, we considered purchased only two 300 KW machines initially. Annual Costs Annual costs were based on heating and electric load requirements as of December 31, 1982 (Initial Feasibility Study, Page 13, Section 3.02). 8.04 8.04.1 8.04.2 General DESCRIPTION OF ORC SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED As illustrated and described in Figure 8.2, the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) generator ‘is a relatively simple machine usually furnished as a packaged unit. Figure 8.2 is taken from an Ormat brochure and shows a liquid cooled condenser. The liquid is cooled by circulating it through a separate cooler. Circulating pump and separate cooler > are not shown. Many other makes of ORC generators use a direct air cooled condenser which is part of the package. The text of Figure 8.2 refers to an electric generator being connected to a synchronized grid; in other words, an induction type generator. At Wainwright, however, there is no frequency-regulated electric grid so the ORC generators will have to be of the synchronous type and governors will have to be provided on the prime movers, similar to the Diesel generators operating there. Figure 8.3, "Comparison of Responsive ORC Manufacturers" is a tabulation of the salient features of the offerings made by Ormat, Rotoflow, and Mafi-Trench. Other companies in this field contacted had no designs to match our needs and did not seem to be interested in this project. Ormat Turbines Ltd. Ormat Turbines, Ltd. of Yavne, Israel is probably the most experienced firm manufacturing ORC generators. They are represented in the USA by Swenson Division of Whiting Corporation, Harvey, Illinois. We had been in touch with these people since last September and wrote them March 27, 1981 asking for more specific information. Receiving 8-7 FIGURE 8.2 How the Ormat Energy Converter Works The ORMAT Energy Converter (OEC) is a self-contained, fully automatic equipment package. Like the steam turbine, the system is based on the Rankine power cycle but uses the advantages that an organic working fluid has at low temperatures. Properly selected organic fluids result in the use of smaller, more efficient turbines, eliminate the need for superheaters, and permit the application of sealed units, similar to refrigeration compressors, which require little maintenance other than periodic cleaning of heat exchanger surfaces. The working fluid is vaporized by the waste heat in a vaporizer or boiler, specially selected for your waste heat stream. The pressurized vapor expands through a uniquelly selected, organic vapor turbine which is direct coupled to a generator producing conditioned, grid synchronized electric power. The low pressure turbine exhaust is condensed in a surface type condenser and the condensed fluid is pumped to the vaporizer by the feed pump. The system is normally operated in parallel with the process stream and fully regulated, with a control system designed to maintain the integrity of your process. Tree eran oronahar a) Baueee SA's Ail alban bisal da S no reply, we phoned them on May 4, 1981 and learned that their contract with Ormat restricts them to waste heat applications. This required us to deal directly with the factory in Israel, but it also made it possible to pur- chase their equipment outright instead of on a monthly leasing contract under which Whiting Corp. would have participated in the savings attributable to the unit. We sent a telex to Ormat Israel May 8, 1981 requesting detailed information, following up with another telex on June 4th and a letter on June llth. The information requested arrived by telex June 21, 1981. Unfortunately, it was based on 248°F liquid inlet temperature and induc- tion type. generators. As of July 24, 1981, Ormat has not responded to the more detailed request for information contained in our June llth letter. The Ormat Turbines uses Freon 12 as the working fluid, which is relatively safe, and readily available. Maximum working pressure, based on data from Mafi-Trench would be about 300 psig. As mentioned in 8.04.1 above, the Ormat units require separate condenser cooling equipment which is not included as part of their package. Because of the diffi- culty of communicating with them, we have not yet received complete information on their cooling require- ments. On the basis of the information we do have, how- ever, we obtained estimates from two cooling apparatus manufacturers and used the lower of the two. The cooling apparatus not only significantly increases the capital costs of the Ormat machine, it also uses a substantial amount of electricity, thereby increasing operating costs and reducing net capability. 8-9 8.04.3 Rotoflow Corporation Rotoflow Corporation of Los Angeles, California are the second oldest of the three responsive manufacturers. Usually they furnish only the turbine-generator, coupled together through a reduction gear. For this project, how- ever, they are proposing to furnish complete packages, consisting of turbine-expander (which they manufacture), reduction gear, synchronous generator, exciter, Woodward governor, lube oil pump, feed pump, evaporator-boiler, air fan condenser; everything needed except electrical switch-gear. Packages will be assembled on steel skids. Rotoflow. proposes compound machines each 300 KW unit consisting of a high pressure turbine generator of about 150 KW and a low pressure turbine generator of about 150 KW which receives the exhaust of the high pressure tur- bine. This arrangement provides better efficiency by allowing an overall greater pressure drop of the working fluid. The high pressure stage would exhaust at 68 F, the low pressure at -34 F. This means that full capability of the two stage machines would be possible only at outdoor tem- perature below about -45 F. At 0° outdoors, capability would be cut about one-third. Efficiency would also be reduced somewhat. During the summer, when electric loads are light, the low pressure machines could be shut down. Working fluid would be propylene with a working pressure of 525 psig at rated load. 8-10 8.04.4 8.04.5 Mafi-Trench Corporation Mafi-Trench Corporation of Westlake Village, California (a suburb of Los Angeles) usually furnish only the tur- bine, reduction gear and generator with lube oil pump. For this project, however, they propose to furnish two complete packages, including ‘air-cooled condensers, assembled on steel skids. Switchgear and motor starters are not included in their package. Mafi-Trench offers 2 machines, single stage, similar to the Ormat units. Also, like the Ormat, they would use Freon 12 as the working fluid, but the condensers would include air fan coolers similar to those of Rotoflow. Their package would be on 6 skids. Switchgear is included in their price. Barber-Nichols Engineering Company Barber-Nichols Engineering Company, Arvada, Colorado, was sent a Jetter dated April 2, 1981. No reply having been received, they were contacted by telephone on May ll, 1981. We were told that they were busy and had no designs in the neighborhood of 300 KW size, but could design one to sell between $300,000 and $400,000. Being already in touch with two companies in Los Angeles offering machines at lower prices, we did not ask them to work up a design. We later learned that these machines lacked boilers, condensers, and auxiliaries. 8-11 8.04.6 8.04.7 8.05 8.05.1 Mechanical Technology, Inc. Mechanical Technology, Inc. (MTI), Schenectady, N.Y., has a 300 KW machine under development, but Mr. Don Elbert, MTI local representative, thought that it would cost about $2,600,000 and they had no definite schedule for manufacture. : Sundstrand Corporation Sundstrand Corporation, Rockford, I1l's local representa- tive, Mr. Burdette Olthoff, said that their machine is 750 KW in size, uses toluene as the working fluid and does not operate well at inlet heat supply temperatures lower than 600 F.; so this machine could not fit our needs at all. COSTS General Remarks Capital costs of ORC equipment were calculated based on information received from the three responsive manu- facturers. These costs are included in Figure 8.3, "Comparison of Responsive ORC Manufacturers." Estimated costs of switchgear were added to make ORC costs comparable with existing Diesel plant costs. Additional costs were needed for the Ormat machines because they would be shipped from Israel and require separate condenser cooling equipment. This additional equipment requires additional energy which has to be deducted from the Ormat generator output. On the other 8-12 hand, Ormat included two weeks of free service (Rotoflow and Mafi-Trench did not); so estimated costs of this service were added to Rotoflow and Mafi-Trench's figures. Annual costs were calculated on the basis of data given in the Initial Feasibility Study for 1982. 8-13 8. 9. 10. 1l. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. FIGURE 8.3 COMPARISON OF RESPONSIVE ORC MANUFACTURERS Factory Location and FOB Point Simple or Campound Cycle Nominal Output, Kilowatts Condenser Cooling Meduim Extra Auxiliary Power, KW Net Output, KW each Max Air Temp. for Ist Stage Condenser Cooling Working Fluid Overall Net Efficiency for 210 F. Inlet Fluid Generator Type Estim. Extra for Sync. Gen. and Governor, 2 Machines F.0.B. Price for 2.Machines Extra Shipping Cost Separate Cooler and Cir. Pumps ‘wo-weeks' Service-Fstimate Quote Valid Until Shipment Switchgear Estimated Cost Total Estimated Cost, F.O.B., L.A. Cost Per Net KW 8-14 ORMAT Israel Simple 300 Liquid 40 260 Not Applic. Freon 12 8.0% approx. Induction $40,000 $768,500 $8 ,000 $177,200 Included 8-31-81 8-10 Mos. $27,930 $1,021,630 $1,970 BOTOFLOW Los Angeles Canpound 170 + 180 Air 50 300 -35 F. Propylene 13.5% Synchronous Included $2,024,300 Not Needed $20,000 10 Mos. $29 ,660 $2,070,960 $3,450 MAFI~TRENCH Westlake Vlg. CA Simple 335 Air 70 265 Not Applic. Freon 12 10% approx. Synchronous Included $1,673 ,590 Not Needed $20,000 Not Stated Included $1,693,590 $3,160 8.05.3 Annual Costs Summary In the following pages calculations of total annual costs alternatives are shown, as summarized hereunder: » Scenario A Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 Coal per ton 3 $77 - 94 Annual Costs Scenario A III $1,000 $1,000 8.05.3.1 Base line case 2,192 4,890 8.05.3.2 Interim prov. of 635 1,022 coal to homes 8.05.3.3 A-II 1,387 1,892 8.05.3.4 A-II-A ; 1,737 2,229 with Ormat 8.05.3.5 A-II-A 1,692 2,059 with Rotoflow | 8.05.3.6 A-II-A 1,746 2,164 with Mafi-Trench 8.05.3.7 A-l 1,845 2,260 8.05.3.8 A-2 1,969 2,653 These annual costs will be discussed in the following section 9.0. 8-15 for various III $ 5.00 $120 Capital Costs excl. mine $1,000 500 834 7,342 10,356 11,221 11,051 10,480 9,241 8.05.3.1. Annual Cost Base-line case Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) Total capital costs Annual Costs Scenario Diesel fuel oil per gallon Fixed Costs Interest on bonds (8% ony capital costs) Retirement of capital (25 years - 4% p.a.) Operating Costs Labor Fuel oil 915,000 gal. Maintenance, spares etc. Total annual costs $2.15 20 ,000 20,000 160,000 1,967,250 ___251000 2,192,250 8-16 $- 500,000 $_ 500,000 IIt $ 5.00 $ Per Annum 20 ,000 20,000 240 ,000 4,575,000 ___35,000 4,890 ,000 8.05.3.2 Annual Costs Interim provision of coal to home owners Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) $- 500,000 Capital cost of house installations 334,000 assumed @ $2000 per house pending campletion of task 6, 167 houses ‘Total capital costs $ 834,000 Annual Costs Scenario A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (production 2,200 tons p.a) $ 100 $ 120 Fixed Costs Interest on bonds 33,360 33,360 (8% onl4capital costs) Retirement of capital 33,360 33,360 (25 years - 4% p.a.) Operating Costs Labor 80 ,000 100,000 Coal 2200 tons 220,000 264,000 Fuel oil 106,250 gal. 228 ,440 531,250 Maintenance, spares etc. 40 ,000 ___ 60,000 Total -amount cost 635,160 1,021,970 8-17 8.05.3.3 Annual Costs Alternative’ A-II Capital cost of plant and distribution system + $ 5,979,010 Capital cost of house , 863,000 installations Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) $ 500,000 Total capital requirement $ 7,342,010 Annual Costs Scenario ~ A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (annual prod. 4,000 tons) $ 94 $ 120.00 Fixed Costs , $_Per Annum Interest on bonds 293 ,680 293 ,680 (8% on capital costs) Retirement of capital 293 ,680 293 ,680 (25 years - 4% p.a.) Operating Costs Labor - 160,000 240,000 Coal 3947 tons 371,000 473,640 Oil fuel 106,250 gal. 228 ,450 * 531,250 Maintenance, spares etc. 40,000 “60,000 Total annual costs 1,386,810 1,892,250 8-18 8.05.3.4 Annual Costs Alternative A-II-A with Ormat Capital cost of plant and distribution system ‘ $ 8,992,810 Capital cost of home $ 863,000 installations Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) 500 ,000 Total capital requirement $10,335,810 Annual Costs Scenario : A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (annual prod. 8,757 tons) $ 77.00 $120.00 Fixed Costs $ Per Annum Interest on bonds 414,230 414,230 (8% onl4 capital costs) Retirement of capital 414,230 414,230 (25 years - 4% p.a.) Operating Costs Labor 160,000 240,000 Coal 8,757 tons 674,290 1,050,840 Oil fuel (standby) 2,000 g. 4,300 _ 10,000 Maintenance, spares etc. 70,000 100,000 Total annual costs 1,737,050 2,229,300 8-19 8.05.3.5 Annual Costs Note: Alternative A-II-A with Rotoflow Capital cost of plant and distribution system Capital cost of house . installations Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) Total capital requirement Annual Costs $ 9,848,210 $ 863,000 $___ 500,000 $ 11,211,210 III $ 5.00 $120.00 448 ,450 Scenario A Diesel fuel oil per gallon $2.15 Coal per ton (annual prod. 6.722) $84.00 Fixed Costs : $ Per Annum Interest on bonds (8% onl4capital costs) 448 ,450 Retirement of capital 448,450 (25 years - 4% p.a.) Operating Costs Labor 160,000 Coal 6,722 tons 564 ,648 Oil fuel (standby) 5,000 g 10,750 Maintenance, spares etc. 60,000 Total annual costs 1,692,298 448,450 240,000 806,640 25,000 ee) 2,058,540 due to lower capacity and efficiency when temperatures and exceed -45F above figures for operating costs are undertated. 