Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChignik Lake Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Chignik Lake 1982 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR CHIGNIK LAKE ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLD BAY NIKOLSKI FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY LOWER AND TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY CHIGNIK LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 1.0 Summary and Recommendations 2.0 Background 3.0 Village Meeting 4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution 5.0 Energy Balance 6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 Population Projection 6.2 Capital Projects 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 7.0 Energy Resource Assessment 8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.3 Alternate Plan B 9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Review letters and replies 1.1 2.1 Seat bre bb eo) e710) el Ree eo uw . oy DWN = OM wo ~s DANDA ° =a ot nN wo . = Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.2 oe3 LIST OF TABLES Energy Balance for 1982 Prospective Hydroelectric Power Sites in the Vicinity of Chignik Lake Estimated Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Runoff Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case Estimated Heat Recovery Costs Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan A Itemized Cost of Installing a Hydroelectric System in Chignik Lake Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan B Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions hei 8.9 8.13 8.15 9.1 9.2 9.3 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Climatic Background Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances Electrical Generation Facilities Fuel Oil Usage Electrical Generation Sector Energy Distribution Energy Flow Diagram Distribution of Total Useable Energy Population Projection Thermal Energy Projection Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagram ait Page 2.2 2.3 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. This study has focused on seeking potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. However, where there were opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, these were detailed. Chignik Lake is one of a few villages which does not have a central electrical generation facility. In order to establish a basis for comparison between energy plans a central generation system was designed and used as the base case. There is potential for a hydro electric generation station at Chignik Lake and a plan to develop this resource was compared to the central generation base case and the base case scenario complemented by waste heat capture. Summary Statements Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into Chignik Lake were considered. 1. Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by propane and gasoline. 2. Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel powered generation of electricity. 3. Forecasts show an inevitable increase in energy consumption in the village due to population growth. Additional construction unrelated to population size is anticipated and will impact energy consumption and demand. Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the village. This weakens the accuracy of technological Or economic predictions. However, the estimates relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably reliable. The feasibility of various technologies for electrical and thermal energy production were evaluated. Coal, wind, geothermal, wood, peat, and solar were consid- ered as potential energy resources but are not viable alternatives to fuel oil generated electric power. Central power generation and waste heat recovery from the central power plant and hydro proved to be feasible and formed the basis for the alternate energy plans. The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the anticipated use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was performed. General Recommendations 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New technologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. als 74 35 Significant energy savings could be realized by a village-wide energy conservation and weatherization program. Village Specific Recommendations 1. The installation of the central diesel electric power station is recommended. This will provide a source of economical, reliable electric power for the village. Hydroelectric power in the village is economically attractive. In addition, it saves a large amount of fuel oil and would eliminate much of the hardship of difficult fuel oil deliveries into the village. The installation of the hydroelectric facility is recommended. Waste heat recovery, from power plant, utilized for is an economically viable detailed work needs to be the anticipated central space heating in the village alternative. Further, more conducted before it is possible to define the relative economic advantages of waste heat or hydro. The following steps should be taken: a. Initiate design of a plant. central electric power b. Initiate a feasibility study of hydroelectric power. Cre Initiate a feasibility study of waste heat recovery. 2.0 BACKGROUND Introduction Chignik Lake was established in the late 1950's by families that moved up the Chignik River from the village of Chignik Lagoon. The majority of the residents leave and go to Chignik or Chignik Lagoon for the salmon fishing season. The unincorporated village is in the Bristol Bay Region and the village corporation is called Chignik River Ltd. Location The village is located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula on the southern shore of Chignik Lake as the lake narrows into the Chignik River (Figure 2.1). It is 9 miles southwest of Chignik Lagoon and 15 miles west-southwest of Chignik. Climate The nearest recording meteorological station is at Port Heiden but the station is located north of the Aleutian Mountain Range and experiences a considerably different climate. Summary data from Cold Bay is presented in Figure 2.2, although it is recognized that there are climatic differences between the Chigniks and Cold Bay. There are approximately 9600 heating degree days at Chignik Lake. Population Census Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 Population --- 58 117. 