HomeMy WebLinkAboutConcept Design Final Report
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 10
Memorandum
To: Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy and Engineering
From: Bob Butera, HDR Project: King Cove “Waterfall Creek”
Hydroelectric Project
Concept Design Report - Final
CC:
Date: September 12, 2007 Job No: 201662/43449
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum (TM) documents engineering studies conducted by HDR Alaska, Inc.
to develop a concept design for the proposed Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project (“Project”).
This concept design is intended to provide sufficient information to Alaska Energy and Engineering,
Inc. to determine whether to proceed further with this project. Additional mapping, surveying,
geotechnical exploration, design and permitting will be necessary to further this project should a
decision be made to move forward.
This concept design was preceded by a site reconnaissance done on May 18, 2005 and a follow up
reconnaissance study dated August 5, 2006. This concept design study includes:
• Description of project setting
• Hydrologic analysis
• General project arrangement
• Diversion/intake structure concept design
• Pipeline concept design
• Powerhouse concept design
• Cost estimate
• Power generation estimate
• Economic analysis
Project Setting
The Project will be located on a small unnamed creek approximately 5 miles north of the City of
King Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek
that was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta
Creek hydroelectric powerhouse. For the purposes of this memorandum we will call this creek
“Waterfall Creek”.
The drainage basin for this creek is generally south facing, and ranges in elevation from
approximately 3000 feet down to 700 feet near the top of the waterfall and 190 feet where Waterfall
Creek meets Delta Creek. The basin can best be observed from near the water tank at the high point
on the King Cove Airport Road.
A preliminary fisheries investigation and a summer fish monitoring program were done in 2006 in
the portion of Waterfall Creek from its confluence with Delta Creek upstream to approximately 500
feet upstream of the confluence. The results from both sampling efforts found Dolly Varden present
in Waterfall Creek and no salmon species were observed. This work is documented in a
memorandum dated April 23, 2006. This fish monitoring program will be continued in 2007 to
verify that no off year salmon migration went unnoticed.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 10
There is little vegetation in the upper portion of the basin upstream of the waterfall. Vegetation in
the lower portion of the project area is typical of the Alaska Peninsula, with a mix of open areas and
dense shrubs. There are no trees. There are some muskeg areas on flatter areas.
Bedrock is exposed at the falls and within portions of the creek ravine but its depth throughout the
remainder of the project area is unknown.
The entire project is located on lands owned by the King Cove Native Corporation.
Aerial photography for the area is available from October 30, 1995 at a scale of 1”=2000’.
Additional lower level photography was taken on the same date at a scale of 1”= 500’. Both sets of
photography were taken for the Delta Creek Water Project. Mapping for that project was done at a
scale of 1” = 200” and a 2 foot contour interval. This mapping covered the lower portion of the
project site, up to the extent of the lower level photography. Additional mapping for the remainder
of the project could be completed from the higher elevation photography, with a contour interval of
10 feet.
Hydrology
Based on USGS mapping the drainage area of Waterfall Creek upstream of the waterfall is
approximately 0.7 square miles. There are three forks above the waterfall with the main fork to the
west. At the time of the site reconnaissance there was a snowfield above 1000 feet elevation.
Review of aerial photography from October 30, 1995 did not show any glaciers in the basin.
Waterfall Creek includes four distinct sections:
• A steep gradient reach from the headwaters to the top of the waterfall.
• The waterfall.
• A steep gradient reach approximately 2,000 feet long extending from the Waterfall to a
bench above Delta Creek where the creek bends 90 degrees to flow south, and
• A moderate gradient reach (5 to 9 percent) approximately 800 feet long extending from the
bench to the confluence with Delta Creek.
The drainage basin of Waterfall Creek is similar to the upper basins of Delta Creek in aspect and
elevation. A drainage area comparison to previous stream gaging on Delta Creek gives an estimated
range of flows for Waterfall Creek of 4 to 12 cubic feet per second (cfs). The estimated bank full
flow (approximately equivalent to the mean annual flood) was estimated from channel slope and
cross section to be approximately 20 cfs.
Flow measurements were done near the confluence of Delta Creek and upstream of the waterfall.