8-20 8.05.3.6 Annual Costs Alternative A-II-A with Mafi-Trench Capital cost of plant and distribution system $ 9,687,760 Capital cost of house installations $ 863,000 Capital cost of existing diesel generating plant (assumed) $ 500,000 Total capital requirement $11,050,760 Annual Costs Scenario A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (annual prod. 7.747) $ 81.00 $120.00 Fixed Costs $ Per Annum Interest on bonds : (8% onl4 capital costs) 442,030 442,030 Retirement of capital (25 years - 4% p.a.) 442,030 442,030 Operating Costs Labor 160,000 240 ,000 Coal 7,747 tons 627,500 929 ,640 Oil fuel (standby) 2,000 g 4,300 10 ,000 Maintenance, spares etc. 70 ,000 ~ 100,000 Total annual costs 1,745 ,860 2,163 ,700 8-21 8.05.3.7 Annual Costs Alternative A-1 Capital cost of plant * and distribution systen $ 8,916,710 Capital cost of house installations ; $ 863,000 Labor training program $ 699,750 Total capital requirement $10,479,460 Annua! Costs Scenario ~ A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (annual prod. 5850 tons) $ 90.00 $120.00 Fixed Costs $_Per Annum Interest on bonds (8% on¥ycapital costs) 419,180 419 ,180 Retirement of capital (25 years - 4% p.a.) 419,180 419 ,180 Operating Costs Labor 400,400 600,000 Coal 5850 tons 526,500 702,000 Maintenance, spares etc. 80 ,000 120,000 Total annual costs 1,845,260 2,260,360 8.05.3.8 Annual Costs Alternative A-2 Capital cost of plant . and distribution systen $ 8,304,480 Capital cost of house installations : $ 237,375 Labor training .program $ 699,750 ‘Total capital requirement $ 9,241,605 Annual Costs Scenario A III Diesel fuel oil per gallon $ 2.15 $ 5.00 Coal per ton (annual prod. 9,450 tons) $75.00 $120.00 Fixed Costs $ Per Annum Interest on bonds (8% onl4 capital costs) 369,664 369,664 Retirement of capital (25 years - 4% p.a.) 369 ,664 369 ,664 Operating Costs Labor 400,400 600,000 Coal 9,450 tons 708 ,750 1,134,000 Maintenance, spares etc. 120,000 - 180,000 Total annual costs 1,968,478 2,653,328 9.0 9.01 General INTERIM MEASURES At an early stage in the initial study it was recognized, that there may be a desire to ‘implement early interim measures to reduce as quickly as possible the cost of domestic space heating without waiting for possible long term central district heating plans to mature. Task 6 in the current study provides for investigating the cost and benefits of dual fuel furnaces or stoves for home heating. In Section 12 dealing with a conceptual plan for the recommended system, a ‘phasing plan is described which would accommodate the earliest possible development of the mine, based on the coal extraction at the rate of 20 tons per family per annum. Such permits could be obtained without having to wait for a congressional waiver as would be the case for the "commercial" use of coal, reference page 5-6, Volume l. As will be apparent from Section 10.0 following, there is at this time no conclusion as to what the views of the village people are on the question on interim use of coal for direct firing in the homes. If the- hurdle of a congressional waiver is passed reasonably expeditiously, as now appears might be the case, indications are, that few people would want to go to the expense of installing equipment for the interim use of coal only to see it obsolete within 1 or 2 years. 9-1 9.02 Interim House Installations Numerous manufacturers, many of whom offer a variety of models, sizes and features, are in the market of multi- fuel and add-on furnaces today. However, only a limited number of these can be expected to be suitably supplied and serviced in Alaska due to the area's remoteness and the market's limited size. By a survey, which does not claim to be complete, the following makes were found to be available in Alaska and the suppliers reasonably believed to have the necessary service capability: a. PRILL's, distributed by PMC Corporation, Sheridan, WY. b. CWO-B and CWF, distributed by Duomatic/Olsen, Inc., Park Forest South, IL. c. YUKON, distributed by Yukon Industries, Minneapolis, MN. d. BUDERUS, distributed by Envirotherm, Bingham, NY. e. HS-TARM, distributed by Tekton Corporation, Conway, MA. f. Various stoves. The houses in Wainwright may very roughly be divided into three main groups, which each requires a different type of stove or furnace: 1. Old and small houses, primarily with one room only, which will require the installation of a centrally placed coal stove. 9-2 “Houses with more rooms heated by means of an oil burner and a forced-air system. These will require the installation of an add-on coal furnace or a multi fuel furnace, _ designed to serve a forced-air. distribution system. Houses with more rooms heated by means of an oil burner and a water/glycol system. These will require installation of an add-on coal furnace or a multifuel furnace, designed for the water/glycol distribution system. It can be set as a main guideline, that new houses be equipped with multifuel furnaces and that existing houses with oil burners in good conditions be equipped with add- on coal furnaces. Following is a very short description with advantages and disadvantages of the different makes. Prices and cost estimates are given in round figures and are approximate. 9-3 Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: Prices: PRILLS' Hopper or bin feed self-cleaning coal furnaces. 100,000 BTU/h and 200,000 BTU/h (based on 10,000 BTU/1b coal), i.e. output 10-15% less for Wainwright. Coal and biomass. Forced air. Uses sub-bituminous coal, lignite and bio-mass. Large space requirement. Mechanical parts in feeders susceptible to wear and breakdown. Feeder stop will shut down the furnace. Retail, Anchorage $2,600-2,9 Freight, Anchorage-Wainwright $ 500- 700 Installation $1,500-2,5' | Total $4,600-6,1 ) Priut fl LL MODELS 100 and 200 acme HOPPER STOKERS PHONE 307—672-5801 DRAWERS SHERIDAN, WYOMING 82801 STOKER FIRING RING ‘O’ FIRE BIO MASS FUEL or STOKER COAL NO CLINKERS PMC burner head with rotating ring is the heart of the unit. The design controls combustion for more even heat production. Ash falls evenly off the outer edge of the ring, eliminating clinker build- up, as fresh fuel is pushed up through the center of the head. e PRILL’S UNIQUE BURNER HEAD DESIGN ALLOWS EVEN, CONTROLLED COMBUSTION. NO FIRE BRICK REQUIRED. e NO MORE MESSY CLINKER REMOVAL—PRILL’S BURNER HEAD DESIGN AND ROTATING RING PREVENTS CLINKER FORMATION. @ LIGHT ONCE AND FORGET IT—HOLD FIRE TIMER ASSURES A LIVE BED OF COALS AND INSTANT HEAT WHEN NEEDED. e ENJOY THE WARMTH AND COMFORT OF COAL HEAT OR BIO MASS FUEL.* e COAL & BIO MASS FUEL IS THE ONLY ECONO- MICAL FUEL AVAILABLE—SAVE AS MUCH .AS 50% OVER OTHER FUELS. e@ AUTOMATIC HEAT IN A SINGLE PACKAGE. * Bio Mass Fuel — All vegetative material in pellet form. NOTE: FOR USE WITH SUB-BITUMINOUS, LIGNITE COAL AND BIO MASS FUEL. ROTATING RING BURNER HEAD Ko Oo -TRANSMISSION EL : 2 A B Cc DB E F G H MODEL 100 43% 10% 16 14%" 22% 22 12 16% MODEL 200 44 10% 20 14%" 22% 26% 16 17% MODEL 200 - Long Nose -* 38 44% * Dimensions C and F will vary with nosing length. MODELS 100H 200H Minimum Fire Box Diameter 18” 20" Size 12” 14” Stoker Motor H.P. Ya Ya Flue Size 6 8 *Lbs. Coal Fed Per Hour-Max. 16 30 Hopper Capacity 280-Lb. Coal — 212-Lb. BM 340-Lb. Coal — 258-Lb. BM Type Vent Required All Fuel All Fuel Recommended Height of Chimney Above Roof Peak 30” 30” Approximate Shipping Wt. 260 Ibs. 321 Ibs. (Specifications subject to change without notice) No Electronic Control Panel Included (Stoker Relay Timer) Voltage-110V * Coal Feed Varies With Different Types of Stoker Coal or Bio Mass Fuel. Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: Prices: CWO-B Automatic multi-fuel furnace. 112,000 - 151,000 BTU/h, when operated on oil Coal, wood and gas or oil. Forced air. Dual combustion chambers with dual thermostatic controls. Complete system, i.e. for new construction, primarily. No built-in hot water capacity Retail, Anchorage $2,800 Freight, Anchorage-Wainwright $ 700 Installation $1,500-2,500 Total $5,000-6,000 Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: Prices: CWF Automatic solid-fuel add-on furnace 120,000 BTU. Coal and wood. Forced air. Add-on to existing forced-air furnace. Thermostatic control. No built-in hot water supply. Retail, Anchorage: $1,300 Freight, Anchorage-Wainwright $ 400 Installation $1,500-2,5(~ Total $3,600-4,209 DUO-MATIC This side This side burns burns wood gas or & coal oil Blower Section assembles on Right or. Left Hand Side of Heat Exchanger. Heavy Duty welded construction 7" diameter Flue Pipe Regular size spun glass : Fire Brick—Solid fuel Disposable Filters: side lined with 2%" thick heavy duty Fire Brick rated for up to 3000°F One piece air tight: Doors Cast Iron Grates— Heavy duty Cast Iron Grates can be used for wood or coal burning application. Shaker handle included. Flame Retention Head Oil Burner with burner mounted oil safety relay iber Ceramic Chamber in regular fuel section for greater efficiency Gi Quality built to last. Certified byC.SA. Ash Pit Door— Easy access to convenient removable ash pan. High capacity Twin Blower CWO ° B —The combination coal-wood-gas & oil DUO-MATIC forced air furnace which can pay for itself. pay MULTI -FUEL FURNACES Features: ¢ Dual combustion chambers ¢ Dual thermostatic controls ¢ Quiet, The Largest Selling Multi-Fuel dependable operation ¢ Your choice of fuels e Money SAVINGS! Furnace in North America. Gm CWO-B SERIES Burns wood and coal, gas or oil. Dine CWO-B SERIES Furnace Specifications A =Depth 48," B =Width 4414,” C .=Blower Section Height 451,” D+F=Hot Air Plenum 24 x 461%" E+F=Cold Air Plenum 161% x 4614” G_ =Blower Section Width 1814" H_ =Furnace Section Width 26” | =Furnace Section Height 511/,” J =Flue Pipe Dia. 7” K__=Flue Pipe to Centre Furnace Section 13” L_ =Flue Pipe to Centre From Floor 3534” REAR VIEW TOP VIEW ~ FRONT VIEW Specifications MODEL CWO-B 112 CWO-B 140 BTU Bonnet 112,000 123,000 134,000 140,000 151,000 Nozzle 1.00 - 80 1.10- 80 1.20-70 1.25-70 1.35 - 70 Comb. Chamber 2FA 2FA 2FA 2FA 2FA Air Filters 2-16 x24 2-16x 24 2-16x 24 2-16x 24 2-16x24 Ex. Static 20 .20 .20 .20 20 Blower CFM 1,200 1,320 1,440 1,500 1,625 Blower Make DELHI LAU___ DELHI LAU {DELHI LAU DELHI LAU DELHI LAU Motor Pulley 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turns Open 2 2 0 0 1 1 % % oO oO Blower Pulley 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 Motor H.P. % % % % % % % % % % Blower Size G9-2 2A9-9AC G9-2 2A9-9AC}] G9-2 2A9-9AC G9-2 2A9-9AC G9-2 2A9-9AC twin twin twin twin twin twin twin twin twin twin Shipping Weight 970 970 970 970 970 SHIPPING INFORMATION: Your furnace is packed in 7 pieces. 1. Furnace heat exchanger, complete with fire and ash pit doors, ash pan, grate bars, burner mounting plate, fibre oil combustion chamber, panels including heat exchanger spacer panel, pokers, brick guard, brick shims and brick retainers. 2. Blower section (can be mounted left or right hand) complete with blower, miscellaneous parts bag, filters and centre panel for heat exchanger section. 3. (a) Burner with flame retention head and oil combustion safety control. (b) Field wiring junction box with transformer, solid fuel relay, blower wiring harness, burner cable and fan limit control with support. (c) Belt and pulleys. (d) Solid fuel damper motor. (e) Thermostats for solid fuel and oil. (f) Smoke baffle tool. (g) Blower motor. (h) Draft regulator. (i) Shaker handle. 