138 Number of Houses 35 2.1 CHc KEY KOTLIK SAINT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK LOWER KALSKAG NEWTOK NIGHTMUTE CHEFORNAK MEKORYUK 10 TOKSOOK BAY Il =TUNUNAK 12 HOOPER BAY 13. CHIGNIK LAGOON 14 CHIGNIK LAKE 15 IVANOF BAY 16 FALSE PASS 17 COLD BAY ODNONNDUN— 18 NIKOLSKI 19 ATKA 20 ST. PAUL ST. GEORGE 1 of { | I} 417 TuNuNAK — 10 toxsoox say ORYUK~as, g Mex wawrion a ba SAINT Mapys_2 ST eo matsnas 3° a 5 cower” oe ni A - 7 : KALSKAG =e wee -s . vf wy i 120 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP Climatic Background Cold Bay anna gan reo tan! apn t may! gun! suc! auc! sep! ocr! wov! vec ,, Light_Conditions si 7 | | TSebees 7 4 ] = Heep 7 7 ene 7 : Lage N esha ee c_fimetudes “crv twitrgme! os | i ail ahaa pean ET t ; 4 Winds Mean wind speed/ prevailing direction ii 7 T jsse_] sse ‘ssé [nw | se | se_ se wsw | SSE | NNW o P “Ocrurrence at a ~ ie Precipitation PERCENT FREQUENCY Rs ° 8 i es a 1 i i | | KNOTS 6.3 ° 8 PERCENT FREQUENCY 6 ° 8 PEACENT FREQUENCY 3 1 [_Maximum precipitation <j emer eet Be i foecsle Sl cote : — ft 8 8 8 8 DEGREES F Jah FEB MAK’ APR MAY. JUN i JUL. AUG SeP OCT | NOV DEC Source: Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series. Figure 2.2 Ze 3 The village population has been expanding steadily since the village was founded in the late 1950's. In the 1960's village growth was stimulated by construction of the school. Economy The principal economic activity is purse seining for salmon. There are limited employment opportunities in the village. The local school provides four full-time and six part-time positions. Although limited subsistence activities occur in the area they are still an important component of the local economy. 2.4 3.0 VILLAGE VISIT In contrast to the neighboring village of Chignik Lagoon, many people leave Chignik Lake in the summer to find work. The majority of residents go down river to Chignik Lagoon or Chignik for fishing. The majority of the residences in the villages are traditional although there are modern type houses, for example, cedar kit homes. Recent construction in the village has resulted in a PHS water treatment/laundry building, new school classrooms and gymnasium, and a new church building. It was not possible to telephone the village prior to departure by boat from Chignik Lagoon, however, contact was made by radio. A village meeting was convened at the Community Center and chaired by Lola Lind. After outlining the purpose of the Energy Reconnaissance Program, discussion focused on energy saving opportunities and options, and forms of increasing the efficiency of diesel generation of electricity. The village people provided background information in relation to: 1) Corps of Engineers field visits to the area to reevaluate the hydro potential detailed in the October 1980 Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study of the Alaska Peninsula; 2) The great problems of getting oil to the village. Oil must be brought up in 55 gallon drums or small tanks from Chignik Lagoon on small boats and then pumped into the school storage tanks, or stored in barrels adjacent to the houses. 3) The coal deposits to the east of Chignik Lake. Because of the cost in time and labor to get fuel to the village, hydroelectricity is uppermost in the minds of the villagers. However, the results of the Corps of Engineers studies have yet to find a site which could be considered feasible. A possible intertie to Chignik Lagoon was discussed, but reservations were expressed about the distance involved. The principal problem to which the discussion returned repeatedly was the lack of a central generation and distribution system. Some villagers have connected several houses to one generator, but most houses are served by their own generators. The team discussed the importance of a central generating and distribution system. Although diesel based initially, any alternative source of power, for example hydro-electric, could be incorporated into the system with comparative ease. The potential of wind generation was raised although the experience at Nelson Lagoon and Sheldon Point have shown that the technology is too unreliable at present. 352 Installation of a central system would result ina considerable increase in the efficiency of electricity generation throughout the village with a consequent reduction in fuel requirements. Cost reductions would also be realized through bulk storage and bulk purchasing. The villagers mentioned that a store, restaurant, and possibly a small hotel or transient apartment building will be built, although no definite time frame was mentioned. 3.3) 4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES 4.1 4.3 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is listed, segregated by sector, in Figure 4.1. These capacities are based on actual tank sizes and on estimates where reliable data could not be obtained. The storage capacity of domestic fuel tanks and 55 gallon drums is not included in the bulk storage capacities. Also listed in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and cooking appliances, by sector, being used in the village. Electrical Generation Facilities The existing generating equipment installed in the village is listed in Figure 4.2. Comments on the operation of the generators are included. The anticipated generation equipment for a central power plant is also listed on Figure 4.2. Once the central power plant becomes operational, the individual generators now used would be disconnected or used for back up. Fuel Oil Usage Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the villace. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used for electrical power generation is shown. 4.4 The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to waste. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where avilable, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the main report for an explanation of the estimating process. The fuel oil consumption for electrical power generation was based on a central electrical power plant, with the generating equipment listed in Figure 4.2. Electrical Energy Distribution The energy flow through the electrical generation sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The “"pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to the generation of electrical power. Each sector in the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown. 4.2 Sr? STORAGE * (GALS) BULK FUEL PUEL “Or 65000 gal. CHIGNIK LAKE/1982 STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES OF HEATING APPLIANCES SECTOR COMMERCIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESIDENTIAL GASOLINE TYPE HOF HEATING APPLIANCE LEGEND: TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE ] OIL-FIREOD FORCED AIR FURNACE OIL- FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION ORIP-TYPE OIL STOVE/FURNACE WOOD STOVE PROPANE COOKING STOVES WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS ou fw DY *oAY TANKS ANO FUEL ORUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. **Anticipated central generation storage Figure 4.1 ELECTRICAL GENERATION NO. OF OWNER UNITS School i Z Water Treatment 2 Facility Ls Village Residents 20 Est. Public Clinic 2 Community Center Proposed Central 2 Electricity Generation Facility 1 ELECTRICAL GENERATION CHIGNIK LAKE GENERATOR TYPE OF TYPE OF OUTPUT RATING ENGINE GENERATOR 50 KW Waukesha Kato 30 KW John Deere John Deere 15 kw Kohler Kohler 12 Kw Kohler Kohler 3-7 KW Various Various 5 KW 100 KW 50 KW Figure 4.2 FACILITIES ELECTRICAL RATION DISTRIBUTION COMMENTS ON OPERATIO 120/240V Provides power for school conplex. 120/240V 12 KW Kohler out of eervice. 120/240V Up to three facilities connected to a generator. 120/240 v 4160/2400V |Central power system would replace = individual generators. Those listed above could serve as indi- vidual emergency backup. Typical loperation would be a single 100 KW lunit, with the 50 KW unit used at night. 