The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnalaska Project Files 1983-1985eo Steve Cowper,Governor SRS Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska February 12,1987 Dr.Marvin Feldman,Senior Economist Dames &Moore 500 Sansome Street San Francisco,CA 94111 Dear Marvin: This letter provides some initial comments on the Draft Unalaska Geothermal Feasibility Study.It is meant only to identify some general problems we have found in our preliminary review of the report.Specific examples of such problems are cited but do not represent all such examples that have been identified.We believe the problems with the draft report are sufficient to justify a meeting with representatives of Dames &Moore and SAI Engineers to discuss them further.We also feel it will be necessary for you to submit a revised draft report for Power Authority review and approval prior to finalizing the feasibility study. To confirm our teleconference of February 12,1987,we are sche- duling February 23 and 24 for meetings to discuss the draft feasi- bility study with representatives of Dames &Moore and SAI Engin- eers. Analysis of Alternatives There is virtually no discussion of alternatives to the proposed project that have been considered nor analysis of costs and bene-fits of those alternatives.The report states (page 4-2)that a net present value "analysis was used during the feasibility study to define the relevant alternatives for consideration and to determine the preferred alternatives(s)."However,these analyses are nowhere to found in the report.Our contract requires that 5 general geothermal conversion technologies plus subsets of those technologies be evaluated with respect to 10 specific factors.It requires that "all reasonable alternative power plant sites"be evaluated.It requires analysis of "the need for roads,docks, airstrips,material sites,water and sewage systems,and other support facilities ...alternative siting and corridors and... alternative scenarios for transportation and access during con- struction and operation phases of the project.The contract requires estimates of "the cost for geothermal alternatives"and "detailed cost estimates for each alternative."These cost esti- mates are to be "separable cost elements so that their impacts on power costs can be addressed separately."The economic analysis is to identify and compare "geothermal component alternatives." 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 =(907)561-7877 Dr.Marvin Feldman February 12,1987 Page 2 The draft report gives little indication that alternatives to the proposed project were given consideration.Such alternatives are only mentioned briefly,if at all.There is no analysis of the costs and benefits of various alternatives that can be used to compare them to the selected alternative.For example,there are at least three "reasonable alternative power plant sites,”otherthantheproposedsite,that should be discussed and analyzed:(1)the plateau on which the exploratory well is located,(2)the plateau west of the proposed site above the 1600 elevation,and (3) a site in the vicinity of Staging Area C.In addition,it should be explained why sites in Driftwood and Makushin Valleys are considered technically infeasible if that is the case. Analysis of access and transmission line routing alternatives is also lacking.There is no economic analysis of alternative trans- mission line route "U".There is no mention in the text of road access alternative R-4 on Figure 2-4.There is no discussion or economic analysis of the alternative of utilizing helicopter Support in lieu of a road for construction purposes or the alterna- tive of building an airstrip at the plant site,in lieu of a road, for transporting operation and maintenance personnel.There is no discussion of an all-overland transmission route,which was consid- ered and for which a potential route was flown during the site visit.There is no discussion of the pros and cons and economic costs and benefits of a manned versus an unmanned power plant. There is no evidence that any consideration was given to a 4-cable submarine crossing,no discussion of why this design was rejected, and no analysis of the risks involved in not having a spare subma- rine cable. The importance of analysis of alternatives can be illustrated with respect to the proposed placement of the injection well,which appears to be a major consideration with respect to siting the powerplant.The report states (page 2-7)that "As long as the injection well must be located on the north side,it would be advantageous to locate the power plant...there as well."The report also states that "Injection tests have not been conducted to date at this site and will be required for confirmation of feasi-bility"(page 2-4).What if tests show that the proposed site is not suitable for injection?What alternatives are available?What are the costs of those alternatives?Would such alternatives be economically feasible,or does the fate of the project depend on finding an injection zone at the proposed site?These are ques- tions that must be answered in the feasibility study,indeed, answering such questions is the purpose of the feasibility study. Backup and Documentation The report seriously lacks backup and documentation.Conclusions are drawn and designs are proposed with little or no supporting documentation.Alternatives are rejected without any discussion of 7968/697/2 Dr.Marvin Feldman February 12,1987 Page 3 the data or analyses that