4, 5 and 6. Three cartons containing a total of 30 firebricks. *U.S. shipments are made up of 7 pieces. The burner with primary relay, blower motor, belt and pulleys are packed in a separate carton. SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. Duo-Matic/Olsen, Inc. 2510 Bond Street Park Forest South, IL 60466 Ccwo-r7Ar 12M BTO Furnace “JO47 Ye OMA) oe 4 cor iases DUO-MATIC) 496 Alc HORAGE ‘worrying about shortages Spiralling prices . ... install a ei Matic. coal.and wood burning furnace. : ~ a Burns either wood or coal, for convenience and economy. Regular size spun glass dispos- Heavy duty welded con- able filters. “struction. Optional Blower Section assem- bles on right or left hand side of heat exchanger. Secondary heat exchanger to - extract the maximum amount ~ of heat.: Firedoor and combustion chamber with the capaci- ty to burn 18” logs. = 7" diameter flue pipe. Fire Brick. Lined with thick heavy duty Fire Brick Optional high capacity rated for up to 3000° F. blower Cast Iron Grates—heavy duty cast iron grates for wood or coal burning application. Shaker handle included. @: Quality built to last. Certified byC. SA. Ash pit door—easy ac- cess to convenient re- movable ash pan. air furnace, or install as a free-standing : * FURNACES solid fuel furnace. CWF —Add on to your present warm < ra MULTI -FUEL DUO-MATIC Even heat distribution » Automatic thermostat controls « The Largest Selling Muilti-Fuel Furnace in North America. emCu . SERED Burns wood or coal. _ x - Specifications and Dimensions for Ont Furnace “|e Dimensions: A=Furnace section height 52%". B=Blower section height 30%". C=Fuinace section depth 33%". Ox F=Hot air plenum 24%"w x 314". ee section width| FRONT VIEW TOP VIEW REAR VIEW er ower section width Specifications: l eo ee aan plenum: A ; cai J=Blower section depth 20” ® Solid fuel combustion chamber: Fire brick lined © Flue outlet: 7" ¢ Blower motor: % HP. K=Flue pipe dia. 7". with cast iron grates. Size: 18" x 17"x 14” » Blower: CFM-1000 ¢ Blower: 9" wheel type. L=Flue pipe to center Firing Door: 16%" x 1312". Ex. Static: 20 « Air filter: 1 20" x 20". furnace section 13%". e lnnuiated Cabinet: Foil faced mineral fibers. © B.T.U.: Estimated max. 120,000. M=Flue pipe to center e Shipping weight: Complete 625 Ibs. from floor 341%”. Suggested Wood ADD-ON Duct Installation WARM AIR oe ap RUNS yee BAFFLE CONVERT BLOWER PULLEY 9° TO 8" ! ¢ 10 z RETURN 6 Tos AIR CONVERT BLOWER MOTOR NOTE: Original furnace Ye HP TO “3 HP a must be capable of providing a minimum o' WEP TOM MP 1000 CFM across the Ye HP TO % HP CWF Heat Exchanger. OIL. GASOR Optional blower available. ELECTRIC IMPORTANT: Check and install according to local codes. a MePHERSON FURN. & Ed. 6721 Arctic Spur Rd. | ater Anchorage, AK 99502 |) mn ; | AVAILABLE FROM f’ DUO-MATIC - i; - qtlsen Intc. McPHERSON FURN. & EQ. CO, Duo-Matic/Olsen, Inc. i Anchorage, Alaska x 2510 Bond Street : ; (907) 274-7251 \ Park Forest South, IL 60466 : os Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: Prices: YUKON HUSKY and YUKON POLAR. Automatic multi-fuel furnace. 85,000 BTU/h - 168,000 BTU/h, when operated on oil. Coal, wood and gas or oil. Forced air. Dual combustion chambers and safety devices to protect against overheating. Complete system, i.e. for new construction primarily. No built- in hot water capacity. Retail, Anchorage: $2,500-2,800 Freight, Anchorage-Wainwright $ 500- 700 Installation $1,500-2 ,500 Total $4,500-6,000 9-13 Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: Prices: BUDERUS LOGANA 02.40. Solid fuel boiler 108,000 BTU/h - 160,000 BTU/h based on coal operation Coal and wood. Can be converted to burn oil or gas. Hot water/glycol May act as an add-on. Convertible to gas or oil. Able to provide hot water as well. One combustion chamber when operated as a dual fuel furnace. Retail, Anchorage: $2,000-2,600 Freight, Anchorage-Wainwright $ 400- 60( Installation $1,500-2,500 Total $3,900-5,700 9-14 cm - i as e - eae VORSods de © ic: 1. Yukon has up to 50% more heat exchanger surface than an ordinary furnace. Yukon Husky features 63 sq. ft. of heat exchanger surface; the - Polar has 81 sq. ft. Yukon engineers designed a secondary heat exchanger in the return-air section of the furnace so that heat normally escaping out the chimney is recycled back into the home. 2. The heavy welded-steel fire door seal firebox, yet offers easy access. Firedoor is insulated with cerawool and cerawool rope This quality insulation material provides th air-tight seal necessary for use witha thermostatically controlled draft. 3. A separate firing chamber for oil or gas is an important Yukon designed feature. The chamberis lined with Pyrolite®, an extremely high- temperature resistant ceramic material. It not only assures efficient combustion of oil or gas, but directs those flames into the wood-burning chamber for automatic ignition of the wood fire. 5. Yukon features the industry's best-quality furnace safety controls. The automatic system uses interlocking controls to help prevent overheating. 4. The After-Burner™ Jet System If the temperature passes a preset limit, extracts maximum BTU’s from the a Honeywell temperature sensor wood. Superheated air is introduced automatically signals the solid-state above the wood fire to ignite and controlled primary damper to shut down, extract heat from the unburned and also prevents gas or oil operation combustible gases. Without this until temperatures return to normal feature, up to 40% of the available range. Power failures automatically’ energy would be wasted. close draft to control fire. f-€ lly btitn Ff --sYst m LWO-112 HUSKY Wood/Coal/Oil KLONDIKE Wood/Coal The Yukon Husky is a combination fuel The Yukon Polar is Yukon’s largest furnace that can comfortably heat prop- capacity furnace which can comfort- erly insulated: homes up to 3,000 sq. ably heat properly insulated homes ft. Available in wood/coal/oil and wood/ up to 4,000 sq. ft. It features 22% more DIMENSIONS coal/gas. heat exchanger surface than the Husky. Available in wood ‘coal/oil and wood/coal/gas. o7——_—— E —— The Yukon Wood/Electric is a 20 KW The Yukon Klondike operates alone four-stage combination furnace which as an efficient woodburning furnace or HUSKY offers both the convenience of electricity can be used as an add-on in conjunc- POLAR "161%" and the economy of wood. Depending on tion with an existing oil, gas or electric MON EL 53”| 16”| 20” | 23%'| 8” | 50%" geographic location and proper ‘insula- furnace. The Klondike can comfort- 46"| 16'| 20°] 6” 50%" tion, this furnace can comfortably heat ably heat properly insulated homes up = homes up to 1,500 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. ~ SPECIFICATIONS HUSKY | HUSKY | HUSKY POLAR POLAR | | WOOD MODEL Lwoss | LwO100 | LWO112 | LwO151 | LWO 168 ELECTRIC KLONDIKE BTU Input 106,000 | 125,000 | 140,000 | 189,000 | 210,000 | 68,260 20 KW] 175,000 Max. Fuel Available in Wood/oil or Wood/gas | Wood/oil or Wood/gas | Wood/Electric Wood BTU Output 85,000 [| 100,000 | 112,000 151,000 | 168,000 68,260 131,000 Max. Nozzle T 75 (80H) | 90 (80H) | 1.00 (80H)| 1.35GPH]{ 1.5GPH N/A N/A | Blower Size 10"x 10" | 10”x 10” 10310" | 12"x 12" | 12"x 12" 10” x 10” 10” x 10” Motor Size 1/3 HP 1/3 HP 1/3 HP. 1/3 HP 1/3 HP 1/3 HP 1/3 HP Blower CFM 800-1400 | 800-1400 | 800-1400 | 1200-1800] 1200-1800} 800-1400 800-1400 Lining Firebrick | Firebrick | Firebrick | Firebrick | Firebrick Firebrick Firebrick Grates Castiron | Castiron | Castiron | Castiron | Castiron Cast iron Cast iron Wood Chamber | 24”x 16" | 24"x 16" | 24”x 16" | 24”x 18" | 24”x 18” 24" x 16" 24” x 16" Fire Door 10”x 10" | 10"x 10"| 10"x 10" [13%'x13%4"| 13%K13 72" 10” x 10" 10" x 10” 1 Field-installed | Air Filter 20x25x1_ | 20x25x1 | 20x25x1 | 20x25x1_| 20x25x1 in Plenum 20x25x1 Cabinet Insulated | Insulated ] Insulated | Insulated | Insulated Insulated Insulated 6. The optional cast iron Chimney Flue ae Available left or right outlet “shaker” grate for coal is extra Shipping Weight! 869 Ibs. _ 1,072 Ibs. 875ibs. | 720 Ibs. rugged to resist warping or sagging. _Heat Exchanger 63 sq. ft. 81 sq. ft. 58 sq. ft. 53 sq. ft. The Yukon grate lasts far longer than “Secondary ordinary rod’steel or welded-type grates. |_AirSystem | _ yes yes__| yes yes__| __yes enone aaa »Logana« 02.40 Buderus solid fuel boiler, convertible to oil and gas Boller block The Buderus »Logana« 02.40 is a cast iron sectional boiler. It is specially suitable for solid fuel firing. Conversion to oil or gas firing is possible. The wet base guarantees an even com- bustion without slag formation and allows good controlability. The boiler sections are hydrostatically tested in the factory at 2/2 times working pressure, the assembled section blocks at 1'/2 times working pressure. From the combustion chamber the hot gases pass to the flue gas channels. The ample dimensions of these channels largely prevent soot and fly-ash deposits and facilitate cleaning. The draft require- ment is particularly small. The loading door opening is generously dimensioned. A particularly large ash box is suited to the larger volume of ash from wood firing. Cleaning is done from the front, the flue gas channels being accessible from the loading, and the combustion chamber from the ash door. Practical handles on ash and loading door facilitate operation. Under the blue boiler jacket the complete boiler is covered with a high efficiency heat insulation. The individual parts of the boiler jacket are easy to assemble. Fuel Wood and coal. Convertible to light oil or gas firing. Adaptation for oil or gas firing The heating boiler can be adapted with conversion parts to oil and gas firing. Water connections Item Normal Connection size KV 2" Boiler flow KR 2” Boiler return SV 4" Safety flow SR ar Safety return EK - Boiler drain, fitted at the jobsite EF 3/6” Firing controller - Ya" Tapping for thermometer - 3/4” Tapping for temperatur control of oil/gas firing The ash door is replaced by a burner door, the burner hole can be drilled up to a maximum of 44 in. dia. 7 Oil and gas burner The burner flame must suit the dimen- sions of the combustion chamber. The burner head equipment specified by the manufacturer must be used. For burner type and size consult your dealer. Control For solid fuel firing the boiler is con- trolled by a firing controller. For oil and gas firing a limit control and a thermometer are fitted at the jobsite. Chimney connection The chimney should be dimensioned to suit the boiler rating and draft require- ments taking into consideration the site conditions and the appropriate technical rules. Particular attention should also be given to the variation of flue-gas volumes when different fuels are used. Operating characteristics Hot water up to 230°F and 58 psi pres- sure. A.S.M.E. Annroved Short description of boiler (Standard equipment) Sectional cast iron heating boiler with wet base. Flue box with damper and damper positioner, loading door, ash door with damper, deep ash pan, threaded flanges for boiler flow and return, cleaning brushes, firing controller, operating and assembly instructions. Blue boiler jacket and heat insulation. Installation package, pressure relief valve, . over heat control, boiler thermometer, warranty. Delivery and packing 1 Skid: Boiler block with doors. Flue box, ash pan, cleaning brushes, firing controller, joints, assembly and operating instruc- tions (packed in combustion chamber). 1 Cardboard box: Boiler jacket with insulation and brush handle. 1 Cardboard box: Installation package, pressure relief valve, over heat control, boiler thermometer, warranty. Optional equipment (when ordered) separately packed: - Fuel conversion parts for oil or gas firing (size to be stipulated). - Rake and poker (solid fuel). »Logana« 02.40 194% 15%"... Boiler Boiler Com- Fuel Water Chimney Draft Fiue con- Net Net ratings with size length bustion volume contents requirements nection weight coal, oil harg. chamber approx. approx. i i i approx. : 7 Lx length T Solid fuel Oil/Gas dia. Dy Pp gas . wood in. in. US gal. US gal. in WC in. Ibs. BTU/Hr. BTU/Hr. 27 23 19% 20 8% 0,040 7 620 108.000 96.000 35 27 23% 25 10 0,048 7 706 140.000 125.000 40 MA 31% 33 12% 0,052 7 876 160.000 145.000 *) Hardwood, such as birch, oak, maple, etc. With pine, spruce and similar woods reduced ratings. Larger styles available up to 300,000 BTU. “ envirotherm, INC. Box 428 © Binghamton # New York 13902 Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: HS-TARM TYPE OT Automatic multi-fuel furnace. 112,000 BTU/h - 280,000 BTU/h when operated on oil. Coal, wood, electricity and gas or oil. Hot water/glycol. Dual combustion chambers and automatic protection against overheating. Built-in hot water supply. Complete system, i.e. for new construction primarily. ‘ 9-19 Make: Description: Range: Fuel: Distribution System: Advantages: Disadvantages: HS-TARM TYPE MB-SOLO Solid fuel boiler. 72,000 BTU/h - 180,000 BTU/h when operated on wood. : Coal and wood. Can be converted to operate on oil or gas. Hot water/glycol. May act as an add-on. Convertible to gas or oil Built-in hot water supply. One combustion chamber, when operated as a dual-fuel furnace. 