These measurements showed that the creek was neither losing nor gaining much water from
groundwater in the reach between the waterfall and the confluence with Delta Creek. This is
consistent with the observation that the creek appears to be incised to bedrock.
A 120° V-notch weir was constructed on Waterfall Creek on May 20, 2005. It is located at a
bedrock control in the streambed approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence of Waterfall
Creek and Delta Creek at an approximate elevation of 280 feet. A stage recorder was installed on
May 20, 2005 and set to record on an hourly basis. The recorder was retrieved on November 1, 2005
prior to ice conditions in the creek. Periodic readings of the staff gage were done throughout the
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 3 of 10
winter of 2005-2006. On February 23, 2006 the recorder was reinstalled and data collected to June
19, 2006. The stage data was converted to flow data using a weir equation. Data collected for the
period of May 20, 2005 to November 1, 2005 and February 23, 2006 to June 19, 2006 is of excellent
quality. Data for the period of November 1, 2005 to February 23, 2006 was interpolated based on
the periodic staff gage observations. Average monthly flows and maximum and minimum monthly
flows are shown in Table 1. Daily flows are shown in Figure 1. An annual flow duration curve for
this site is shown in Figure 2. The flow duration curve was used to make an initial determination of
the range of flows that would be usable for power generation.
Table 1
Waterfall Creek Flow Data*
MONTH Average Monthly
Flow, cfs
Maximum Monthly
Flow, cfs
Minimum Monthly
Flow, cfs
January 2.5 3.4 1.8
February 1.6 1.8 1.3
March 2.6 12.6 1.5
April 2.9 11.3 0.7
May 5.4 15.0 1.2
June 11.2 18.6 9.1
July 5.8 8.9 4.3
August 6.3 18.3 3.2
September 10.8 21.3 6.6
October 7.7 12.9 4.6
November 3.7 5.5 2.5
December 4.0 5.0 2.5
Annual 5.8 21.3 0.7
*Based on flow data from 5-20-2005 to 6-19-2006
The flood peaks for Waterfall Creek have been estimated from USGS regression equations detailed
in WRI Report 03-4188. Estimated peak flood estimates are shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Waterfall Creek Peak Flood Estimates
Flood Frequency Discharge (cfs)
2 years 120
100 years 330
500 years 416
The peak hourly flow for the period of 5-20-2005 to 6-19-2006 was 37.4 cfs on August 18, 2005.
General Project Arrangement
The project will capture the streamflow approximately 500 feet upstream of the falls and return it to
Delta Creek at the existing Delta Creek tailrace. The general project arrangement will include the
following main features and is shown in Figure 3 with a detail of the lower portion shown in Figure
4.
• An intake structure located 500 upstream of the waterfall at approximately elevation 720 feet.
• A pipeline located to the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 4 of 10
• A powerhouse constructed as an addition to the existing Delta Creek Hydro Project
powerhouse.
• Use of the existing 480V - 12.5 kV transformer and 5.6 mile 12.5 kV transmission line
connecting the existing Delta Creek Hydro powerhouse to the City of King Cove diesel
powerhouse.
• An access road to the intake structure that branches off of the newly constructed King Cove
to Leonard Harbor Road and generally located on the west and north side of Waterfall Creek.
Portions of the project will be similar to the existing Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and these
pertinent drawings are attached to indicate the type of construction expected.
Diversion/Intake Structure
The evaluation of alternatives for the diversion/intake structure is based only on a brief field
reconnaissance. There is no topography or geological information for this area. We recommend a
topographic survey at the proposed site and a geotechnical exploration to confirm presence and
depth of bedrock.
A potential intake site was identified approximately 500 feet upstream of the waterfall at
approximately elevation 720 feet (measured by altimeter). It is located downstream of the forks and
is at a narrow confined section. It is the highest elevation site that will allow road and pipeline
access. There is a bedrock outcrop on the east side of the creek at this site.