100 90 80 70 60 30 20 10 ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE = 81300 GAL = 10970x10-BTU FUEL OIL USAGE CHIGNIK LAKE /1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat Waste Heat 22% Generator Waste Heat Electricity 93% R Residential 39 c Commercial 0 P Public 3 S School Is E Electrical Power Generation 45 Figure 4.3 4.5 %o %o %o Lo %o ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION CHIGNIK LAKE P Residential Il % Commercial 0% Public 2 % School 5 % Waste Heat 80 % Generation Losses 2% TOTAL ENERGY 4950 x 10 BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 293 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5.0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Chignik Lake during 1982 is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types of energy that will be consumed by the various sectors are based upon the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by the school, and Columbia-Ward Fisheries in Chignik Lagoon. Estimates based on the population, square footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated energy usage factors, were used where data was incomplete. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 12,851 MMBTU of fuel will enter Chignik Lake in the form of gasoline, propane and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various sectors and used for transportation, cooking, heating and electricity generation. The conversion of the fuel to its end use will result in 49% or 6,353 MMBTU of energy to be lost as heat. 56% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual amount of energy used by each sector is listed in the last column of the diagram. The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy, if a central generation system is installed in the village, is shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the quantity of energy that will be required by each sector (excluding transportation) for electric lights and appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and generation station service. Percentages listed in the figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 4773 xX 10® Btus to determine the projected energy requirements for a particular end use in a given sector. These projected energy requirements do not include energy conversion losses and therefore represent the actual quantity of energy required for each end use. Sir e°s SECTOR RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE: CHIGNIK LAKE/1982 FUEL OIL ENERGY BALANCE GASOLINE PROPANE TOTAL ENERGY ELECTRICITY MWH BTU x10& Btu x 10° Btu x 10° COMMERCIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS ELECTRICAL GENERATION TRANSPORTATION *station service or distribution losses Table 5.1 CHIGNIK LAKE/1982 pop: 150 HOUSEHOLDS: 32 9,600 HTG. DEGREE DAYS DucT ] FUEL AMOUNT ENERGY PRODUC ELECTRICAL ENO USE TOTAL BY SECTOR CONVERSION DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USABLE ENERGY - GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION ; (1725) (1725) (1725) PROPANE COOKING (160) (P60) wooo RESIDENTIAL oe RESIDENTIAL (3299) (4470) HEATING/ (2750) (549) COOKING — COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL HEATING a a (1002) < FUEL OIL POWER POWER GEN. i 1, GENERATION ELECTRICAL _— (10966) GENERATORS an (4950) SCHOOL(S) SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (1083) aio) COOKING PUBLIC PUBLIC (291) HEATING (336) TOTAL TOTAL WASTE TOTAL INPUT HEAT USABLE ENERGY (6353) ENERGY RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT (10049) (12851) (3551) WASTE HEAT NON - RECOVERABLE (2802) NOTE : NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10° Btu's. WVYOSVIG MOIS ADYANA DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY * CHIGNIK LAKE W/ CENTRAL GENERATION INSTALLED END USE BY SECTOR SECTOR ee tii) ie E(1.4%) 90 a 80 = E or 2 ae wi ~ 70 a H/C(50.6%) oa a w ec <z 60 — Zz w 50 oO x Ww o 40 --~WE GEN 1 __PS2.12) E(2.0%) “TL UII WH(1.5%) 30 SCHOOL H/C(16.7%) 20 10 Te ee E( 1.9%) PUBLIC H/C( 4.2%) Oo END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 5.3% VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 6.7% H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 69.9% P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ : 2.1% TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 4773 x 108 BTU % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fig. 5.2 6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.1 Population Projection The population of Chignik Lake was forecast for the twenty year planning period based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capitol projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their own community. Historical data from 1960 to 1980 approximate a 2% annual growth rate. No capitol projects are planned that will significantly increase this rate of growth therefore the 2% rate was applied to the 1980 population for the projection. Historical and projected populations are listed below. Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over the 20 year planning period. TE Historical Projected 1960 1970 1980 | 1990 2000 2010 58 117 138 168 205 250 Capital Projects Forecast During the community meeting development plans associated with housing, a village store and the school were mentioned but there is no known time frame for these projects. Therefore, these plans were not included in the forecasts. The computer program developed for forecasting has the facility to include capital projects. When firm plans are established for specified developments the program can be run to detail the effect on peak demand, kilowatt hours generated and the effect on the thermal energy requirements of the community. 6.1 6.3 6.4 Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Chignik Lake during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided by the combustion of fuel for space heating. The projections were based on fuel use records, and estimates of the heating requirements of the buildings. Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Chignik Lake, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data was not available. Details of the estimation methods and representative calculations are included in the main report. 6.2 ENERGY <(MMBTUD THERMAL POPULATION POPULATION PROJECTION CHIGNIK LAKE 2s 225 2a0 175 158 9 Ran li Esch nile inneilitinn Spal rela eetanascllastclieaelalaall iss2 1984 1986 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2228 YEAR Ficure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION CHIGNIK LAKE SS5e2 S220 4822 acee @ vi tm 1gs2. 