9-20 Lal G oT Ri atl Boiler General Information The HS Tarm Type OT is a new energy-conserving steel plate boiler for modern residential hydronic heating and domestic hot water supply. The Type OT boiler is manufactured in Denmark, a country known throughout the world for its excellent heating products. Designed primarily for efficiency and flexibility, the Type OT provides heat and hot water year ‘round from a variety of fuels. Wood can be used in combination with oil, gas, or electricity. On the left side of the Type OT is the com- bustion chamber for oil or gas, and on the right, a large firebox for wood. The three center tappings are for the op- tional installation of electrical heating elements. An auto- matic draft regulator controls the wood fire. Should the wood fire die down or be allowed to go out, the control system automatically switches on the back-up unit — oil, gas, or electric — to maintain boiler temperature. In addi- tion, the Type OT can be supplied with shaker grates for burning coal or coke. Combustion The large firebox employs a base-burning arrangement to maximize efficiency. As wood is heated in any fire, it emits gases, which, when burned, yield heat. When they are not burned they can represent a significant loss of efficiency. In a boiler they can also cause tar-like deposits commonly called creosote. These deposits are formed by the condensation of some flue gases when they are cooled. The Type OT’s base-burning principle encourages burning of these gases. Much of the smoke leaves the firebox at its base, where flammable gases are drawn over the fire’s hot coals. Additional air for this combustion is provided by the secondary air inlet in the upper door of the firebox. Due to the fact that the wood firebox is sur- rounded by water, the firebox walls are maintained at a relatively cool (200°F.) temperature. The low temperature of these walls precludes the use of wood at a moisture content of greater than 20%. Use of such “green” wood will result in poor burning and excessive formation of creosote and soot. Well-seasoned wood is required for proper boiler operation. A flap-like damper (‘‘A” in the cross section drawings) controls the relative amount of smoke leaving the top and bottom of the firebox. The damper is operated through the cleaning door in the center of the boiler. When the damper is in the vertical position, much of the smoke will be drawn out at the base. Poor chimney draft conditions and some fuels require an intermediate damper position, which causes a greater proportion of smoke to leave from the top of the firebox. An oil or gas burner works well with the damper in the vertical or an intermediate position. When an oil or gas burner is used exclusively, as in the summer, the damper should be in the horizontal position. This will slightly increase efficiency by causing the flue gases to travel a longer path through the solid-fuel fire box before leaving the boiler. The oil-gas combustion chamber is similar to that of other modern boilers. It is surrounded by water on all sides, in- cluding the bottom. This “‘wet base” design allows for greater heat transfer to the water. Equipped with a flame retention oil burner, this boiler will operate at an efficien- cy of up to 84%. . Domestic Hot Water OT boilers have a tankless system for the production of domestic hot water. They can supply ample hot water for large homes with several bathrooms. The tankless coil is %," copper tubing and can convert the entire output of the boiler to hot domestic water. Controls & Accessories HS Tarm Type OT boilers are manufactured for use with standard American central hot water heating systems. All threaded tappings accept standard American controls and equipment. All boilers are supplied with the following: —Automatic draft regulator for the wood fire —Cast iron grates —Cleaning tools — Built-in glass-lined tank for domestic hot water —Insulated jacket with orange-red baked enamel finish —ASME pressure relief valve for boiler —ASME pressure relief valve for hot water coil —High limit (overheat) control In addition, a complete package of controls and accessories including an oil or gas burner is available with the boiler. The boiler body is shipped on a pallet and has a lifting ring on top for ease of handling. The jacket and controls are packaged separately from the boiler body. Construction The steel plate used in the Type OT boiler is unusually heavy. All plate that is exposed to flue gasses is over 14" in thickness. Insulation fully lines the jacket, which is finished in an attractive orange-red baked enamel. 5-Year Limited Warranty This boiler has a limited warranty, a copy of which is provided with the boiler and is available from your dealer. For specific information in connection with the OT Series boilers, read the OPERATING AND INSTRUCTION MANUAL that accompanies the boiler and is available from your dealer. NORTHEAT woop STOVES, aa Ss ificati 1306 Chugach Way ecitications Anchorage, AK 9 oi (907 oe — CROSS SECTION TYPE OT-35S aN 0 Ss Gross Output—Oil Gross Output—Wood 72,000 | 112,000 Max. Hot Water Output Output with 3 Elect. Heaters Width (B) Depth Length of Wood Chamber Width of Wood Chamber Wood Loading Door Height up to Middle of Flue Outlet (H) Distance (C) 1 Return 2 Flow 4 Tapping Triple Hot Water Control 5 Tapping for Tridicator 10 Extra Tapping 11 Flue Outlet (Outer Diam.) (D) 14 Hot Domestic Water 15 Cold Domestic Water Supply 16 Extra Tapping 18 Boiler Dratn Tapping 20 Tapping for Draft Regulator 21 Vent Tapping 22 Electric Element Tapping Water Capacity —Boiler w/Coil Weight Boiler with Jacket Pressure Test—Boiler Pressure Test—Hot Water Coil Minimum Flue Size Minimum Chimney Height All specifications are subject to change without notice. The responsibility for determining compliance with local and state codes is the obligation of the dealer. Note: Adequate chimney draft is required for proper operation of all wood-fired boilers. Please observe minimum chimney requirements in the table above. REAR VIEW HS -TARM nen Conway, MA 01341 (413)369-4367 The Type OT boiler is approved by the Energy Testing Laboratory (Portland, Maine) and the Massachusetts Fire Marshal's Office. HY TRAP General Information The HS Tarm Type MB-Solo is a new multi-purpose boiler for hot water heating systems. The MB-Solo is equipped to burn wood or coal, or can be supplied as an oil- or gas-fired boiler. Whichever model you choose, the MB-Solo gives you flexibility. Installed as a solid fuel-fired boiler in combination with an existing oil- or gas-fired boiler, it allows you to heat your entire house and tap water by burning wood or coal. At your discretion, solid fuel may be relied upon to supply all your home’s heat or merely part of it. If the fire should die down or be allowed to go out, automatic controls will activate the oil or gas burner on your present boiler to guarantee uninterrupted heat. Installed by itself as an oil- or gas-fired boiler, the MB- Solo can be converted easily to operate on solid fuel — thus protecting you in the event of a power failure or interruption in your supply of oil or gas. And even if you never need to burn solid fuel, the MB-Solo operates as efficiently on oil or gas as any modern single-fuel boiler. The MB-Solo’s firebox is of generous size, with large cast-iron doors to facilitate wood loading and ash removal. The wood fire is controlled by a non-electric automatic draft regulator, which will safely maintain boiler temperature even during power failures. Because the MB-Solo gives you the option of sub- stituting firewood for costly commercial fuel, it makes possible dramatic reductions in fuel costs. And because it ends your absolute dependence on oil or gas, it TYPE MB-Solo Wood/Coal Boiler provides security against shortage of these increasingly scarce fuels. Combustion The MB-Solo’s firebox employs a_base-burning arrangement: which maximizes efficiency of solid-fuel combustion. As wood or coal is heated in any fire, it emits compounds, which, when burned, yield heat. When these compounds: are not burned, they can represent a significant loss of efficiency. They can also produce soot or creosote, a tar-like deposit formed by the con- densation of some flue gases when they are cooled. The MB-Solo’s base-burning principle encourages burning of these compounds. The smoke leaves the boiler at the lower rear of the firebox, where flammable gases are drawn over the fire’s hot coals. Additional air to aid in the combustion of these gases is provided by the air inlet in the upper door of the firebox and by the secondary air dial on the right side of the boiler. This secondary air dial meters air to a manifold at the bottom rear of the firebox (#26 on the side view diagram). The manifold preheats and injects this air into the hot gases leaving the firebox, enabling secondary combustion of otherwise unburned compounds in these gases to occur. The MB-Solo is available in two different con- figurations for operation on oil or gas. For long-term service on these fuels, a burner plate is used in place of the upper firing door and a conversion plate is substituted for the grates. Where quick changeover between solid fuel and oil or gas is desired, the boiler can be supplied with a special door in place of the upper firing door. This ‘“‘double-swing door” is a door frame with a solid-fuel firing door hinged to the right and a burner- mounting door hinged to the left. By swinging one door out and the other in, either type of fuel may be used ona moment's notice. The firebox is surrounded by water on all sides and the bottom. This ‘‘wet-base” design allows for greater heat transfer, helping the MB-Solo to burn wood, coal, oil or gas with a high degree of thermal efficiency. Due to the fact that the firebox is surrounded by water, the firebox walls are maintained at a relatively cool (200° F.) temperature. The low temperature of these walls precludes the use of wood with more than 20% moisture content. Use of such “green wood” will result in poor burning and ex- cessive formation of creosote and soot. Well-seasoned wood is required for proper boiler operation. Controls & Accessories HS Tarm Type MB-Solo boilers are manufactured for use with standard American central hot water heating systems. All threaded tappings accept standard American controls and equipment. All boilers are supplied with the following: —Automatic draft regulator for the wood fire —Cast iron grates —Insulated. jacket with orange-red baked enamel finish —ASME pressure relief valve for boiler —High limit (overheat) control —Cleaning tools For operation on oil or gas, one of the following is required: —Double-swing door — Burner plate and conversion plate In addition, the boiler is available with the following options: —Tankless coil for domestic hot water —Coal grates for burning coal or coke The boiler is shipped on a pallet and has a lifting ring on top for ease of handling. The jacket and controls are packaged separately. ° Construction The steel plate used in the MB-Solo boiler is unusually heavy. All plate that is exposed to flue gasses is over 4” in thickness. We invite comparison of the MB-Solo’s total weight to that of any similar product. Insulation fully lines the jacket, which is finished in an attractive orange-red enamel. 5-Year Limited Warranty The HS Tarm Type MB-Solo has a limited warranty, a copy of which is provided with the boiler and is available from your dealer. For more detailed information in connection with the HS Tarm Type MB-Solo, please read the OPERATING AND INSTRUCTION MANUAL that accompanies the boiler and is available from your dealer. Cross Section oil or gas combustion Mh TU Cross Section solid fuel operation Specifications Gross Output—Wood Gross Output—Oil Domestic Hot Water Output (Wood) GPM} 1.5 Width (B) in Length (D) in Width of Firebox in Length of Firebox in Distance (C) in 1 Return in 2 Flow . in 4 Tapping for Tridicator in 5 Tapping for Aquastat in 10 Extra Tapping in 11 Flue Outlet (0.D.) in 14 Hot Domestic Water in 15 Cold Domestic Water Supply in 16 Extra Tapping in 18 Boiler Drain Tapping in 20 Tapping for Draft Regulator in 21 Extra Tapping in 23 Tapping for Overheat Control in 24 Preheated Secondary Air Control 26 Preheated Secondary Air Manifold 27 Vent Tapping in Door Size in Water Capacity Gal Weight-Boiler wijacket Ib Pressure Test-Boiler psi Pressure Test-Coil psi Minimum Flue Size in Minimum Chimney Height ft 160,000 | 220,000 } 300,000 ‘6 All specifications are subject to change without notice. - The responsibility for determining compliance with local and state codes is the obligation of the dealer. Note: Adequate chimney draft is required for proper operation of all wood-fired boilers. Please observe minimum chimney requirements in the table above. ° HS -TARM Ssnen Conway, MA 01341 (413) 369-4367 NORTHEAT WOOD STOVES, INC. 1306 Chugach Way Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 276-3972 The Type MB-Solo boiler is approved by the Energy Testing Laboratory (Portland, Maine) and the Massachusetts Fire Marshal’s Office. Selection for Atkasook: As a pilot project a number of HS-TARM OT-35S are being installed in Atkasook by the NSB. > Present use of stoves and furnaces: In order to investigate which " types of furnaces and stoves are presently in use in the village, several houses have been inspected. Based on these visits and on personal discussions, the three following fundamentally | different heating systems were found: 1) Heat provided by a single, centrally placed stove 2) Heat provided from a furnace by means of circulating air 3) Heat provided from a furnace by means of a water/glycol mixture. Applicability of multi-fuel and add-on furnaces: Coal fired furnaces ought to be placed in a separate room in order to minimize the inconveniences due to dust. Therefore, the bigger and newer houses with more rooms, which typically already have their furnace placed in a separate room, are more apt to have a multi-fuel or add- on. furnace installed, than are the old, typically one- room houses. With limitations, i.e. forced air vs. water glycol distribution, due to the technical specifications, all of the above listed multi-fuel and add-on furnaces can be installed in the newer multi-room houses in Wainright, while none of these are considered suitable for the older houses. For these, traditional coal stoves may be considered as an interim alternative. 