would be required to make such decisions. To illustrate this,the following examples are selected from a single page (page 2-7)of the draft report.This is just a sam- pling of similar deficiencies we found throughout the report. The report states that "Construction access to the north side of Fox Canyon is much easier than access to the W-T-S on the south side.The south side is accessible only by helicopter whereas the north side can be reached by road from Driftwood Bay or Broad Bay." The plateau on the south side of Fox Canyon is not "accessible onlybyhelicopter."It would also be accessible by fixed-wing air- craft,an option that should be evaluated.In fact it could also be accessible by road at some cost.The feasibility study should evaluate and identify that cost and associated benefits to support the conclusion that the site on the north side of the canyon is the most economic site. Our contract requires you to analyze options for "directional drilling from a remote site to the existing wellsite."The report states only that directional drilling was "rejected on practicalgroundsasthehorizontalreachofsuchawellwouldequalor exceed the target depth,necessitating extreme deviation angles"(page 2-7).First,this would not be the case for directional drilling from the plateau west of the proposed powerplant site above 1600 feet,which was the area for which we discussed the option for directional drilling.Second,we have met with experi- enced directional drilling contractors who state that such devia- tion angles are technically and,in many cases,economically feasible.We expect an analysis of options for directional drill- ing to be supported with facts and figures which support the conclusions drawn. Paragraph 2 on page 2-7 states that "After careful evaluation and cost comparison,it was decided that the additional cost of these pipelines ...is less than the additional cost to construct the power plant on the south side."Where is the documentation for such a statement?What are the associated costs?It should go without saying that a technical and economic feasibility study must provide backup to avoid such glaring generalities as this. The entire last paragraph on page 2-7 requires backup in terms of the costs being referred to.What is the "nearly equal"capital cost of a 5,000 kW flash steam plant and a 5,000 kW binary cycle plant?What is your basis for the statements that "Small binary cycle plants ...have lower cost per kW than a similar rated flash steam plant"and "when the plant rating exceeds 5,000 kW,the cost of the flashed steam turbine driven generating units is lower than a plant comprised of binary units only"?What are the costs of total flow cycles that make them not cost competitive in smallsizeunits? 7968/697/3 Dr.Marvin Feldman February 12,1987 ¢Page 4 Deficiencies and Inconsistencies Serious deficiencies have been identified with respect to the electrical system design.It appears to lack basic components such as a station service power source,standby diesel generator,SCADA, and communications equipment.Voltages and cable sizes are not appropriate for the situation at Unalaska.Cost estimates for electrical components are not realistic.The problems with the electrical design are too numerous to describe here,however we are sending under separate cover a marked-up copy of your single-line diagram to illustrate some of the deficiencies we have identified. Numerous inconsistencies have been identified throughout the draft report.For example,Paragraph 8 on page 1-4 states that "From(the existing switchback in the Makushin Valley Road)to Broad Bay three underground 63 KV transmission cables will parallel the Makushin Valley Road."Figure 2-4 shows the underground cable starting about three miles east of the switchbacks,and Section 5.2.4 of the report says the underground cable is rated at 34 kV. Paragraph 3,page 5-2 states "The pipeline from the production well to the plant site must go down the side of the canyon and back up the other side to reach the power plant,"while Paragraph 3,page 5-12 says "access to the wellhead ...will be by a foot bridge built on and supported by the pipe supplying steam to the power plant,"while Paragraph 2,page 6-1 states "No bridge across Fox Canyon is anticipated.” There are inconsistencies too numerous to mention between the text, figures,drawings,and cost estimates.Components and items described in the text and shown on drawings cannot be found in the cost estimates.The cost estimates contain components not men- tioned elsewhere in the report.This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a legend for or explanation of the figures and drawings. What should be a simple task,for example,of checking the costs of bridges proposed for the project is impossible since the figures do not identify where those bridges are to be located.It is not even clear from the report whether a bridge is anticipated across the canyon north of the plant site,much less the length and foundation for such a bridge.The report is also lacking a production well/powerplant site plan and drawings for the overhead-underground junction,the underground-submarine junction,the submarine-dis- tribution line junction,the dock,and bridge examples. There are also unexplained inconsistencies between this report and previous reports developed for this project.For example,a statement in the first paragraph of Section 2.2 certainly under- states the longevity of the geothermal reservoir when compared to