1934 1986 41988 1ssz 1992 1954 1596 1898 2222 YEAR Figure 6.2 ELECTRICAL ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY PEAK DEMAND (Ki) TOTAL (HWH) BY SECTOR (MWH) 158 125 123 75 1 PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION CHIGNIK LAKE Set na 1986 1988 1998 1992 1994 YEAR 1 haere 1 982 1996 «41998 2282 1984 ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION CHIGNIK LAKE 2B se? 15d + smM a SS = a i | _-------- Sé ee fos - toe? A p7 — 1 L 4 LL. 1 4 1 1 1 i. 1 1 tek 1932 19384 1986 1988 1893 1s32 1994 1956 1998 2Re2 YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Hydropower A Corps of Engineers study completed in 1981 identified three hydroelectric power sites in the vicinity of Chignik Lake. Preliminary calculations, based on published regional data, are presented in Table 7.1 for these three sites. It must be recognized that these are estimates and field investigation and measurements are necessary. Table 7.1 Estimated Distance from Installed Project Cost Site No. Stream Village Miles Capacity KW $ Million x Unnamed 1.8 370 22355 2 Unnamed 2.5 240 2.004 2 Cucumber 3 1340 7.043 Creek An analysis of other streams in the vicinity of Chignik Lake identified a stream approximately 2 miles southeast of the village. The stream has an estimated hydropotential which appears to meet the electricity requirements of the community (Table 7.2). ier Table 7.2 Estimated Annual = Qa = 7.0 £t3/s Estimated Jan. = Q = 4.8 cfs Estimated Feb. = Q = 3.6 cfs Estimated mean monthly Estimated Mar. = Q = 3.6 cfs and mean annual runoff Estimated Apr. = Q = 3.6 cfs using U.S.G.S. open Estimated May = Q = 4.8 cfs file report 76-513, Estimated June = Q = 10.8 cfs and NOAA weather data. Estimated July = Q = 12.0 cfs Estimated Aug. = Q = 10.8 cfs Estimated Sept. = Q = 10.8 cfs Q = Discharge Estimated Oct. = Q = 9.6 cfs Estimated Nov. = Q = 7.2 cfs Estimated Dec. = Q = 4.8 cfs Coal Coal has been found in deposits near Chignik Bay. The Magnitude of these coal depostis is unknown. There are no records of any commercial activity at these deposits. Wind Chignik Lake is bounded by tall mountains on the north and south sides. It is expected that these mountains would cause turbulent, unsteady wind much of the year. Long range wind data must be gathered before the feasibility of wind power can be judged. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned ina diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine cooling water, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the engine. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings and used in heaters for space heating. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Chignik Lake. Weatherization Homes and buildings built in Western Alaska in the past have in general been poorly insulated and weatherized. Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows. Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the building more comfortable and liveable at the same time. The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the most effective way of reducing village energy usage. Technology Ranking Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that could be applied to the village. Each technology was examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and environmental impact. Please refer to the main report for the ranking methodology. ie Vee Village of Chignik Lake Technology Environ- Ranking State-of-the-Art Resource mental Factor Impact Weatherization* Diesel Power Waste Heat Recovery* Hydroelectric Power Wind Energy Conversion Systems Geothermal Energy Steam Power from local fuel,wood,coal,ect... Gasification of wood,coal or peat Generation via synchronous Induction* Electrical Load Management* * Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 8.0 8.1 8.1.1 ENERGY PLAN Base Case General Description The base case plan for the village of Chignik Lake is to install a central aeneration system. This centralized system would include the following components: 1. Two 100 KW diesel generators that would be used to meet the peak power demands. One unit would be backup in the event of a failure of the other unit. A 50 KW diesel generator to be used for night and as summer loads. Five 8000 gallon storage tanks to be used for storing a year's supply of fuel. A centralized power distribution system operating at 4160 volts, three-phase. This higher voltage would minimize distribuion losses and voltage drops in the system through the use of step-up and step-down transformers. Single-phase power at 120/240 volts would be provided to village consumers. Watt meters at the service entrance of all power users in order to provide an equitable billing to all consumers. A 15' x 25' building that would house the generators and electrical equipment. 8.1 8.1.2 Base Case Cost Analysis The installation cost of the central electric power plant was estimated to be $421,000. The cost is itemized below: Generators and Equipment 70,000 Fuel Storage 20,500 Generator Building 187,000 Labor 14,500 Shipping 28,000 Subtotal 320,000 Engineering 25,300 Project Management 12,600 Test 12,600 Contingency 50,500 Total Estimated Cost $421,000 The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 50 kw, when the growing peak demand required it. The incremental cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $1650/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $11.85/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.60/gallon. Operation and maintenance expenses were estimated at 8¢/kwh. Table 8.1 presents the itemized present worth analysis of the base case for the 20 year study period. The discounted 20 year present worth was $2,474,700. 8.2 8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST 1982 1983 28.2 28.2 62.6 65.9 24.1 24.8 114.9 118.9 114.9 118.9 114.9 115.4 1992 1993 33.7. 33.7 102.5 107.5 30.6 31.2 166.8 172.5 166.8 172.5 124.1 124.6 1982-2034 10824.9 5207.8 5207.8 CHIGNIK LAKE 1984 33.7 69.4 25.4 128.5 128.5 121.1 1994 SSal. E27, 31.9 178.3 178.3 125).11 PLAN 1 BASE CASE 1985 33.7 72.9 26.0 132.7 132.7 121.5 1995 33.7 118.1 32.6 184.4 184.4 125.6 1986 3357 76.7 26.7 137.1 137.1 121.8 1996 S307, 123.7 33.3 190.8 190.8 126.1 Table 8.1 1987 33.7 80.5 e2ie3 141.6 141.6 22i2 1997 33.7 129.6 34.0 197.4 197.4 126.7 NOTE: 1988 SS 84,6 28.0 146.3 146.3 12255) 1998 33.7 135.8 34.7 204.3 204.3 127/53 1989 33a 88.8 28.6 15d ou 15ST 122.9 1999 33.7 142.3 3050) 211.5 211.5 128.0 1990 33.7 93.2 29e3 156.2 156.2 2353 2000 S37, 149.0 36.2 219.0 219.0 128.6 1991 33.7 97.7 29.9 161.4 161.4 123.7 2001 33.7 156.1 37.0 226.8 226.8 129.3 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's’ TOTAL 663.8 2069.6 607.1 3340.5 3340.5 2474.7 8.1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Operation of anticipated central diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: At the time of the village visit there was no central generation system. The villagers are requesting that central generation be installed to reduce their cost of electricity and increase its availability and reliability. Central generation has been assumed as the hase case. The villagers of Chignik Lake preferred not to see a diesel powered system but recognize that such a system would be necessary initially and later as a backup to alternateive energy based systems. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases releases a small amount of pollutants to the local environment, but the impact is minimal. ii) Noise: The exhaust stacks from the generator produce a considerable amount of noise. The installation of more effective mufflers would reduce the noise level. iii) Water Quality: No impact. 