9-25 The multi-fuel furnaces are not compatible with a district heating system since the district heating system will provide heat to the houses by means of heat exchangers. So, unless they are kept as backup for emergency situationS’, e.g. a shut-down of the district heating center, their value will be close to zero, once the district heating system is installed and in operation. Recommendations: If the NSB decides to go ahead with the district heating scheme, the operation life of add-on furnaces will be rather short and therefore unproportionally expensive. So, in this case we do not recommend add-on furnaces to be installed. If, on the other hand, NSB decides to postpone the implementation of the district heating system, but still go ahead with the coal mine development and installed add-on furnaces and dual-fuel furnaces thus can be expected to have a reasonable long service life, we recommend one of each of the following furnaces to be installed as a pilot project: 1) HS-TARM TYPE MB-SOLO as add-on furnace in a home with a water-glycol filled base board system and with the existing oil burner placed in a separate room. 2) CWF as add-on furnace in a home with a ‘forced air ‘heating system and with the existing oil burner placed in a separate room. : 9-26 3) -HS-TARM TYPE OT as dual-fuel furnace in a new home to be built. This house to be equipped with the water- glycol base board system and a separate room for the furnace. It should be noticed that all new homes should be built with the water-glycol filled base board system, since the connection to the district heating system's heat exchangers then will be easier and less expensive. A program for checking future coal consumption against . ‘past and present oil consumption in lbs., gallons, and dollars must be established. This program shall also monitor the alternative furnaces' output as well as the occupants' comments on inconveniences, constraints, etc. 9-27 Literature references 1. Elissa R. Krzeminski: Central heat from wood and coal. New Roots. Harvest 1981. 2. Allana M. Sullivan: Coal heats homes as oil prices rise. Coal Age. August 1980. 3. Eb Rice: Building in the North. 4. C. L. Baumbach: Fyringi to-kammerkedler (Combustion in multi-fuel furnaces). Fyring, No. 4-1979. 5. Miscellaneous technical brochures. 9-28 10.0 VILLAGE VIEWS The work plan for the current study provides, that the views of the people of Wainwright should be ascertained before final recommendations are made. To this end the village was visited by Fenton Rexford and Gosta Bursell on November 17, 1981. At a well attended Public Meeting the study conclusions were explained and 3 copies of the draft report were left with the Council. It was explained, that the study team would visit Wain- wright again in January 1982 to ascertain the village people's views on the report conclusions for incorpora- tion into the final report. A Public Hearing was arranged for January 26, 1982. This was attended by Ray Spandura, representing Department of Public Works, NSB, Fenton Rexford, Steve Rog, Mogens Bastrup and Gosta Bursell, representing the consultants. This meeting was poorly attended and the views expressed were inconclusive. One concern was identified, namely that the heating distribution system as proposed might prevent the free use of snowmobiles away from the roads in the village. The question has been raised in the NSB comments to the Draft Report, whether village people are at all prepared to work in an underground mine. When putting this question at the Public Hearing no response was forthcoming. ; 10-1 It .is evident to the consultants, that a much greater efffort than that averaged or budgetted for will be required to create a sufficient degree of Public Aware- ness in order to prepare the ground for a qualified. response to the questions raised. With the concurrence of the NSB representatives at a meeting held in Barrow January 27, 1982 a public aware- ness program is being included in the scope of a proposal regarding further preconstruction work. ‘This program will include: - A possible visit by some Wainwright people to an underground mine. - Educational films on underground coal mining. - Cutaway model of -the mine and district heating system, related to the village. - Slides and wall plans. - Door to door visits with a questionnaire together with the NSB village coordinator. 10-2 11.0 11.01 11.02 11.03 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation of Initial Feasibility Study The recommendation of the initial feasibility study report of July 31, 1980 as regards generation and heating method was that further consideration be given to alter- natives A-l, A-II and A-2. Alternative A-2 Provided for generating sufficient electric power to enable all space heating to take place by electric resistance heating, at the same time as other electric power and lighting needs are met. This alternative taken by itself is not economical as can be seen in the schedule in Section 8.05.3. It is wasteful in its principle in that waste heat would be spilled into the air, the sea or the Kuk River. The thought that the waste heat could be used for heating greenhouses has been briefly investigated, but it was found that the likely local market for greenhouse produce is so insignificant in relationship to the energy wasted that we recommend this alternative should be disregarded without any further work being done on it. Alternative A-l. This alternative provides for utilizing waste heat from a counter pressure steam turbine for reheating part of the heating fluid required for space heating. 11-1 11.04 We have found during the course of the current study that we had previously under-estimated the extent to which waste heat must be supplemented by direct firing to meet all heating demands. In review, the position is as shown in Section 8.05.3.7. It will be seen from the summary .that alternative A-1 is less economic than either alternative A-II or the A-II-A alternatives (A-II with ORC-generation). Also, alternative A-1 suffers from the disability that it calls for licensed boiler operators, which would create problems which both the Utilities Department and the village people would want to avoid. Briefly, these problems involve a higher level of techno- logy which would mean: - the permanent employment of 4-6 technicians from out- side of the level of licensed boiler operator or - the training of village people in far away locations over extended periods (2-3 years) with the concommit- tent danger, that the trainees would end up staying away after completed training. Alternative A-II The aforementioned eliminations leave Alternative A-II as the recommended method of providing central district heating for Wainwright. Briefly summarized, Alternative A-II provides for reheating the recirculated heating fluid by means of low-pressure coal-fired water heaters 11-2 11.05 as a pressure just below 15 psig and at an outlet tem- perature of 210°F. By means of an insulated distribution network the heating medium would transfer space heating energy to the buildings in the village. Electric power and lighting would continue to be provided by existing diesel generating equipment. Organic Rankine Cycle Generators. In Section 8.0, we have examined the costs and benefits of supplanting diesel electric generation with Organic Rankine Cycle Generators heated by coal-fired low pressure water heaters. This examination has been called for by the North Slope Borough because it had reservations about planning for the continued use of diesel fuel for generating electri- city. The result of this examination is our recommendation that ORC generation should not be implemented at this time on account of inferior economy as compared to continued reliance on diesel generation, also because the experi- ence background for ORC generation is very limited at this stage. This state of affairs may very well change after some years. Consequently, it is recommended that consideration be given to making provision in the buildings and systems for the later addition of ORC generators to supplant diesel generation. 11-3 11.06 It is noted that the Alaska Power Authority is funding a 300 KW ORC generator pilot plant using a solid fuel as prime energy and to be sited in a village in Northwest Alaska. We recommend that NSB should consider seeking to have this pilot plant sited at Wainwright. The above recommendations are put forward subject to what is said in the following section about an electrical transmission intertie involving Barrow, Atkasook and Wainwright. Transmission Intertie Between Barrow, Atkasook and Wain- wright The North Slope Borough has commissioned a study entitled "Project Planning Report, Barrow - Atqasuk - Wainwright Transmission Line", performed by Jack West Associates and others, which was submitted to the North Slope Borough in September 1981. The main conclusion of this report was: "An electric transmission line intertie of Barrow, Atqasuk and Wain- wright is technically feasible and economically benefi- cial to the NSB." The 20-year energy cost was estimated to be as follows: Wainwright continued Intertie Diesel gen 1982 15¢/kwh 42¢/kwh 1985 17¢/kwh 50¢/kwh 1990 23¢/kwh 66¢/kwh 1995 31¢/kwh 88¢/kwh 2000 42¢/kwh 1.19¢/kwh 11-4 11.07 The development of such an intertie would fit in ex- tremely well with the main recommendations we have made in this study. Moreover, if at any time the natural gas reserves near Barrow are depleted or are priced closer to national market prices. The intertie would allow a flow of electric energy from Wainwright based on coal-fired generation of electricity on a regional basis. Wind Generation Another possible way of saving on diesel fuel consumption under the recommended Alternative A-II would be the installation of one or more wind generators. Modern wind generators have an experience rating on a par with ORC generators, but they have the advantage in this case of utilizing a renewable energy source. It is known to us that the village of Kaktovik with the assistance of NSB are planning to install a pilot wind generator of either 10 KW or 50 KW. It is recommended that the results from the Kaktovik pilot wind generator be followed carefully in order to assess whether wind generators would be a_ candidate technology under the prevailing conditions for saving diesel fuel. 11-5 11.08 Energy Conservation The space heating demand forecasts which were developed during the initial study were based on projections from an assessment of the heating needs of the buildings in Wainwright in the condition in which they were found at the time. There is no doubt that space heating demand would be a good deal lower, perhaps as much as 30% lower, if a pro- gram of energy saving building improvements were to be . ‘defined and implemented. It is recommended that such a program be thoroughly investigated. It is not, at this time, suggested that detailed design should be based on a reduced demand resulting from con- servation measures. Rather, it is suggested, that savings in demand can serve to put off the day when increased capacity will have to be provided to take care of increases in demand, which will be occasioned by an increase in population and a per capita increase in energy consumption resulting from a higher standard of living. 11-6 12.0 12.01 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The recommended long-term plan is made up of the fol-. lowing main components: - An underground mine with a 788 ft. long incline entry and an 8 ft. diameter exhaust shaft and escape man- way, as shown on Figures 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3., volume 3. = A minemouth complex connected to the incline entry by a covered passage as shown in master plan 12.3, fol- lowing. The complex consists of o Off loading and loading area o Bulk coal storage o Boiler room o Provision for later addition of ORC-generators (if required) : o Heated bays for diesel equipment o Workshop area o Office and staff facilities o Storage for diesel fuel and antifreeze. - Access road to the minemouth complex from Wain- wright village, 2,500 ft. long as shown on Map 12.1, following. - Distribution network and mains for supplying heating fluid to buildings in Wainwright as shown on Map 12.2, following 12-1 12.02 12.03 - Transmission line to connect minemouth complex and mine with existing electrical transmission network. - Existing diesel generation plant will continue to be used for tlectrical power and lighting needs. The existing capacity, three 250 KW generators, should be sufficient to cover the power require- ments of the mine and the minemouth complex, along with the village demand. Underground Mine The underground mine, its design and its operation has been fully described in Volume 3. Minemouth Complex The minemouth complex, plan 12.3 is connected to the incline entry by a covered passage, which opens to a covered off-loading and loading area. At the coal face a continuous miner mines and loads the coal onto a shuttlecar, which transports the coal to the off-loading area in the complex, where the coal is dumped into a hopper and transported by a conveyor to the stock pile. In ordér to quell any incidence of spontaneous combustion by denying oxygen supply the stockpile may be kept under an airtight plastic tent. This would also serve to reduce coal dust pollution in and around the storage building. 12-2 The .loading area and the bulk storage is located in an unheated building. Coal is withdrawn from the stockpile by a frontloader, which loads a hopper feeding a conveyor from which the coal is fed into a bunker. From the bunker the coal is withdrawn by = screw- transporters and fed to the stokers on 2 low-pressure heaters. Ash is discharged into an ashpit and thence to an ash storage bin for later removal to a dump. In a heat exchanger, the flue gases reheat a heating fluid returning from the village. Thereafter, the flue gases ‘pass through a cyclone before being discharged into open air from a stack. The boiler room also contains supporting systems such as: - Topping up arrangements for water and antifreeze. - Circulation pumps for heating fluid. - Pressure equalization tanks for heating fluid. — - Control panel. 