findings made and published by Republic Geothermal,Inc.If there is new data developed in this study that disputes previous find- ings,they should be presented and analyzed with respect to thepreviousfindings.This is also the case with respect to the 7968/697/4 Dr.Marvin Feldman February 12,1987 Page 5 recommendation of a flash steam plant.A 1984 Republic report recommended a binary cycle process for this system over a flash steam plant,which it noted would require more wells due to a low brine utilization factor,would require careful monitoring during winter months to prevent freezing of steam condensate,and would not be cost competitive in the small unit size contemplated. Likewise,a 1985 Power Authority report recommended a total flow two-phase expansion turbine system based on economic criteria. This feasibility study is not looked upon as an independent, unrelated report,but rather as part of the overall Unalaska Geothermal Program and the culmination of these previous studies.Consequently,it is very important that any differences withpreviousfindingsbeadequatelyexplainedandjustified. David Denig-ChakroffProjectManager DDC:nc cc:Don Shira,Alaska Power Authority Brent Petrie,Alaska Power Authority Bob Membreno,SAI Engineers 7968/697/5 NO.12 DECEMBER ;1981 -- PROFEEST CALENDAR OF EVEN"£%DECEMBER JANUARY ¥&5--APDC Board Meeting ]--APDC board Meeting:5:30 pm 9--IEEE Executive Board Meeting Tryck,Nyman,&Hayes 8--AIA,Aacrorageiina:8--ASPE,FairbanksSoPoardNesting:12--AIA,Fairbanks 4--ASPE,Fairbanks:12:00 noon 13--ASCE/ASPE,Juneau Rampart Room,Travelers Inn 13--PEPP,Anchorage 8--AIA,Fairbanks 14--ASPE,Anchorage9--ASCE/ASPE,Juneau 15--ASCE,Fairbanks 9--PEPP,Anchorage:7:00 am Nov 4 x=EZeES19--ASCE,Anchorage Dennys,Northern Lights Blvd. 10--ASPE,Anchorage:12:00 noon Beef and Sea 11--AIA,Anchorage:12:00 noon Sheraton Hotel,Room 305 15--ASCE,Anchorage:12:00 noon International Banquet House 15--IEEE General Membership, cance lle 18--ASCE,Fairbanks 19--IEEE General Membership see "what's going on” for additional datesAPDCPRESIDENT'S COLUMN By Don Dent,P.E.- ACSO-: [very yeur various National Societies,NSPE and ASCE for instance,sponsor engineer-The November 9th issue of the Alaska Journal of Commerce had anarticledescribingaprojectwhichmayhavemeritforsubmittalforoneofthese ing project awards. awards.The article is included for your perusal. Unalaska waste heat recovery system to cash out in 3 years A $210,000 waste recovery system at Unalaska has began operation as the first project to be constructed as part of the state's Rural Waste Heat Rec- overy Demonstration Project. According to project mana- ger Jerry Larson of the Alaska Power Authority,a second waste heat system at Ouzinkie costing $170,000 will begin op-eration in December.Both pro-jects were designed and con- structed by Raj Bhargava As- sociates,an Anchorage Engi- neering firm. These projects as well as pro-jects at the Seven-Mile CampontheHaulRoadandWainw- right on the Arctic Coast will be monitored for the next year, Larson said.The results of the monitoring program will pro- vide annual data from three climatic zones:arctic;contin- ental;and maritime. The data will be used to helpdeterminethefeasibilityofheatrecoverysystemsinother rural communities and providedetailedinformationformax- imum operating efficiency.Inthemeantime,the APA is pro-ceeding with the study anddesignofheatrecoverysys-tems for an additional 11 ruralvillages. Diesel generators convert one-third of the potential ener-gy of diesel fuel to electricpower,the other two-thirds is lost as waste heat.The waste heat at Unalaska is captured from a generator's radiator cooling system by a heat ex- changer. At Ouzinkie,waste heat is captured from both radiatorcoolingwaterandexhaust gases.In both systems,cap-tured heat is absorbed by a glycol solution and pumped through insulated pipes for use as space and water heating. Would ASPE or ASCE be interested? Unalaska's heat recovery system provides heat and hot water for the city's high school,city hall,community center,medical clinic,and police sta- tion.The system was able to raise the temperature of the high school's new 140,000 gal-lon swimming pool from 60 to 80 degrees F.in less than 16 hours. To supplement the system,the power authority has pro-vided Unalaska an additional $380,000 grant to provide heat recovery facilities for the re- mainder of the municipal- owned buildings,a fish hatch- ery,and some residences. Larson said the basic Un- alaska systen:should pay for itself in three years based on an estimated annual fuel sav- ings of $75,000-$80,000. ? qed Tu ElovdAERryrand-RYAN. ' The Aleut Corporation res7 2 & 0 3 King CoveoONEALEUTPLAZAAkutaneep.senas'o4000OldSewardHighway,Suite 300,Anchorage,Alaska 99503 FFbd;o 2)eLeTelephone(907)561-4300 Unalaska%,: oo &ey PY LRysSerea otaoSESEa<>op Nikolshi STATEMENT MADE TO ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING November 6,1985 My name is Allan Aksell and I am the Director of Lands and Minerals for The Aleut Corporation. I wish to address the Feasibility Study for the Unalaska Geothermal Project. As you know,The Aleut Corporation has fee title to the land and resource at the Project site. The Aleut Corporation respectfully requests that the Board reconsider,in part,its decision of May 3rd,1985.That decision stipulated that a Feasibility Study be initiated only after agreements have been negotiated with landowners for the use of the land and resource during the feasibility,development