The diversion pond depth should be the lowest possible to minimize the cost of the structure, but at
the maximum turbine flow it should be high enough to prevent formation of a vortex in the pond. A
deeper pond is also valuable in limiting frazil ice effects on project operation; it is likely that frazil
ice occurs in Waterfall Creek, but that has not been confirmed. For this concept design we assume
that the dam height will be less than 10 feet.
Based on the field reconnaissance the diversion will be approximately 20 feet wide at the base and 40
feet wide at the top (assuming a 10 foot tall dam).
The diversion structure will create only a small head pond with very limited storage. As a result, it
should be possible to design the structure for a relatively small flood, since overflow and subsequent
failure would not release a damaging amount of water. The 100-year flood is recommended as the
design flood.
The Waterfall Creek basin does not contain any glaciers and appears to have a stable bed at the
intake site. The basin upstream of the falls is steep with a ready supply of sediment. Waterfall
Creek likely generates a fair amount of bedload (sand and gravel) during extreme events. The
bedload will tend to accumulate in the diversion pond, and the diversion/intake structure will need to
include facilities to periodically flush the accumulated material to prevent it from being drawn into
the pipeline.
The characteristics of this site are similar, although peak flows are smaller and the crest length will be
shorter, than the diversion and intake structure constructed at Clear Creek on the Delta Creek Hydro
Project. For this concept design report we will assume that the Waterfall Creek diversion and intake
structure will be similar to the Clear Creek structure. Use of a similar structure to Clear Creek will also
aid operator familiarity with the project.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 5 of 10
The recommended diversion structure consists of a central concrete core wall with rock fill on both
sides to provide stability. The core wall will be keyed into the rock foundation, and the outer face of
the rock fill will be grouted with concrete to prevent erosion of the fill. The abutments are relatively
narrow, which will minimize the concrete and fill volume of the structure. The recommended
arrangement is shown in the attached drawing from the Delta Creek Hydro Project.
Pipeline
A buried pipeline will be constructed from the intake to the powerhouse. The pipeline diameter will be
16 to 18 inches, and the pipeline will be approximately 4,500 feet long. The upper (lower pressure)
portion of the pipeline will be High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and the lower (higher
pressure) portion will be steel pipe.
Two potential concept level alignments for the pipeline are shown in Figure 2. Determination of the
optimum route will need to await mapping, soils exploration and a site visit. One route is longer but
lower gradient. The other is steeper and approximately1000 feet shorter but may be more difficult to
construct and will deviate from the proposed access road route. The longer route is assumed for the
purpose of this study.
The pipeline route will cross Delta Creek. The existing mapping does not cover this crossing
location but from review of aerial photography it appears that a pipeline without a sag can be
constructed across the creek and to the existing powerhouse. This will need to be verified with
additional mapping and by conventional surveying methods. During low flows this crossing of
Delta Creek can be significantly dewatered by diverting the flow into the existing hydroelectric
penstock. This will aid construction of this creek crossing.
Optimal pipe size is a balance of pipe cost vs. head loss. For the range of flows expected on the
project an inside pipe diameter of about 15 to 16 inches is optimal.
HDPE will be an ideal material for the low pressure segment of the pipe line. It is relatively light in
weight, which minimizes shipping and handling costs, and requires little maintenance. The pipe
segments are heat-fused to form watertight joints to minimize leakage. It is a tough and durable
material, which will simplify construction and allow a less restrictive bedding specification. It is
also very smooth to minimize friction losses. HDPE pipe is produced in standard sizes and
thicknesses. It is generally specified by outer diameter and Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR). The
pressure rating for the pipe varies linearly with the SDR. Some SDR classes are more common, and
we have assumed that only the 3 most common classes would be used (SDR 26, 17, and 11,
corresponding to pressure ratings of 64, 100, and 160 psi).