7 Standby diesel generator. -. Overhead gantry crane. The minemouth complex could, if required, contain provision for two 300 KW ORC generators together with necessary additional heater capacity, which could at a future date supplant diesel generators as a source of electrical energy. 12-3 12.04 A service section provides: - workshop area - bays for diesel equipment (heated) - offices and’ secretarial space - 10-man shower facilities - lunchroom - toilets - storage for diesel drums and antifreeze. On the pad, there is provision for outside storage and parking, and space is provided for future condenser coolers in the event ORC generators are installed. Plans and main building features are shown in enclosed drawings: Drawing No. Title 12.4 Plan view 12.5 Typical cross section 12.6 North and West elevations 12.7 South and East elevations 12.8 Bird's eye view Access Road An all weather road will be required to connect the mine and minemouth complex with the village. Plan 12.9, following, shows a section through the road, which also serves as a service road for the heating fluid mains and the power transmission line connecting the minemouth complex and the village distribution networks. 12-4 12.05 12.06 12.07 Distribution network and mains for heating fluid The distribution network and mains are shown on Maps 12.1 and 12.2. The concept for this system is essentially as described in the initial feasibility study, subject to variations to meet concerns about snowmobile mobility off the roads. Electrical transmission line An electrical transmission line will be provided to con- nect the minemouth complex and the mine with the existing diesel generating station situated next to the secondary school. There will be a standby diesel generator at the minemouth complex with a capacity sufficient to cover the complex and mine load only. Heating of Ventilation Air for the Mine For the interim situation when the mine is. being developed and operated but before the central district heating system is in operation, the ventilation air will be ‘heated by four Herman Nielsen space heaters, running on fuel oil. They are a commonly used type of builders equipment and can be leased at $120 per week each. When the central district heating plant is installed, heating of ventilation air will be done by the same heating fluid which is used for the central district heating. 12-5 pttes = Tn order to save on fuel for heating the mine a heat exchanger would be installed, whereby exhaust air from the mine would preheat the ventilation air, so that the water-heated heat-exchanger only would be required to top up the energy required. 12-6 50 vA ars BLM 4 TRIANGULATION STATION 57. / oe. w TEST HOLE B-A2 | [ -69' 50 : ie ; e MINE MOUTH ee A eh C KX HEATING COMPLEX 25 < Ss= oS . eee ae x Sa / a, st Be sae é PERIMETER OF ~ x“ ) ak / UNDERGROUND MINE \ ‘6. a Pg ars Yas ag . nt aE a ee > aS a / SS ge CAPACITY: ae a, ARCTIC SLOPE TECHNICAL SERVICE oN Pg eee Bs. _ 00,000 TONS ee WAINWRIGHT } we > 95 oe Ta ge CENTRAL DISTRICT HEATING ae | yk oe / OL oa OF MINE AND MINEMOUTH HEATING is \ / COMPLEX IN RELATION TO WAINWRIGHT et ar ee 50 7 VILLAGE i ¥ a = / : ee ftir, / PLAN 121 TRACT B A 0 O- OPERATIO | 50 150 meters a 100 0 100 200 300 400 feet Nse BUDGETED ——— FIRST PHASE SECOND PHASE hh EXPANSION COMPENSATOR tee EXPANSION COMPENSATOR —— ANCHOR FOR MAIN PIPING -——. ANCHOR FOR MAIN PIPING SUPPLY LINES SUPPLY LINES WAINWRIGHT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM LAYOUT OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR LIQUID MEDIUM (WATER / AMBITROL NTF ANTI - FREEZE SOLUTION ) ’ GRID AND HOPPER — CONVEYER ELEVATOR COAL BUNKER ASH CONTAINER COAL FEED TO STOKER 4 é FIRE BOX 4 10 ° 20 40 SCALE IN FEET i FUTURE EXTENSION DIESEL HEAT EXCHANGER o PN e wD CYCLONE SEPARATOR STACK as 9 | 11. CIRCUIT PUMPS | I 12. EXPANSION VESSEL 4 PARKING FOR Le IVNMAANAN 13. CONTROL PANEL SHOP AREA FOR DIESEL, STORAGE | 36 14. STANDBY DIESEL GENERATOR EQUIPMENT | 15. STAIRS TO MEZZANINE | | — — — < Gee —ply STAIRS TO MEZZANINE WITH OFFICES, 16. DISTRIBUTION HEATING MAINS LUNCH ROOM, SHOWERS AND TOILETS PARKING OUTSIDE — | S STORAGE i eieiechenstcis incorporated rn, > 2 at 20' | at 32' 2 SHEET 12.4 FUTURE EXTENSION fe: WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX PLAN VIEW PREPARED BY: M. B. DRAWN BY: Re CHECKED BY :/ JOB NO. SCALE: I" =20' DATE: 1-15-82 PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSSES : ser INSULATED ROOFING INSULATED PANELS STEEL COLUMN ~~BOILER ROOM RIGID INSULATION REINFORCED CONCRETE PSISLSISLSISLL LSI SISSIES | | PARKING AREA Se ae elt He LR ee Pita ar Be SO Ree ee So tigs eS Re ee 4 SF GON yo ROAD TO D £0, 0 con ot PSPSPS DILL DIP LLL LLL LED x : . ee WAINWRIGHT TST ‘\ cee = AS tg te ee OWL eS eT eb ee Ti == aaa Spat a 3 ee aa : Be Et a a Ss ee e. = fae z Sd Liateana Simetie mn = Ee ‘= =ge" i=) ais “AI SV FORCED AIR VENTILATION SYSTEM! qua EMME RIGID INSULATION NON-FROST SUSCEPTIBLE GRAVEL : : a : ORIGINAL GROUND . ; 7 | a) techriod services { NORTH ELEVATION WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS PREPARED BY: M.B. JOB NO. DRAWN BY: Re SCALE; 1" =20' CHECKED BY: DATE: 1-15-82 WEST ELEVATION ai] SOUTH ELEVATION WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS ee es So tn oe i a Basan oe weet Oe PREPARED BY: M.B. JOB NO. a; DRAWN BY: Re SCALE : "= 20! CHECKED BY DATE: I-18-82 WEST ELEVATION SHEET 12.7 WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX BIRD'S EYE VIEW PREPARED BY: M. B. JOB NO. DRAWN BY: Re SCALE: 1" =20' SHEET 12.8 CHECKED BY: DATE: 1-18-82 POWERLINE SUPPLYING MINE AND PLANT PROTECTIVE GRAVEL CROSSINGS Per 1/4 MILE CORRUGATED STEEL COVER 1’ MIN. COVER ' . VENT AND DRAINAGE DUCTS MINIMUM 5S DEPTH GRAVEL OR THERMAL EQUIVALENT ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE LEFT UNDISTURBED : arctic , services Incorporated WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX ROAD AND MAINS PREPARED BY: M. 8. JOB NO DRAWN BY: Re SCALE 1"=10' SHEET 12.9 [CHECKED BY: DATE ; 2-17-82 PROTECTIVE CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE INSULATED SUPPLY AND RETURN PIPES CROSS BAR : SUPPLY AND RETURN PIPES FOR INDIVIDUAL HOUSE ae PROTECTIVE CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE dD) ‘MIN. GROUND COVER PROTECTIVE CORRUGATED PIPE CROSSING AT STEEL COVER Sd: Yq MILE INTERVALS =WTEM 14 MEME VENT AND DRAINAGE DUCT eone.-SAFE AGAINST INSULATED SUPPLY , AND RETURN PIPE cata lcha sible | | FROST HEAVE . | 1 a i__l ALTERNATIVE "A" ALTERNATIVE "B" WAINWRIGHT COAL STUDY MINEMOUTH COMPLEX ALTERNATIVE PIPE CONFIGURATIONS PREPARED BY: M.B. JOB NO. DRAWN BY: Re SCALE I"=5' SHEET 12.10 CHECKED BY: DATE: 2-17-82 13.0 Phase l: Phase 2: PHASING It is our understanding from Mr. Ralph Anderson, Special Assistant to the Mayor, that the Mayor is anxious to pur- sue the Wainwright Coal Development Scheme in order to obtain a lasting solution in mitigation of the present high cost of energy in the villagé. From very recent reports it is. now apparent, that speedy and appropriate action has been taken by the NSB and Alaska congressmen and senators to ensure passage of a congressional waiver in respect of the NPRA, which is the single serious obstacle to a comprehensive development. Accordingly we recommend, that mine development and development of a district heating system be undertaken concurrently. However, in order that implications of a phased develop- ment may be assessed if the need arises, the schedule-and the table showing capital costs have been divided into three development phases as described hereunder. Interim production and usage of coal for heating of individual homes, if desired by a _ reasonable proportion of the village people. Long term production and usage of coal incorporating Central District Heating using lowpressure coal- fired water heaters for heating the heating fluid. Existing Diesel generators will continue to be used for electric power and lighting. 13<1 Phase 13.01 33 ‘Diesel generators to be supplanted by Organic Rankine Cycle Generators using coal-fired low- pressure water as energy source, or by intertie from Barrow, or supplemented by wind-power Phase 1 Phase 1 would be made up of the following compo- nents: - Incline entry - Exhaust shaft - Initial section of mine heading - Underground mining equipment - Support calcnunes underground - Support equipment, surface - Covered passage to bulk storage - Bulk storage building including covered offloading zone - Service section of minemonth complex including heated bays for diesel equipment and diesel drum storage - Access road capable of supporting transport of bagged coal to village - Electrical transmission line - Additional diesel generating capacity at existing diesel generating station (for heaters and fans in mines) - Installation of coal-burning stoves or furnaces for interim use and later back-up in individual homes - Implementation of retrofit energy conservation measures. 13-2 13.02 13.03 “Phase 2 Phase 2 would comprise: - Boiler house and equipmemnt > - Central District Heating System including house installation - Conversion of mine heater from electricity to heating fluid heating. Phase 2 could be subphased if desired so as to com- plete main distribution lines, house connections and house installation in two subphases. Phase 3 Phase 3 would provide for introduction of Organic Rankine Cycle Generators to supplant Diesel genera- tion for electrical power and lighting. If the 300 KW pilot ORC generator being funded by Alaska Power Authority can be attracted to Wain- wright, Phase 3 could in part be brought forward to coincide with Phase 2. Alternatively, power and lighting needs could be supplied by an electrical intertie connecting Barrow, Atkasook, and Wainwright, or diesel con- sumption could be reduced by the installation of wind generators. 13-3 14.0 SCHEDULE Figure 14.1 is a schedule drawn up to show what would be the earliest possible on-line dates, if concurrent development takes place. On the assumption that green light is given for further work by February 1, 1982, and that all permits including congressional waiver for "com- Mercial" use of NPR-A coal are secured by February 1, 1983, the earliest date for interim coal produc- tion would be February 1, 1984. The earliest house connections under the long term plan could take place midway through 1985, and house connections could be completed during 1986. The earliest installation and operation of a pilot ORC-generator would be the fourth quarter of 1984. 14-1 SCHEDULE GREEN LIGHT FOR FURTHER WORK PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL DRILLING ADDITIONAL DRILLING TO PROVE MINE SITE PERMITS FOR INTERIM PLAN PERMITS FOR LONG TERM PLAN ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS PHASE 1 — INTERIM PLAN FINAL DESIGN STUDY ON DUAL FUEL INSTALLATION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD AND PAD PROCUREMENT, SHIPPING AND MOBILIZATION TRANSMISSION LINE AND ADDITIONAL DIESEL PLANT MINE: INCLINE ENTRY AND SHAFT BUILDINGS DUAL —- FUEL FURNACES RETROFIT CONSERVATION MEASURES PHASE 2 — LONG TERM PLAN EARLIEST POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION FINAL DESIGN PROCUREMENT, SHIPPING AND MOBILIZATION CONSTRUCTION PILING BUILDINGS HEATERS AND INSTALLATIONS HEATING FLUID MAINS AND DISTRIBUTION CONNECTIONS AND HOME INSTALLATIONS PHASE 3 — PILOT ORC-GENERATOR EARLIEST POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION 1982 1983 1984 1985 4 2 : 3 4 + 1 2 4 + aay? 3 4 t 1 eri 3 6 uN oo Oe ee ia i © et. o_o —-— — —o—— er 22 ee o_o FIGURE 14.1 fe... 15.0 ’ CAPITAL EXPENDITURE Table 15.1 shows capital expenditure for the years 1982 through 19286, based on the schedule shown in section 14.0. The total cost for mine development (Phase 1) would be $5,970,220. The total cost for central district heating (Phase 2) would be $7,481,200. As regards buildings, their cost have in this calculation been estimated at unit prices per sq. ft. actually currently experienced on the North Slope. 15-1 TABLE 15.1 CAPITAL COSTS - FEASIBILITY LEVEL ASSESSMENT “ NOTE: There is no provision for implementation of building improvement or dual-fuel installations PHASE 1 Ceo nee e eee eee ences eee cece ee oe eee ee eee nee eee eee eee eee ee ee 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL Mining and support . equipment 1,417,500 1,417,500 Preproduction mine development 547,500 547 ,500 Working Capital - 214 ,000 214 ,000 Construction management and training program 40 ,000 40 ,000 SUBTOTAL 2,005 ,000 214 ,000 2,219 ,000 Access Road and pad 24.000 cu. yds. @ $15 360 ,000 360 ,000 Corridor from minemouth to coal storage building ; 1800 sq.ft. @ $120 100 ,000 116 ,000 216 ,000 Coal handling - storage building (unheated) ; ! 