8.4 8.1.4 iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impacts. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is no impact on vegetation or soils. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: All leases and permits are in place. Base Case Technical Evaluation The anticipated operation of the central diesel electric power plant in Chignik Lake is expected to conform to the following: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well proven well understood technology with a successful history in rural Alaska. Backup generation would allow maintenance operations without major power interruption. Occasional system downtown is expected for distribution system maintenance. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. Availability. There are no indications that spare parts will become difficult to obtain in the future. The availability of fuel to the power plant depends on the reliability of transportation to the village. 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.2.1 General Description The Alternate Plan A for Chignik Lake is the installation of a waste heat recovery system installed at the anticipated central electric power plant, with the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 100 kw and 50 kw generators. 2. A distribution system consisting of pumps, piping and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return it to the power plant. 3. Heating equipment installed in the school buildings, to provide space heating. 4. A control system that automatically regulates the supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any surplus waste heat to the engine radiators. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water heat recovery system. The installation cost of the heat recovery system was estimated to be $138,700. The system value was amortized over a 10 year period. 8.6 ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY Project Location Generators (kw) Estimated total kwh generated Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate Percent of On-Line Capacity Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery Percent Jacket Water Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized MAJOR COST ITEMS Main piping 250 feet x $120/ft. 2. Heat Recovery Equipment 3. Circulating Pumps 4. Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware 5. Contingencies (30%) 6. Base Cost 7. Project Management (5%) 8. Engineering (10%) 9. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 10. O & M COST 11. Recovery Efficiency Table 8.2 8.7 Costs Chignik Lake 100,100,50 294,000kwh/yr 100,100,50 34 kw 34% __5200 Btu/min_ 43% -134x106 BtuH -134x106 BtuH 30,000 33,500 7,600 21,700 27,800 120,600 6,000 12,100 138,700 1.70/MMBtu __3993 Btu/kwh The cost of fuel oil normally used for space heating, which was offset by the captured waste heat, was $14.81/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil cost of $2.00/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were calculated to be $1.70/MMBTU waste heat captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The discounted net benefit of the system was $422,900. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from anticipated generators for sale to major consumers. 1) Community Preference: The villagers of Lake recognize that the installation of will improve the efficiency of fuel use community. The sale of waste heat will lessen the effect of rising fuel prices cost of electricity. Chignik waste heat in the help on the Installation of the waste heat capture system will require local expertise and should provide a number of jobs during the construction phase. The system should operate with minimal maintenance although one part time person would be required until the system has been tested and initial minor problems have been solved. 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in fuel use resulting in reduction of hydrocarbons, monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. 8.8 eo . oO DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 28.2 62.6 24.1 114.9 114.9 114.9 oooo~"w 6 oooon 1983 28.2 65.9 24.8 118.9 118.9 115.4 oooo~w on eS oOoOCOw 1984 3357, 69.4 25.4 128.5 128.5 121.1 eeoes oooos. CHIGNIK LAKE PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1985 33.7 72.9 26.0 13257. 132.7 121.5 1985 18.5 37.3 18.8 16.7 1986 33.7 76.7 26.7 137.1 137/51, 121.8 1986 18.5 39.2 20.6 17.8 Table 8.3 1987 33.7 80.5 21.3 141.6 141.6 122.2 1987 18.6 41.1 22.5 18.9 NOTE: 1988 33.7 84.6 28.0 146.3 146.3 12255 1988 18.6 43.1 24.5 19.9 1989 33.57 88.8 28.6 151.1 151.1 12259 1989 18.7 45.2 26.5 20.9 1990 RIC 93.2 2923 156.2 156.2 12353 1990 18.7 47.4 28.6 21.9 1991 33.7 97.7 29.9 161.4 161.4 123.7 1991 18.8 49.7 30.9 23.0 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's oT’s DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1992 33) 102.5 30.6 166.8 166.8 124.1 1992 18.9 52.0 33.2 24.0 TOTAL DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS TOTAL PLAN COST 1993 1994 33.7 33.7 107.5 112.7 31.2 31.9 172.5 178.3 172.5 178.3 124.6 125.1 1993 1994 18.9 19.0 54.5 57.1 35.6 38.1 25.0 25.9 1982-2034 10824.9 5207.8 1136.4 4071.4 CHIGNIK LAKE PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1995 33.7 118.1 32.6 184.4 184.4 125.6 1995 19.0 59.7 40.7 26.9 1996 33.7 123.7 33.3 190.8 190.8 126.1 1996 19.1 62.6 43.5 27.9 Table 8.3 (continued) 1997 33.7 129.6 34.0 197.4 197.4 126.7 1997 19.1 65.5 46.3 28.9 NOTE: 1998 33.7 135.8 34.7 204.3 204.3 12753 1998 19.2 68.5 49.3 29.8 1999 33.7 142.3 35.5 211.5 21025 128.0 1999 19.3 71.7 52.5 30.8 2000 33.7 149.0 36.2 219.0 219.0 128.6 2000 19.3 75.1 55.7 31.8 2001 S307 156.1 37.0 226.8 226.8 129.3 2001 19.4 78.6 59.2 32.8 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's TOTAL 663.8 2069.6 607.1 3340.5 3340.5 2474.7 TOTAL 321.6 948.2 626.5 422.9 8.2.4 ii) iii) iv) vi) Noise Levels: No impact. Water Quality: There would be a minor impact if a major leakage occurred in the coolant system. Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None. Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during the installation of the distribution system and will be restricted to the village site. Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed that the village will make the necessary arrangements for the right of way requirements for the distribution system. Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation Operation of the waste heat recovery system in Chignik Lake, in conjunction with the central power plant, is expected to conform to the following expectations: 1. High Reliability. The system utilizes simple, reliable components that are readily available “off the shelf" from a variety of sources. Safety. A well maintained system has a very low hazard potential. 8.11 3. Availability. All components needed are available immediately. The system is relatively easy to implement. 