At some point along the conduit alignment, the cost for HDPE pipe will be more than the cost of a
stronger type of pipe (such as steel) because of the relatively low strength of HDPE. For the
purposes of this evaluation, we have continued the HDPE to where the static pressure is 160 psi
(estimated as approximately 2800 feet downstream of the intake). The transition point is highly
dependent on the cost of the pipe materials, and so it should be re-evaluated when detailed survey
data is available and again when the time comes for ordering the pipe. The nominal size of HDPE
pipe selected is 18” which depending on the wall thickness ranges in inside diameter from 14.7 to
16.6 inches.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 6 of 10
The optimal nominal size of the steel penstock is 16 inches, which will have a similar inside
diameter to the adjoining 18” HDPE pipe. The recommended thickness for the steel pipe is 3/16
inch (assuming the steel has an allowable stress of 18,000 psi). This thickness should allow for
transient pressure requirements which will be determined during design. The steel pipe will need to
be coated for corrosion protection. An epoxy lining and polyurethane coating will provide
longevity.
A breakdown of the pipeline materials and dimensions are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Pipeline Materials and Dimensions
Pipeline Segment 1 2 3 4
Horizontal Alignment
Starting Station (feet)
Ending Station (feet)
Horizontal Length (feet)
0+00
11+00
1,100
11+00
17+00
600
17+00
28+00
1,100
28+00
45+00
1,700
Vertical Alignment¹
Starting Elevation (feet)
Ending Elevation (feet)
Average Slope (%)
720.0
572.0
13%
572.0
490.0
13%
490.0
350.0
13%
350.0
216.0
8%
Pipe Information
Total Length (feet)
Nominal Diameter (inch)
Material
SDR (Std. Dim. Ratio)
Wall Thickness (inches)
Pressure Rating (psi)
1,100
18
HDPE
26
1.154
64
600
18
HDPE
17
1.412
100
1,100
18
HDPE
11
2.182
160
1,700
16
Steel
NA
0.188
359²
Construction Information
Support Type
Adjacent to Road?
Buried
Yes
Buried
Yes
Buried
Yes
Buried
Partial
¹ All elevations based on an assumed slope of 13% from intake to west bluff of Delta Creek.
² Based on allowable stress of 18,000 psi.
Powerhouse
A powerhouse could be located on either the east or west side of Delta Creek. A powerhouse on the
east side would be located adjacent to the existing powerhouse. This would allow use of the existing
mechanical and electrical systems within the existing powerhouse and would provide for ease of
operator access. A site on the west side of Delta Creek was also considered because it would allow
the tailrace water to be returned to Waterfall Creek upstream of potential anadromous fish habitat
areas. Anadromous fish habitat was not found during the reconnaissance fisheries work and this
alternative was dropped due to the advantages of co-location with the existing Delta Creek
powerhouse.
A 16’ x 40 foot addition on the east side of the existing powerhouse is proposed. The penstock
would enter on the north wall of this addition. Discharge from the turbine will flow through a
concrete channel in the powerhouse foundation, then into the existing powerhouse tailrace channel to
Delta Creek.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 7 of 10
The powerhouse includes the following features:
• A 16’×40’ slab-type reinforced concrete foundation, with column footings and perimeter
walls similar to the existing powerhouse.
• A 16’×40’ pre-engineered insulated metal building superstructure, designed for the
appropriate snow, seismic, crane, and wind loads. The existing building shell will be
modified to include doors to access the addition.
• A double nozzle Pelton impulse turbine with hydraulically-operated needle valves and jet
deflectors. Rotational speed would be 720 rpm.
• An induction generator rated at 375 kW, 480V.
• A butterfly-type turbine shutoff valve.
• A hydraulic power unit for operating the turbine valves.
• An overhead monorail hoist for assembling and loading turbine and generator components.
The existing powerhouse work area will be extended to the north to allow hoist loads to be
set or picked up from trucks in the work area. The existing backup diesel generator will need
to be relocated.
• A control system designed for remote-automatic operation of the generating unit.
• This arrangement will piggyback on the existing DC power system, HVAC equipment
plumbing systems and substation equipment.
Access Road
A road will be required to access the intake site and to construct and maintain the pipeline. A
potential access route was identified along the northeast side of the creek (right side when facing
waterfall). From the intake area, this route would traverse a bench to exit the creek canyon and then
swing downhill and to the south to connect with the recently constructed road to Leonard Harbor.