6400 sq.ft. @ $160 500 ,000 524 ,000 1,024 ,000 Service and administra- tion building (heated) 6120 sq. ft. @ $200 600 ,000 624 ,000 1,224 ,000 Ocean Transport 280 ,000 280 ,000 Transmission line and transformer 5000 ft. @ $15 75 ,000 75 ,000 SUBTOTAL iu 1,915,000 1,264,000 3,179 ,000 Detailed design, 8% 254,320 254,320 Construction manage- ment 10% 191,500 126 ,400 317,900 ‘TOTAL FOR PHASE 1 254,320 4,111,500 1,604,400 5,970 ,220 TABLE 15.1 (contined) PHASE 2 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL Boiler building : 3840 sq. ft. @ $220 400 ,000 445 ,000 845 ,000 Low pressure water heaters with all supporting systems 900 ,000 50,000 , 950 ,000 Stand-by diesel 150 kw 120 ,000 120 ,000 Heating fluid distribution system and supply lines 1,045 ,000 600,000 1,000,000 380,000 3,025,000 Ocean transport - 500 ,000 500,000 House installations 680 ,000 220 ,000 900 ,000 SUBTOTAL 2,845,000 1,215,000 1,680,000 600,000 6,340,000 Detailed design 8% 257 ,200 250 ,000 507 ,200 Construction man. 10% 284 ,500 121,500 168 ,000 60 ,000 634 ,000 TOTAL FOR PHASE 2 257,200 3,379,500 1,336,500 1,848,000 660,000 7,481,200 SUMMARY Phase 1 254,320 4,111,500 1,604,400 - * ~ 5,970,220 Phase 2 257,200 3,379,500 1,336,500 1,848,000 660,000 7,481,200 GRAND TOTAL 511,520 7,491,000 2,940,900 1,848,000 660,000 13,451,420 16.0 16.01 16.02 16.02.1 “ RECURRENT COSTS AND RATES Electric power and lighting As regards both the Interim plan and Alternative A- II, Phase 1 and 2, there ‘would be no reason to change present rates on account of the implementa- tion of either one or the other or both, since both plans call for electric power and lighting to be provided by the existing diesel generating station. Space heating General Remarks It will be recalled that the draft report in the Table 15.1 did not include the Capital Cost of coal storage buildings. In the revised Table 15.1 of this final report the capital costs of buildings have been revised on the bases of unit prices per square foot actually currently experienced on the North Slope. In relation to Table 4.3.7, page 3-27 of Volume 3 certain revisions will also be made in the following to take account of changes made in the heating of mine ventilation air as compared to what was pro- posed in volume 3 (electrical heating changed to heating by a loop of the central district heating system). 16-1 16.02.2 These revisions have a considerable effect on the estimated cost of coal, most notably for the interim Phase 1, because of the very low production required here. Revised Estimates of the Unit Cost of Coal Direct production cost, revised in accordance with proposed changes in heating of ventilation air, and revised capital costs of mine buildings. Labor (page 3-11, Volume 3) as before $25.84 per ton. Materials and Supplies Dollar Per Ton Fuel: 8,000 gal. X $2.15 1.72 10,000 Power: Dintheader: ___120 kw X $0.25 4 tons x 60 minutes 0.13 Main Fan: 80 X 24 hrs X 55 kw X $0.25 10,000 tons 2.65 Auxilliary fan: 285 X 24 hrs X 18.4 kw $0.25 10,000 3.15 Heating of ventilation air by district heating: 1.5 mill BTU X $22.65 X 80 X 24 hrs 10,000 6.52 All others as before 13.80 Total for materials and supplies $27.97 16-2 “ Assessment (page 3-11, vol. 3) as before $8.65 per ton Depreciation Phase 1 Phase 2 (refer to page 3-29 2200 tons 4000 tons Volume 3) ‘ per annum per annum $ per ton $ per ton 5 years life $ 20,000 $ 1.80 $ 1.00 10 years life $ 218,000 > 9.90 ; 5.50 20 years life $5,732,220 130.20 71.60 $141.90 $78.20 1/2 (50 0/0 GRANT) 70.95 39.10 Financial charges: (Refer to page 3-30, vol. 3) Total interest on capital cost of $5,970,000 955,000 X 5,970,000 1,842,000 = $3,095,195 ; ; Charges per ton Phase 1: 20 years production 44,000 tons $70.35 Phase 2: 20 years production $38.69 80,000 tons Summary of production costs: (Refer to page 3-11, vol. 3) Phase 1 Phase 2 2,200 tons 4,000 tons per annum per annum $ per ton $ per ton Labor $ 25.84 $ 25.84 Material and supplies 27.97 27.97 Assessments 8.65 8.65 Depreciation 70.95 39.10 Financial charge 70.35 38.69 $203.76 $140.25 If all homes were to switch to dual-fuel space heating - 167 homes forecast by 1982 - the consump- tion of coal would be around 2200 tons per annum. At this level of production, the coal would cost $203.76 per ton to produce. 16-3 16.02.4 - The individual home of 960 sq. ft. would have an average peak requirement of 24,000 BTU per hour. At an efficiency level of 50% for dual-fuel furnaces, this would translate into: 24,000x 4422. = 12 tons/annum 8,800 x 2000 x 0.5 At a cost of 12 x $203.76 = $2,445 per annum for an average household. The cost of heating the same house to the same level of comfort by fuel oil with a heating value of 130,000 BTU/gal. would be: 24,000 X 4422 x $2.15 730,000 X 0.6 $2,700 per annum The revised unit cost of coal rules out Phase l as a viable interim plan, even if all homeowners could be persuaded to join. If only half would join, the cost per ton would be: $ per ton Labor : $ 25.84 Materials and supplies 27.97 Assessments 8.65 Depreciation 141.90 Financial charges 140.70 TOTAL $345.00 This indicates the sensitivity of the plan to lack of interest on the part of homeowners. It is therefore obvious, that Phase 1 cannot stand on its own and should only be undertaken concurrently with Phase 2. Alternative A-11 Taking account of the revised unit cost of coal and the revised table of capital costs, the recurrent cost for the mine, the minemouth complex and the central district heating system would be as follows: Capital costs of Phase 2: $7,481,200 16-4 Interest: Recurrent cost per annum 8 0/0 on 1/2 capital cost $ 299,248 Retirement of capital 25 years, 4% 299,248 Labor 160,000 Coal 3947 X $140.25 553,570 Maintenance and spares 40,000 $1,352,068 At a total annual consumption of 60 billion BTU, the above annual recurrent costs (1981 dollars) work out at: $1,352,068 60,000 $22.53 per mill. btu The cost of heating the average home under alter- native A-II would therefore be: 24,000 xX 4420 x $22.53 = $2390 per annum 1,000,000 16-5 17.0 17.01 SOURCES OF LOCAL MATERIALS There are two local materials, the absence of which would have serious implications for the project. They are water for the initial filling of the dis- trict heating system - and gravel for the access road and pad. Water The quantity of water required for the initial filling of the district heating system amounts to 30,000 - 40,000 gallons. this is a fairly small quantity in relation to the 2 million gallon storage capacity in the village. The provision of this water from the village supply plant should present no great difficulty, if delivered in the summer, when the storage tanks have been filled. Analysis of water from the fresh water lake and from the central water facility are shown in table 17.1. This water analysis are conducted by the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Douglas Laboratory Facility. The analysis is part of the Village Safe Water Program and parameters analysed are guidelines for good quality of drinking water to protect your health. For industrial usage there is no need to analyse the water from a health point of view, but since water is acceptable for drinking purposes it also is generally adequate for industrial use. However, some of the chemical parameters, like iron, are high and can cause deposits to settle in the distribution 17-1 system. To get rid of high levels of chemicals there is a need for extra storage time to let them settle or to add some chemical agents to help the settling. To find out if it is justified to build a storage/. settling basin more water samples have to. be analysed. we TABLE 17.1 WAINWRIGHT, WATER ANALYSIS Fregh water lake water Central Water facility, TR Trace detected 17-3 Analysis . Limit source, 5/3/79, tap water, 5/3/79, mg/1 mg/1 Arsenic 0.05 ND ND Barium 1.00 0.10 ND Cadmium 0.010 TR TR Chromium 0.05 ND ND Iron 0.3 0.67 0.3 Lead 0.05 0.006 TR Manganese 0.05 0.007 0.008 Mercury 0.002 ND TR Selenium 0.01 ND ND Silver 0.05 ND ND Sodium 250 . 94 10.6 Calcium - 27 3.0 Magnesium - -- - Potassium - = = Chloride - 250 31 Fluoride 2.40 TR ND Nitrate -N- 10.00 1.5 TR Sulfate - TR Carbonate Alkalinity - 70 7.0 TFR . - 407 47 ph = 7.3 6.0 ‘ Turbidity : - 2.4 1.6 (NTU) Color 7 50 10.0 (PCU) Conductivity - 620 81 (micromhos/cm) ND = Not detected 17.02 Gravel There will be a need of 25,000 - 40,000 cu. yds. of gravel for access road and pad, subject to material from. the incline excavation being suitable for stable fill. The consultant is informed, that the NSB propose to dredge and stockpile 600,000 cu. yds. of gravel near a lagoon on the Kuk Inlet about 8 miles South of Wainwright. By letter the consultant advised the NSB that sufficient gravel for this project be reserved for delivery from the proposed stockpile. 17-4 18.0 18.01 18.02 18.03 SERIOUS OBSTACLES TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT During the course of this study a few serious obstacles to project development have been identified. They are: BLM Coal Lease Section 5.4.1.1 (A) (1) (a), page 5-6 of Volume 1 re- fers. A lease for "commercial" purposes requires a con- gressional waiver. Timely and appropriate action is being taken at this time by the NSB, Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski to overcome this obstacle. Jurisdiction of the Office of Surface Mining There are conflicting opinions, also within the OSM itself, as to whether the OSM has jurisdiction in the present project. If the OSM were to claim jurisdiction, this would prolong the permitting time-span. This has been taken into account in the Schedule, Section 14.0. Underground Mining by Village People The question as to whether village people will work mining machinery underground is perceived as a possible serious obstacle by Kent Grinage, former Director of Utilities, NSB. 18-1 More will be known about this following the Public Aware- ness Program included in the proposal for further work. Other than the above, no serious obstacles to project development is perceived by the consultants. 18-2 19.0 19.01 1. REVIEW COMMENT BY THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH AND RESPONSE Memorandum to the Mayor from Kent Grinage, former Utility Manager, dated December 30, 1981. Comment: Will people work in an underground tunnel? We cannot find anyone willing to climb the power poles in the vil- lages even though the villages want electricity. This same situation may apply. This should be investigated ‘thoroughly. Response: On putting this question at the Public Hearing in Wain- wright held on January 26, 1981, no real indication was obtained. One councillor stated: "We don't know what an underground mine is." | It is recognized by the consultants, that this is a serious concern. In order to obtain a reasonably reli- able reply to this question, the consultants feel, that a special Public Awareness Program is required in order to impact to the village people a visual understanding of the project and the concept of an underground mine. The scope of such a program will be contained in a pro- posal to be forwarded to the NSB dealing with further preconstruction work. Comment: Underground mining comes under stringent safety and training requirements as set down by the Mining Safety and Health Administration. 19-1 Response: MSHA Training requirements exist for surface mines as well. Required training 40 hours underground, 25 hours surface, etc. Both are complicated. Underground may be slightly more involved. Comment: Underground mining will require outside supervision. Response; Both surface and underground will require outside super- vision initially. Comment: Underground mining will require specialty parts and high level of technical expertise to maintain the special equipment such as the Dosco Dintheader excavator. Response: Both will require specialty parts and training, especially maintenance. Underground may be easier because of less pieces and types of equipment and less exposure to winter conditions. Comment: The underground mining will require design and continu- ous maintenance to maintain the integrety of the mine. Response: Both mines will require design and maintenance, permit compliance, etc. It may be easier unerground (less material moved, unifdrm conditions, etc.). Comment: The shaft alone will change the thermal balance in the permafrost. ASTS proposes to add additional heat with two air heaters. This may cause subsidence and erosion. Response: Both underground and surface mines will thaw material and change thermal balance. Shaft exposes less area than pit. Heaters are not to. heat air significantly (only to acceptable working temperature). Mine will still remain frozen at all times; estimate 20°F working temperature. Comment: The shaft may collect water which could be pumped but this presents an additional maintenance requirements. Response: Shaft may collect minimal water. Should be less of a problem’ than a pit, especially in summer. Pit will require pumps; probably more. 19-3 ih Comment ; The shaft may have to be ventilated year round to ensure methane gas does not collect in sufficient quantities to create a potential hazard. If so this will be an addi- tional maintenance and operation cost. Response: It is planned that ventilation would be year-round; minor maintenance. Comment: ASTS proposes to use the following mining equipment that operates on electricity. a. Two air heaters 305 kW per unit. b. Dosco Dintheader Excavator. No kW load in report. c. Exhaust fan 40,000 CFM. No kW load in report. The two air heater fans totaling 610 kW far exceeds the peak load of the entire village power plant. A detail analysis of the load requirements for the entire opera- tion should be done. This problem is not identified in the report but presents a major problem. Response: The mine report was prepared as a basis for the final evaluation as to whether or not coal-fired steam generation should take place. If this had been the choice, the generating plant would be designed with capability to supply the mines' power needs. 