8.3 Alternate B 8.3.1 General Description The Alternate Plan B for Chignik Lake is to install a 125 KW hydroelectric power plant on the stream that is 1.8 miles east of the village. The run-of-river project diverts 7 CFS of streamflow through a penstock to a turbine-generator power plant. Diesel generation facilities would be utilized during the winter months when electrical demand exceeds the hydro generation capacity due to lowered stream flows. Major components of the plan include: a 125 KW turbine-generator power plant with a net head of 270 feet; a diversion structure; : 2750 feet of 14 inch penstock; 9500 feet of 3-phase transmission line; and a 1.5 mile access road. 8.3.2 Alternate B Cost Analysis Table 8.4 presents the itemized cost of installing a hydroelectric system in Chignik Lake. The estimated initial capital cost of the hydro system was estimated to be $2,054,500 in current dollars. 8512 ESTIMATED HYDRO COSTS Project Location Chignik Lake Average Annual Flow (cfs) 7.0 cfs Total Head (ft) 300 ft Transmission Line Length (miles) 1.8 mi Road Length (miles) 4 mi CALCULATED VALUES Net Head 270 ft Generator Unit Rating (KW) 125 kw Energy Available @ 30% Plant Factor (KWH/yr) 328,500 kwh/yr Penstock Diameter (inches) 14 in MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Power House 100,000 2. Turbines, Generators, Valves, & Switchgear 125,000 3. Diversion Structure (Sheetpile) 100,000 4. Water Way (Penstock) 2750 ft xX $80/ft 220,000 5. Transmission Line 1.8 mi X $90000/mi 162,000 6. Access Road 4 mi X $65000/mi 260,000 7. Mobilization and Demobilization 350,000 8. Contingencies (30%) 395,000 9. Base Cost 1,712,100 10. Project Management (5%) 85,600 11. Test and Energization (5%) 85,600 12. Engineering (10%) 171,200 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,054,500 Table 8.4 8.13 The hydro project is planned for completion in 1985 and is expected to have a useful life of 50 years. Table 8.5 presents an itemized present worth analysis of the plan for the 20 and 53 year study periods. The discounted present worth of the plan is $2,202,900 and $4,152,700, respectively, in 1982 dollars. 8.3.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan Summary 1) Community Preference: The village meeting focused on the potential for hydro electric power as the primary alternative to diesel. The low O&M and reliability of the system are important considerations. Installation of a hydro facility would provide several jobs locally during the construction phase and a part time position for a person to operate and maintain the system. The community is strongly in favor of a feasibility study to determine an accurate cost and fully access the potential of the proposed installation. 8.14 SsT*8 CHIGNIK LAKE PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B DIESEL - ELECTRIC 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 28.2 28.2 S367 33a7 33.7 33-7, 33.07 33,07 33a7 3357 FUEL 62.6 65.9 69.4 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.2 ee, 6.3 6.9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 24.1 24.8 25.4 3.4 3.6 Sez, 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 TOTAL 114.9 118.9 128.5 40.9 41.6 42.1 42.7 43.6 44.1 44.8 HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 aN05) 21.9 22.4 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.4 99.9 100.3 100.8 101.3 101.8 102.3 TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST 114.9 118.9 128.5 140.3 141.5 142.4 143.5 144.9 145.9 147.1 DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1149 7 115.54 e215) 02854) 125.7" 122.8) 12062 17698 11552 219227, NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.5 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST 1992 1993 33e0 33.07 Ti4 8.1 4.3 4.4 45.4 46.2 79.8 79.8 22.9 23.4 102.8 103.3 148.2 149.5 110.3 108.0 1982-2034 8253.6 4152.7 4152.7 NOTE: CHIGNIK LAKE 1994 33.7 8.7 4.6 47.0 79.8 23.9 103.8 150.8 105.8 kkK PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B 1995 33-7 9.6 4.8 48.1 79.8 24.5 1996 BSe7 10.3 4.9 48.9 79.8 25.0 104.3 104.8 152.4 1 53.7 103.8 101.6 ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.5 1997 S3\a1 11.0 5.0 49.7 79.8 25.5 105.4 US5isit 99.6 1998 33017 V2en 5.2 51.0 79.8 26.0 105.9 156.9 97.8 1999 33-7 12.6 523 51.6 79.8 26.6 106.4 158.0 95.6 2000 33.7 137 5.5 DieieD 79.8 27.1 107.0 159.9 93.9 2001 S3ia7 14.9 5.6 54.2 79.8 VAIS 107.6 161.8 92.3 TOTAL 663.8 343.4 150.7 1157.9 1357.4 399.6 1757.0 2914.2 2202.9 2) Environmental Considerations: i) ii) a bata) iv) vi) Air Quality: There will be an improvement in air quality because the diesels will be relegated to a back up role. Noise: Levels will be almost eliminated except when the diesels are run for testing or when operating in their capacity as a backup to the hydro. Water Quality: No impact. Fish and Wildlife: The small diversion dam will not have an appreciable effect, although the full impact would have to await a detailed feasibility study. The significance of salmon to the economy of the Chignik area cannot be over emphasized and would require specific attention in the feasibility study. Terrestrial Impaci:s: Will be associated with the road construction to the diversion dam site, the diversion dam construction (assumed to be rock crib type), the penstock route, powerhouse and transmission line to the village. These impacts would be kept to a minimum, however, until a feasibility study is undertaken these effects cannot be detailed. Land Use and Land Ownership Status: The appropriate permits would have to be obtained from State and Federal agencies. 8.17 8.3.4 Alternate Plan B Technical Evaluation A hydro electric power plant operating in Chignik Lake is expected to be: 1. Highly Reliable. A possible power shortage could occur if a dry season causes low flow. Safe. A well maintained system will present little hazard to operators or village residents. Availability. Constructed using conventional well established construction practices. Replacement parts would be difficult to obtain at the remote Alaska site. 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 —(1982=200T ~~ —~SCSOtC;73;7;73737;] CHIGNIK LAKE Base Case A A | Alternative B Energy Source Diese Diesel and Electric Waste Heat Hydro Present Wor 7474,700 A74,700 7202,900 Non-Electrical Benefits | -§ ~—-422,900 | ota [$2,474 70 USI, 800 7202, 900 ODD D0 34 CHIGNIK LAKE Alternative B Energy Source Diese Diesel and 7 | Waste Heat Hydro Present Wor [$5,207 800| $5,207, 800 | $4, 152,700 on-Electrical Benefits PC Si 138, 200 ota [$5,207,800] $4,071, 400 | $4, 152,700 Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 Energy Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Plan 3 Cost Year (kwh/yr. ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) T982 30T, 700 re 38.05 38.08 1983 309,600 38.40 38.40 38.40 1984 317,600 40.46 40.46 40.46 1985 325,500 40.77 35.00 43.10 1986 333,500 aslveelelk 34.93 42.43 1987 341,500 41.46 34.88 41.70 1988 349,500 41.86 34.85 41.06 1989 357,600 42.25 34.84 40.52 1990 365,700 42.71 34.89 39.90 1991 373,900 43.17 34.90 39.34 1992 382,200 43.64 34.96 38.78 1993 390,600 44.16 35.05 38.27 1994 399,100 44.68 35.13 37.79 1995 407,700 45.23 35.25 37.38 1996 416,400 45.82 S537 36.91 1997 425,200 46.43 35.54 36.48 1998 434,200 47.05 35.70 36.14 1999 443,300 47.71 351087 35.64 2000 452,500 48.40 36.09 35.34 2001 461,900 49.10 36.28 35.03 Se Table 9.3 presents the plans for the village, in rank of recommended preference. The recommended action appropriate to each alternative is listed as well. Table 9.3 Energy Plan Alternative Recommended Action Alternative A - Waste Heat Initiate a feasibility Capture study for waste heat recovery. Estimated cost of feasibilty study $12,000 - $15,000. Alternative B — Hydro Initiate a feasibility Electric Power study including stream gauging for hydroelectric. Estimated cost of feasibi- lity study - $115,700 - $120,000 Base Case — Operation of Anticipated Central Generation Plant Additional Recommendations Weatherization No resource assessment or -building insulation feasibility study -building envelope needed; immediate action infiltration required to bring Energy -improved combustion Audit and/or weatherization program to this community. The results of the economic evaluation of Alternatives A and B are inconclusive. The preference of the villagers is to install the hydroelectric project because it would alleviate the problems associated with shipping fuel oil to the village. APPENDIX. See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report: RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VILLAGES OF Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. MEMO TO THE RECORD ALASKA supsect ACRES' and NORTEC's ENERGY RECONS sy _PKD pate_4/6/82 POWER | _TELECON WITH DIANA-RIGG, DNR, DIVISION OF © SHEETNO.__] _or_y AUTHORITY | — paRKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY prosect ENERGY RECONS | _ Diana Rigg called with a personal communication which she will follow with a letter. Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites of historical Projects. They are: Chignik Lake Atka cua aa aAckasook Ivanof Bay ________—___Nightmute— Stebbins Newtok New Chenega She recommends that if feasibility studies are done for these communities , the contractor should contact their office early in the study. Reply to Telecon with Diana Rigg, DNR, Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology, dated 4/6/82. Receipt of the letter is acknowledged; but no reply is necessary. MEMORANDUM...< State of Alaska TO: DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ERIC YOULD, Executive Director DATE: April 16, 1982 Alaska Power Authority FILE NO Q Cian. ‘RECEIVED. TELEPHONE NO: 976_9653 FROM. REED STOOPS APR 2 2 1982 SUBJECT: DNR Comments: APA's Director Draft FY 82 Energy ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Reconnaissance Reports The Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to review these draft energy reconnaissance report. Ivanof Bay: There are no known cultural resources sites on the National Register of Historic Places, nor are there sites determined to be eligible for the National Register. Examination of Division of Parks records indicates there is a low potential of such sites occurring in the subject area; however, it is the responsibility of APA to verify this statement. Should cultural resources be found during the construction, we request that the project engineer halt work which may disturb such resources and contact the Division of Parks immediately. Should there be any questions, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676. Newtok, Nightmute, Stebbins, and New Chenega: The Division of Parks is concerned that the impact of the projects on cultural resources has not been included in the reconnaissance studies. In order for the Alaska Power Authority to meet its responsibilities per 36 CFR 800, cultural resources must be addressed under consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Division of Parks therefore requests to review the feasibility reports for the proposed projects if they are initiated. Chignik Lake: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power and a central power plant are feasible alternatives to the present power base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS in the vicinity of Chignik Lake and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility reports for the proposed hydroelectric power unit and for the central power plant, if they are initiated. Atka: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power Ts a feasible alternative to the present power base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS that are in the vicinity of the village and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility report for the proposed project, if it is initiated. Reed Stoops 2 April 16, 1982 Atkasook: The reconnaissance study discusses the potential use of coal from local sources as a viable and feasible project. No specific locations were identified by the report. Over 30 cultural resources sites are listed on the AHRS as being within the general vicinity of Atkasook; these sites and others may be impacted should any coal be mined in the area. The Division of Parks would like to review any future plans that involve coal mining in the vicinty, should definite plans be initiated. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676. Thank you for the Opportunity to comment. Reply to the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development letter dated 4/16/82. The cultural resources of the respective sites will be addressed in any feasibility studies. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 ee . NPAEN-PL-R 1 MAR i¢g2 REGEIVED APR ~ 2 1982 Mr. Eric Yould 334 West Sth Avenue ALASKA POWER .AUTHOHTY Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comprehensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower anu boat harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are available. We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are most familiar with; however, some of the comments may apply to the other reports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for various communities. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Loran Baxter of my staff at 552-3461. Sincerely, 1 Inc] eels a As stated Chief, Engineering Division Comments Atka: Page 7.1 is inconsistant. The lack of wind data is seted in the first paragraph,.then details of specific average annual wind speed versus height is given in the next paragraph. Then a comment that a site with wind in excess of 12 mph is a good site is followed by the statement that wind energy is expensive. We suggest that this be reworded for clarification. Page 7.3 - 7.4. The write-up under the heading "Assumptions" is contradictory. The statement is made that “Weather on the Aleutian Islands varies greatly from one island to the other..." but is preceded and followed by statements stating that weather on Amchitxa is comparable to that on Shemya, and that Atka's weather is comparable to that on Adak. Page 8.7. Mobilization and Demobilization costs of $50,000 appear low. Chignik Lake: Pages 7.1] and 8.13. Location of hydropower site is inconsistant. Page 8.14. Average power of 114 kW assumes 100 percent efficiency. "Energy Available" is wrong based on 30 percent plant factor. Table 8.5. This table shows the hydropower project dispiacing all the diesel generation until 2000. However, the peak-demand projection on