This access route would take advantage of the new bridge across Delta Creek. The length of this
road is approximately 5,000 feet. The average slope over this route would be 10% with some
steeper sections. Winter access on this road may be difficult as a photograph of the site from winter
of 2006 showed that there may be significant snow drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
Mapping, surveying and soils exploration will be necessary to further define this route.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 8 of 10
Cost Estimate
The estimated total cost of this project is $3,700,000. This cost includes construction, contingency,
design, permitting, construction management, escalation and construction financing. A detailed cost
estimate is attached.
The estimated cost of the turbine, generator and controls is based on a preliminary quotation from
Canyon Industries, a firm located in Washington that specializes in the manufacture of small Pelton
turbines. The estimated cost of the HDPE pipe is based on preliminary quotations from Arctic Pipe
in Anchorage, Alaska. The estimated cost of the steel pipe is based on preliminary quotations from
Northwest Pipe in Seattle, Washington.
The remainder of the costs including mobilization, intake and diversion, powerhouse and access
roads, are based upon bid prices from the King Cove Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project that was bid
in 1994. There were 10 bidders on this project and bidders provided both lump sum prices for
project components and unit prices for additional work. Average bid prices were used and were
inflated from 1994 to 2007 by 147% based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Indices.
Power Generation
The annual generation of the project has been estimated using a spreadsheet that calculates the
generation for each hour of the available streamflow record. As discussed in the hydrology section,
this streamflow record consists of approximately one year of flow record from May 20, 2005 to June
19, 2006. It is unknown whether this period represents a high, low or average period of streamflow.
Where there are overlapping dates an average was used.
The primary assumptions and parameters used by the model in calculating the energy generation are
as shown below:
Installed capacity: 375 kW
Maximum turbine flow: 12.0 cfs
Minimum turbine flow: 0.6 cfs
Gross head: 500 feet (headwater at El 720, turbine CL at El 220)
Type of operation: Run-of-river
Pipeline length: 4,560 feet
Pipeline inside diameter: 16”
Conduit friction coefficient: 140 for both steel and HDPE (Hazen Williams)
Turbine type: 2-jet Pelton
Turbine/generator efficiency: Varies (30 to 84% depending on flow)
Transformer efficiency: 99%
Transmission efficiency: 95%
Instream Flow Requirements 0 cfs
Streamflow record Average hourly flows, 1 year record
The maximum turbine flow of 12 cfs is the maximum that this type of generator can handle.
Increases in flow will cause an incremental increase in generator costs. As it works out, this 12 cfs
maximum flow is about the optimum flow for the project. The minimum flow is set as 5% of the
maximum flow. Generation from the project will also be limited by the loads to be met. It is
assumed that electric demand is great enough to use all available hydroelectric power.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 9 of 10
The estimated generation by the project for the assumptions discussed above is 1,400 MWh per
year. Below is the theoretical power generation by month based on flows from May 2005 to June
2006.
Table 4
Estimated Energy Generation
Month Energy (kWh)
January 57,056
February 30,489
March 57,464
April 63,286
May 109,660
June 228,564
July 137,837
August 141,334
September 210,610
October 177,471
November 86,001
December 97,155
Annual 1,400,000
Economic Analysis
The table below provides a simple economic analysis of the project.