19-4 10. The draft report in Volume 1, Section 12.07, page 12-6 and 12-7 proposes, that the electrical energy load for the mine will be reduced by about 80% by heating the ventilation air by means of a loop from the district. heating system. The final report will further propose, that intermediate heating of the ventilation air will take place by oil- fired space heaters instead of by electricity as originally proposed. "When the mine is operating, the dintheader with a total load of 120 HP would operate in short bursts and the main fan of 75 HP would be in constant use. During non- mining periods only the auxiliary fan of 25 HP would be operating. If these loads were to constitute a problem in periods of peak village demand, the more-complex standby diesel generator could help out. In these circumstances we do not see any major impact in relation to the village power supply. Comment: The recommended mine location is the one closest to the village, 1/2 mile northeast of Wainwright. There may be a problem of dust coming out in the village and/or kids going in from the village. Security and safety should be a prime concern to the community. 19-5 ll. Response: The advantage of the underground mine is that it is close to the village. Much less dust will be generated underground than from a surface mine. It is much easier to secure a portal (would already have doors for tem- perature control) than a pit. Pit equipment would be more accessible and dangerous. : Comment: The proposed wages for the mine operation would not attract anyone to the job. Response: The proposed wages in the report (after applying Alaska multiplier) are $180 per day, or $24+ per hour, for the 80 operating days per year. If these wages are low for underground, they would also be low for surface and relative cost conclusions are still the same - under- ground is cheaper. Closing Remarks. Comment: It is my opinion more thought should go into an under- ground mining operation. The operation should maximize local ‘hire, be low in maintenance, and as safe as possible. I would recommend further work be done on locating a shallower coal deposit so a surface mine could be utilized. 19-6 19.02 Response: This consultant started off with the idea, that a sur- face mine would be the natural choice. As facts emerged during the course of the study, it be- came more and more clear, that, underground mining had superior merits. Very careful thought has gone into our recommendation. There is nothing in the above comments that have changed our mind. - Nevertheless, we would naturally willingly undertake any additional studies that the Borough may require if it is deemed to throw further light on this issue. Apart from the technical, environmental and economical merits of the underground mine, having regard to possible future coal developments elsewhere in the Borough, we consider the Wainwright underground’ mine concept to be exciting from the point of view of forming a counterpart to the Atkasook surface mine, which could provide a valuable basis for comparison and an experi- ence base for future development. Preliminary Review Comments from Department of Public Works, Undated Comment: Whether local labor is interested in and willing to work this mine should be first examined. This should have been the first issue to be examined in this feasibility study. Can the local force be adequately trained? 19-7 Response: See response to Item Il and I2 above. Comment: All required permits and authorization should be identi- fied in a feasibility study of this kind not just those relating to the environment. Response: The original contract entered into between ASTS and the North Slope Borough on December 22, 1980 recited the following: "...ASTS will conduct a study designed to determine what environmental permits and licenses will be required for implementation of the Wainwright Dis- trict Heating and Power Generation Project" (p. B-2, emphasis ours). As we noted in the feasiblity study: We are aware that various additional authorizations may be required (e.g., a Water Rights Permit from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, a Public Utilities Commission, and various State building approvals and requirements); however, the discussion of such authorizations is beyond the scope of this report in that they are “not expressly environmental in nature. Nevertheless, of all the authorization required, it is those discussed in this section (i.e., Chapter 5.0) that will demand the bulk of the Borough's time and energies to obtain. (Section 5.1, p.5-l1.) 19-8 Comment: All factors affecting feasibility of mine operation should be identified and examined. Items of major con-_ cern such as sourtes of water for mine operation and sources of gravel for mine construction should be thoroughly covered in this study. Response: The consultants believe, that they have fairly examined - and identified all factors affecting the feasibility of the mine operation. The question of water and gravel have been addressed in Section 17.0 of the final report. Comment: Potential conflicts with federal and state regulations should be identified and examined in a section of the study dedicated to “Serious Obstacles to Project Development." Response: The only potential with federal or state regulations that the Wainwright project would pose is described on p. 5-6 (Section 5.4.1.1.(A)(1)(a)) of the feasibility study: The Full Scale Development Option cannot be implemented without a (U.S.) BLM Coal Lease...the specific regula- tions for which are contained in 43 CFR 3420 and 43 CFR 3422. However, under 19-9 present law and regulations, the BLM is not authorized to issue coal leases within the NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976 (P.L. 944-258); 43° CFR 3400.2(a)(7))...Never- theless, a movement is currently afoot to open the NPR-A to coal leasing.. In the latter part of 1980...the NPR-A was opened to petroleum leasing (Gal 1981). In July, 1981, U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski wrote then-North Slope Borough Mayor Jacob Adams that he was investigating allowing the Borough to mine coal within the NPRA-A... Within an hour of this writing, Senator. Murkowski is expected to introduce: such legislation before a U.S. Senate committee, with a hearing expected on the bill in a couple of weeks. An analogous piece of legislation was just introduced by Congressman Young before a U.S. House of Representative committee. Both bills deserve close watching in the weeks ahead; once they are passed, no major legal obstacles to the project should remain. Comment: Exact home heating requirements as to the amount of coal required should be specified: Response: They are specified in Section 8.05.3.2 on page 8-16 of the draft report (page 8-16 of the final report). 19-10 Comment: Expenditures listed based upon lower 48 mining opera- tions are unrealistically low. These costs should have. been estimated by research not by using multipliers to equate them with lower 48 figures. Response: The costing procedure used for this preliminary study was to cost the operation by lower 48 procedures and “multiply capital costs by 1.5 and operating costs by 2.0. It is felt that this procedures is acceptable for the accuracy of a feasibility study. Even if the multiplier is wrong, it will still be consistent for each type of mine, so that recommendations of surface mine versus underground mine are still pertinent. The multipliers were based on what little literature information is available, on what costs could be documented, and from research done during the recent gravel study. For instance: 1. Lower 48 fuel costs approximate $1.00 to $1.15 per gallon. Wainwright fuel costs are in excess of $2.00 per gallon, or a 2.0 multiplier. 2. Labor costs for lower 48 mines are in the range of $10 to $12 per hour. Wainwright was estimated to be $20 to $25 per hour, or a multiplier of 2.0. 3. The need to train personnel was accounted for by increasing the amount of labor (i.e., cost). 19-11 There are not.any similar operations on the North Slope, surface or underground, that can be used for cost com- parisons. Any system used to develop costs cannot be documented adequately at this time, and the factoring. approach is felt to be reasonable until a specific mine size and type are selected. At the time that a detailed mine plan is developed for submittal to regulatory agencies, capital cost can be estimated from quotations and freight rates, but operating costs will still be a "best guess" until actual on-site experience is developed. Comment: Sources of project funding appear unrealistically opti- mistic. What sources will provide a 50% grant? What sources will acquire bonds at 8% interest? Response: The basis for project funding sources was supplied by the NSB (Kent Grinage). In view of current trends this basis should indeed be reviewed. Comment: The cost consideration for a surface mine in area A-B should. have been examined before eliminating surface mining as a viable option. 19-12 Response: A surface mine was not costed for area A-B due to the depths of overburden, and proximity to the village. The - costs were generated for the area C (best case) surface mine. An area A-B surface mine would be substantially more expensive - reinforcing the: existing recommendation of underground mining. (See also Item 110.) Comment: “Sections 14.0 and 15.0 of Volume I should be further broken down to show the scheduling and capital expendi- tures for phases 1 and 2 separately. Assuming that both phases would be persued simultaneously was highly optimistic. Response: Sections 14.0 and 15.0 will be broken down as suggested in the final report. We have expressed ourselves ambiguously. The schedule seeks to illustrate the fastest practicable development, which of course predicates the assumption that Phase 1 and 2 will be pursued simultaneously. 19-13 20.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO FURTHER WORK 20.01 If it is the NSB's decision, that work should proceed . towards the early and most economical implementation of the interim coal supply plan, the following additional work should be considered. 20.01.0 Implement a public awareness program, including: “O° Presentation to the public of a cut-away model showing the underground mine, the heating plant and the village with the distribution pipes installed. ° Presentation of slides and/or a movie showing underground mining. ° A probable visit by some people from Wainwright to "an underground coal mine. 20.01.2 Additional drilling to confirm specific mine location as recommended in Section 3.01.2.8, Volume 2. 20.01.3. Soil investigations for the foundations of the plant. 20.01.4 Environmental Studies as recommended in Section 5.6, volume l. 20.01.5 Submission of detailed underground mine plan to the Mine Safety and Health Administration as recommended in Section 3.01.2.9, Volume 2. 20-1 20.01.6 20.01.7 20.01.8 20.01.9 20.01.10 Submission of applications to all agencies concerned as detailed in Section 5.0, Volume 1 (interim supply plan - Phase 1). Analysis of institutional requirements in connection with the interim coal supply plan. Investigation of costs and benefits of building improvements and other basic energy conservation measures, in the village. Planning of dual-fuel installations on a village - wide scale, compatible with the long term plan. Final design and “specifications relating to the following components: - Mine and mine installations. - Covered passage, bulk storage building including off-loading area. - Equipment for mine and storage building. - Provision for bagging and transporting coal to Wainwright. - Service building. - Access road and pad. - Transmission line. 20-2 20.02 20.02.1 20.02.2 20.02.3 20.02.4 - -Additional. diesel generating plant to increase capacity of existing diesel generating station. - Firming up of costs for Phase 2 buildings and installations. If the NSB is desirous of pursuing the long term plan simultaneously with the interim plan, the following additional work should be considered. Submission of applications to all agencies concerned as detailed in Section 5.0 (long term plan - phase 2). There may be some economy in undertaking items 20.01.6 and 20.02.1 simultaneously. Analysis of institutional requirements in connection with the long term heating plan. ¥ Updating impact of recent town-planning considerations on distribution network for heating medium (relocation of airstrip). Final design and specifications relating to the following components: - Boiler room building. - Coal-handling equipment and bunker. - Low-pressure water heaters. - Ash handling system. 20-3 20.03 - Cyclones and stack. - Supporting systems in boiler room. - Heating fluid, distribution system including circulation pumps and pressure vessel. - Supply lines and house installations. If there is not sufficient village support for an interim coal supply scheme, and the NSB is desirous to implement the long term plan as the first and only priority, the items enumerated under sections 20.01 and section 20.02 would all be called for, with the exception of items: 20.01.6 20.01.7 20.01.9 20-4