page 6.4 ranges between approximately 85 kW in 1982 to about 125 kW in 2000. Based on the streamflows shown on page 7.2 and the data presented on page 38.14, the hydropower system could not produce more than about 80 kW in December, 65 kW in January, 60 kW in February, and 50 kW in March. The peak deinanas would likely fall during this period and not during the summer when most of the village moves to Chignik Lagoon. Page 9.1 . The feasibility cost estimate of $35,C00 to $45,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Cold Bay: The hydropower potential for Cold Bay referenced from the Corps' 1980 reconnaissance study has been found to be overly optimistic; therefore, the data should not be used. shire f False Pass: We concur with their findings that hydropower does not appear feasible. Ivanof Bay: Table 8.5. The table shows the hydropower system will displace all diesel. Based upon load and streamflow assumptions, it would not. Page 8.15. Mobilization and Demobilization costs appear’ low. Page 9.1. The feasibility study cost estimate of $25,000 to $35,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Nikolski: The findings, as reported, agree with the results of the Corps’ study. We feel that wind generation is the most promising alternative to diesel generation. The White Alice site may not be the most feasible location because of its distance from town. Although it is protected from corrosive salt spray because of its elevation, a wind energy conversion system may be affected by the other structures within the installation. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek may be a better site. The report neglected to mention if the WECS installed on the Chaluka Ranch has been repaired and placed in service and if it is performing satisfactorly. If a diesel enlargement were recommended to cope with substantial expansion of electrical demand, a salvaging of White Alice units could be pursued as an option if appropriate government channels can be identified. St. Paul: The reconnaissance study did not consider the impact of the proposed expansion of the fishing industry being considered by the local community. This could substantially alter the report findings. Galena: In a letter dated 9 June 1981 (copy previously furnished to your office), Ott Water Engineers stated that they felt that a storage project with a 100 to 300-foot dam may be feasible. The Corps will be taking a second look at this site this summer to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. Gustavus: The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelectwic power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip and public meeting is tentativély scheduled for mid-May. We will be installing a streamgage this summer. New Chenega: The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.W. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development. Reply to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, letter dated 3/31/82. Atka p. 7.1 (draft) Statements concerning wind resoures have been clarified. p. 7.3-7.4 (draft) Because of the lack of climatic data from the Aleutian Islands, it is necessary to extrapolate data from the nearest recording station. However, variability in the local climate means that all extrapolations are conservative. p. 8.7 (draft) Cost estimates for mobilization and demobilization have been adjusted to reflect Anchorage prices for equipment rather than those quoted from Adak. Chignik Lake p. 7.1 - 8.13 (draft) The distance has been corrected. 8.14 (draft) The energy available value has been corrected. Table 8.5 (draft) The table presented in the final report illustrates the use of diesel powered generators when there is a projected short fall. p. 9.1 The feasibility study estimates have been addressed especially in light of the comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Cold Bay The hydropower data was included as part of the resource assessment and was the determining factor for our not including an alternative plan which was based on hydro. False Pass No comment necessary. Ivanof Bay Table 8.5 The hydropower scenario calls for the construction of a small dam and creates a reservoir. Without extensive field work, it has not been possible to show that this would be inadequate to meet the estimated demand of the village. p.- 8.15 Mobilization costs have been increased. p. 9.1 Feasibility study figures have been increased especially in light of the comments and requirements of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Nikolski The White Alice site was considered because excellent foundations exist and the site is removed from the influence of salt spray. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek has been reconsidered and discussed with representatives of the village. The result has been the suggestion that the bluff site is a viable alternative and marginally less costly to develop because of a shorter transmission distance. However, this is largely offset by anticipated foundation problems at the bluff site. WECS at the Chaluka Ranch was not in operation when the field team was in the village. The diesel set from the White Alice site was purchased by the utility; however, its condition was uncertain and the engine was being stored outside. St. Paul As the role of the National Marine Fisheries in the Pribilofs is curtailed, the future of the islands' economies is uncertain. The proposed boat harbor has not been funded, as yet, and no data was available which would enable predictions to be made as to its effect on the local economy and power requirements. Therefore a scenario including the possible development of such facilities was not included. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iN REPLY REFERTO: Western Alaska Ecological Services ones 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 BEc (907) 271-4575 “CEIVED APR_9 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould ALASKA Executive Director KA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 9 APR 334 West 5th Avenue 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies:in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: 1. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. 3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following: Page 2 (a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. (b) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS’ Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. 1. Mammals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. be Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. (b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type. The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: 1. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. 2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified. Page 3 3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, Pobet Lepr Field Supervisor 1 a Ro ES SS SSS SS Reply to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter, undated. Environmental work to fulfill the information requirements detailed by FWS is included in the estimates for feasibility studies.