Project Annual Energy (kWh/yr) 1,400,000
Estimated Project Cost $3,700,000
Annual Debt Service (25 yr @6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $260,000
Annual O&M Allowance $10,000
First Year Energy Cost per kWh, 2007 dollars $0.20
Estimated Diesel Efficiency (kWh/gallon) 14
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $2.45 per gallon (2007 cost) $245,000
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $3.00 per gallon $300,000
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $3.5 per gallon $350,000
Waterfall Creek Mean Daily Flow - 2005-2006DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, 5/20/2005 - 6/19/2006DAILY MEAN VALUESDAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP1 12.7 5.5 2.5 3.4 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.4 9.8 8.4 4.4 6.72 10.6 5.3 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.4 10.3 8.1 4.1 7.33 9.5 5.1 3.7 3.3 1.7 1.6 11.3 1.6 9.6 8.9 4.2 7.14 12.9 5.0 4.4 3.2 1.7 1.6 9.6 1.8 9.1 7.8 4.2 8.85 11.4 4.9 5.0 3.1 1.7 1.6 3.5 2.2 9.7 7.0 3.8 10.46 11.7 4.8 5.0 3.1 1.6 1.6 3.1 1.7 10.8 6.5 3.6 8.37 10.1 4.7 4.9 3.0 1.6 1.5 5.0 1.6 10.8 6.2 3.4 7.28 9.0 4.5 4.8 2.9 1.6 1.5 5.9 1.5 11.8 5.8 3.3 9.89 10.6 4.4 4.7 2.8 1.5 1.5 4.5 1.2 16.1 5.5 3.2 8.410 8.9 4.3 4.6 2.8 1.5 2.2 3.4 1.4 12.3 5.3 5.3 7.211 8.1 4.2 4.5 2.7 1.5 12.6 4.8 1.8 10.7 5.2 4.3 8.012 7.8 4.0 4.4 2.6 1.5 3.9 4.6 2.4 10.4 5.7 3.7 6.613 7.7 3.9 4.3 2.6 1.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 9.1 5.0 3.6 7.114 7.7 3.8 4.2 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.9 9.2 4.7 3.6 12.215 7.4 3.7 4.1 2.4 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.8 10.2 5.3 4.4 11.316 6.6 3.5 4.0 2.3 1.6 3.5 2.0 2.9 15.1 5.7 7.0 8.417 7.5 3.4 4.0 2.3 1.6 3.0 1.8 4.3 18.6 5.2 10.9 11.518 6.7 3.3 3.9 2.2 1.6 2.5 1.6 3.9 12.4 4.7 18.3 11.319 6.8 3.2 3.9 2.2 1.6 2.9 1.8 15.0 10.9 4.5 12.0 21.320 6.9 3.0 3.9 2.1 1.6 2.4 1.8 7.3 11.8 4.3 8.7 13.021 6.3 2.9 3.9 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.3 5.0 12.4 4.5 7.4 11.722 6.1 2.8 3.8 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.0 4.6 11.0 4.3 8.3 14.423 5.9 2.8 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.9 1.0 6.0 9.9 4.7 7.2 10.924 5.7 2.7 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.7 8.2 11.3 5.5 7.1 9.325 5.2 2.7 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.8 11.3 11.1 4.6 8.5 8.526 4.9 2.7 3.7 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.2 12.0 10.1 7.7 7.0 13.827 4.9 2.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.4 11.9 10.2 7.0 6.1 13.128 5.8 2.6 3.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.6 11.9 11.0 5.7 6.3 16.529 5.1 2.5 3.6 1.9 2.3 1.1 13.4 11.0 5.2 5.7 16.830 4.6 2.5 3.5 1.8 5.9 1.3 10.7 9.3 5.0 7.9 16.131 4.7 3.4 1.8 3.0 9.7 4.7 7.5MEAN 7.7 3.7 4.0 2.5 1.6 2.6 2.9 5.4 11.2 5.8 6.3 10.8MEDIAN 7.4 3.6 3.9 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.9 10.8 5.3 5.7 10.1MAX 12.9 5.5 5.0 3.4 1.8 12.6 11.3 15.0 18.6 8.9 18.3 21.3MIN 4.6 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.7 1.2 9.1 4.3 3.2 6.6Values from May 20, 2005 to November 1, 2005 and February 23, 2006 to June 19, 2006 are calculated from hourly stream gage data. Values from November 1, 2005 to February 23, 2006 are interprolated from periodic staff gage readings. Values from overlapping days are an average of each day.
WATERFALL CREEKFLOW DURATION CURVE HOURLY DATA2005-200605101520253035400 20 40 60 80 100EXCEEDENCE IN PERCENTFLOW IN CFS
KING COVE "WATERFALL CREEK" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
FERC Unit Total
Acc No Description Quantity Unit Price ($)
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Penstock, access roads ACRE $0 0
.2 Royalty on Materials CY $0 0
Subtotal - Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights 0
330.5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS
.1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 L.S.418,077$ 418,077$
Subtotal - Acc No. 330.5 - Mobilization and Logistics 418,077$
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Powerhouse Addition (16' X 40') 640 sf
.1 Clearing (Powerhouse/Switchyard)0 ACRE 2,208$ -$
.2 Excavation 178 C.Y.11$ 1,973$
.3 Backfill 142 C.Y.30$ 4,257$
.4 Riprap (tailrace)50 C.Y.59$ 2,943$
.5 Concrete (including reinforcing)28 C.Y.1,152$ 32,655$
.6 Metal Fabrications 500 LB.6$ 3,000$
.7 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
.8 Pre-eng'd Metal Building 640 S.F.100$ 64,000$
.9 HVAC and Plumbing 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
1.0 Grounding Grid 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
Subtotal - Acc No. 331 - Stuctures and Improvements 123,828$
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS
.1 Grouted Rock Dam 1 L.S.611,144$ 611,144$
Subtotal - Grouted Rock Dam 611,144$
.2 Penstock
.1 Clearing (30' wide)3.1 ACRE 2,208$ 6,842$
.2 Pipe Supply, Steel, 16", 3/16" wall thickness 1,700 LF 55$ 93,500$
.3 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 26 1,100 LF 17$ 18,810$
.4 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 17 600 LF 26$ 15,342$
.5 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 11 1,100 LF 38$ 41,888$
.7 Rock Excavation 300 C.Y.48$ 14,504$
.8 Common Excavation 5,000 C.Y.11$ 55,483$
.9 Bedding 1,700 C.Y.32$ 54,842$
1.0 Backfill 3,600 C.Y.10$ 37,087$
1.1 Riprap (Delta Creek Crossing)74 C.Y.59$ 4,361$
1.2 Install Pipe 4,500 LF 15$ 67,500$
Subtotal - Penstock 410,158$
Subtotal - Acc No. 332 - Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways 1,021,302$
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 325 kW Pelton turbine, generator, controls 1 LS 385,000$ 385,000$
Subtotal - Acc No. 333 - Turbines and Generators 385,000$
9/12/2007
KING COVE "WATERFALL CREEK" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Supply Power Cable (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 9$ 39,736$
.1 Supply Fiber Optic Cable (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 3$ 13,245$
.1 Cable Installation (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 9$ 39,736$
.1 Splice Vaults (powerhouse to intake)2 EA 4,415$ 8,830$
Subtotal - Acc No. 334 - Accessory Electrical Equipment 101,548$
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Monorail Crane 1 L.S.22,076$ 22,076$
Subtotal - Acc No. 335 - Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 22,076$
336 ROADS
Intake Access Road, 4500 LF 1 L.S.278,979$ 278,979$
Subtotal - Acc No. 336 - Roads 278,979$
SUMMARY
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS -$
330.5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS 418,077$
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 123,828$
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 1,021,302$
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS 385,000$
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 101,548$
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 22,076$
336 ROADS 278,979$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 2,350,810$
Equipment Contingency (Accts. 333,334,335)10%51,000$
General Contingency (Accts 330,330.5,331,332,336)20%368,000$
CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE 18%Average 419,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES 2,769,810$
Design Engineering, Surveying & Geotechnical 12%332,377$
Licensing/Permitting 2%55,396$
Construction Management 4%110,792$
Escalation 2007 to 2008 (1 year at 5% per year)5%138,491$
Construction Financing (1 year at 10% per year)10%276,981$
TOTAL OTHER COSTS 914,037$
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (2007 DOLLARS, ROUNDED)3,700,000$
Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 6%, 100% financing of entire project cost)$266,200
Annual O&M Allowance $10,000
Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr)1,397
First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.20
Diesel Fuel Cost 2.45$ GAL
Diesel Efficiency 14.0 kWh/gal
Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel 244,475$
9/12/2007
September 12, 2007
Mr. Robert Butera, P.E.
HDR Alaska
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 995032632
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your email regarding the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We appreciate the
opportunity to update our estimate for this equipment package.
Canyon Hydro has been building the highest quality equipment for hydroelectric power
equipment since 1976. We feel that when you choose a hydroelectric equipment package you
are also choosing a company to work with. Our company’s reputation has been developed by
building the best turbines available and by providing our customers with responsive service
throughout the project.
From the information sent, we understand the static head is planned for 500 feet and that the
net head is assumed to be 450 feet for the sake of this feasibility study. For this estimate, we
have increased the turbine’s capacity to 12 cfs. We expect an output of 375KW at the rated
flow.
We are pleased to offer a package to include Canyon double nozzle Pelton turbine with
hydraulically actuated needle nozzles and jet deflectors, 720rpm – 375KW – 3/480/60 induction
generator, hydraulic power unit, TIV, controls and switchgear to parallel with the local grid.
Budget estimate for the package as described is …………..$385,000.00 USD
Estimate is FOB Deming, 30 - 34 weeks after receipt of order
The equipment offered will be custom designed to meet the particular requirements of the sites
assuring the most efficient system possible. As the projects progress and any further
requirements are determined, we would be pleased to offer complete Preliminary Design
Specifications and quotation as necessary.
I look forward to discussing this proposal with you. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Brett Bauer
BWB:pan
Load double1.5%2.5%3.5%5.2% generator mod. Gen combined7.5% 76.60% 73.100% 55.63% 55.63%10.0% 88.40% 84.900% 67.92% 67.92%15.0% 92.70% 89.200% 74.75% 74.75%20.0% 95.00% 91.500% 78.32% 78.32%25.0% 95.90% 92.400% 80.85% 80.85%30.0% 96.40% 92.900% 82.22% 82.22%40.0% 97.20% 93.700% 83.86% 83.86%50.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.19% 83.19%55.0% 97.50% 94.000% 82.72% 82.72%60.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.24% 83.24%70.0% 97.50% 94.000% 84.22% 84.22%80.0% 97.60% 94.100% 84.27% 84.27%90.0% 97.50% 94.000% 84.13% 84.13%100.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.19% 83.19%110.0% 96.90% 93.400% 80.79% 80.79%LOAD EFFICIENCY10% 67.9%20% 78.3%30% 82.2%40% 83.9%50% 83.2%60% 83.2%70% 84.2%80% 84.3%90% 84.1%100% 83.2%EXPECTED PELTON TURBINE/GENERATOR COMBINED PERFORMANCEWATERFALL CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%LOADCOMBINED TURBINE/GENERATOR EFFICIENCY9/4/2007
Quote
Date
7/27/2007
Quote #
7-790
Customer
HDR Engineering
2525 C STREET SUITE 305
ANCHORAGE, AK 99503
Attn: Mr. Bob Butera, PE
Arctic Insulation & Mfg
Phone Number
644-2028
Terms
Net 30
Quote by
jrh
FOB
Seattle
Our products are warranted only to the extent that we will replace without charge, products proved to have manufacturing defects within six months of the date of
delivery there and provided we have been given an opportunity to inspect the product alleged to be defective. No warranty is included against any expense for
removal, re-installation or other consequential damages arising from any defect. Due to the widely varying conditions under which our products are installed and
used, we cannot be and are not bound, and no person is authorized to bind us by any further warranty whatsoever expressed or implied including the warranty or
merchant ability and fitness for a particular purpose, Arctic Insulation & manufacturing will not accept any purchase orders involving retainge and/or liquidated
damages. Arctic Insulation & Manufacturing terms are net 30 days.
Total
1704 Ship Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 677-9540 ~ Main Office
(907) 677-9541 ~ Fax
DescriptionUnitQty.WeightUnit Price TotalItem #
18" HDPE SDR 26 PE3408
PIPE 40' LENGTH BLK
LF1,000 16.4817.10 17,100.001.
18" HDPE SDR 17 PE3408 PIPE
40' LENGTH BLK
LF520 24.6325.57 13,296.402.
18" HDPE SDR 11 PE3408 PIPE
40' LENGTH BLK
LF1,000 36.7038.08 38,080.003.
FREIGHT FROM FACTORY
TO SEATTLE DOCK
EA1 2,400.00 2,400.004.
Bob,
Sorry about the delay with this
quote.
If you have any questions please
let me know.
Thank you.
John Helie
$70,876.40