and operating phases of the Project. I am here to assure the Board that we share the same purpose:to promote and advance the general prosperity and economic welfare of the people in this region of Alaska.The Aleut Corporation has a vested interest in producing electric power from this resource.If this long-term source of power at reasonable cost stimulates Unalaska's economy and contributes to a healthy bottomfishing industry which utilizes shore-based fish processors,the resulting economic growth will produce support businesses and more jobs.Our ship repair facility and wholly-owned subsidiary,Panama Marine,Ltd.,is located in Unalaska and would benefit from the economic growth by having a steady stream of customers.Greater economic activity would also heighten demand for the Corporation's sand and gravel resources. We recognize that geothermal power will only be developed if it is the least costly alternative;however,if development of the geothermal resource proves too costly,the resource will lie dormant (which will be to no one's benefit). Unge STATEMENT TO ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING November 6,1985 Page 2 A Feasibility Study,therefore,is the only viable means to assess and project the cost for power generated from the geothermal resource, For the last six months The Aleut Corporation and the staff of the Alaska Power Authority have been asked to negotiate an agreement without the benefit of a Feasibility Study.Both sides are being asked to use highly variable development and operating cost estimates and to inject a prematurely negotiated fixed royalty to ensure the Project's viability.The Aleut Corporation feels it cannot bear,alone,the burden of absorbing the risks inherent in these cost estimates. I remind the Board that there is no direct precedent in Alaska for the economics of a developed geothermal resource. Furthermore,analogies drawn from the Lower 48 require far more study and refinement than the preliminary cost estimates on which we have been forced to base our negotiations.I appeal to your personal experiences and ask if you would be willing to lease one of your most valuable assets without knowing its true value. Although the intentions of the Power Authority and The Aleut Corporation are alike,that is,to promote the economic welfare of this region,each of us is forced into overly protective positions.In lieu of the more reliable information which would be developed by the Feasibility Study,the Power Authority is forced to seek the lowest possible cost for access to and use of the resource while The Aleut Corporation is forced to seek the highest value for such access and use. We believe that a Feasibility Study will promote an agreement which arrives at the most reasonable cost for a viable Project. We believe further that neither party can responsibly negotiate without the vital information which needs to be generated by the Feasibility Study.Once again,rest assured that The Aleut Corporation will fulfill its responsibility to utilize the Corporation's assets in the best interests of its shareholders and in the best interests of its Region. For these reasons The Aleut Corporation would greatly appreciate reconsideration of your past decision and your direction at this time to move forward with the Feasibility Study. We will be available to participate through any means to address this issue further. Thank you for your time. wv To YJ 2 v ae LavcanyDateALMetTime2°32 oi o>WHILE YOU WERE OUT6ole.Coon mc p4y 3 ot Unaleska (S2afred Yoresser Phone S5/-4Z 70 Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED SC ||PLEASE CALL Van§ CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URCEXT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message bhiwts 6 Lavw if besLivinLsLlasibleLnLATEhiketKcepts,untL)= Wine =e * +catOperator ay Pore He Ale”--- fw Masta Fshorienr DatelteWasteNeat@pasar3bertMadolowrd150evAd-Sime lew b Lnelaska sefup P 5p -bo,ne0 Litinatich bo-n cost -2"e w-|Comenning CO4y ecm DISCUSSION =S DRAFT |=/in CO. JZ COO Aé ck a CITY OF UNALASKA ELECTRICAL RATE AND LOAD PROJECTION STUDY NOVEMBER,1984 Introduction: The accompanying Electrical Rate and Load projection Study was pre- pared pursuant to the request for proposal from the City of Unalaska dated November 16,1983. The City of Unalaska (City)is substantially expanding the electric distribution system and changing the power production facilities. This expansion allows the City's electric system to serve additional customers,some of whom have been providing for their own electrical needs.Associated with the system expansion,the City has incurred new debt.Accordingly,revision of the rates charged for electrical services are required in order to provide for the increase in depre- ciation and debt service relating to these new facilities. -In addition to the above,the City desires a long-range planning guide in order to anticipate system requirements in the future and establish preliminary alternatives to meet those requirements. The computations presented with this report in tables1 through 9 were processed on a model developed by Mr.Jim Patras of Arthur Young and Company and Mr.James R.Hendershot,Rate Consultant,using .an elec- tronic spreadsheet program (Lotus 1-2-3).The purpose of developing the model are: Exhibit To process the information and assumptions required to pre- pare the accompanying report. To provide the capability to respond instantly to any changes in assumptions or rate designs arising from the presentation of a draft report to the City Council and Management. To provide a tool for future forecasting and rate deter- mination as conditions and assumptions change. I,Scopes of Services and Presentation,presents the seven tasks undertaken in this engagement.The underscored items represent increases in the scope of services not contemplated in the proposal to provide services submitted by Arthur Young. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND PRESENTATION CITY OF UNALASKA ELECTRICAL RATE AND LOAD PROJECTION STUDY Analyze the service area and existing studies on demographics, economic,and energy use forecasts to estimate loads and peak demands the next twenty years on at least five year increments. Analyze the existing service area to determine the economic viabi- lity of system expansion to currently unserved consumers and the willingness of those potential consumers to purchase power from the City including the rates that potential consumers would con- Sider economic and the amount and timing of potential purchase of electricity from the City. Analyze the service area with respect to existing electrical generation systems in order to determine cogeneration potential.Estimate the City's avoided costs (broken down into energy and Capacity avoided costs)and provide an estimate of the value of cogenerated power to the City.Analyze the effect of the City's cogeneration policy ordinance on the economics of cogenerated power and,if appropriate,make recommendations for revisions to the ordinance. Analyze the waste heat recovery potential for sale and consequent reduction of system operating costs. Analyze the existing City electrical system,planned upgrades, cogeneration potential,and waste heat recovery potential and provide a capacity addition plan and a capacity retirement plan. Determine the rate requirements necessary for operation,main- tenance and debt retirement. Analyze rate structure and load management alternatives based on the existing system,'planned upgrades,and capacity addition and retirement plans in order to determine options that would levelize daily peak capacity demands and stabilize load factors. Provide the City of Unalaska with a written report that presents and discusses the data obtained,analyses performed and conclu- sions reached in items 1 through 6 above.The capacity addition plan and capacity retirement plan required in item 5 may be pro- vided in the form of a letter with supporting attachments. Presentations: The accompanying report is presented in the form of responses corresponding to the services listed above and include the following topics as appropriate to each task: Methodology Information services Reference to corresponding tables Model description Conclusion TASK 1: Analyze the service area and existing studies on demographics,econo- mic,and energy use forecasts to estimate loads and peak demands over the next twenty years on at least five year increments. The methodology to develop future loads was to review February 1983 through 1984 (test year)sales statistics for number of customers, customer usage,and customer characteristics.Based on this infor- mation and discussions with the utility manager and the public works director,classes of consumers were determined and future growth rates were developed.These growth rates are reflected in the development of the following tables: PROJECTED NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS: Table 3,projected number of customers computes the projected total number of customers for each rate class,based on several assumptions., The first section identifies the projected annual percent increase of customers in the GS-1 (residential),and GS-2 (small commercial)rate classes.The list of existing consumers was ana- lyzed by the rate consultant and city employees.All identified commercial consumers were recorded in the GS-2 class in Table 3. The large power consumers are defined as customers with more than 7500 KWH use/month.At present there are three consumers that qualify as being in this class--the school,Alascom,and Carls. The projected assumed growth rate is input in the far right column headed "method." The second section of Table 3 converts the annual percent increase into the number of projected additional customers. The third section of Table 3 inputs the assumed number of addi- tional customers in the large'power rate class,interruptable power,heat recovery,and streetlights.The large power customer additions are listed in Table 4 (See Task 2). The fourth section of Table 3 calculates the projected total number of customers for each rate class based on the three sec- tions discussed above. PROJECTED KWH SALES: In Table 4,projected KWH sales,average KWH used per month per customer reflected in the first column of the first section was determined from usage data from the test year.The:1988 usage reflects the assumed growth in customer monthly usage as deter- mined through discussion with the utility manager.The inter- vening years are interpolated.Large power and interruptable loads were determined by review of the existing large loads that could be within the City's system.These potential customers were reviewed with City personnel and probable customers determined (See Task 2).The estimated loads of these probable customers were then input into section 2 of this table. The bottom half of this table is the calculated annual KWH sales based on the information in Table 3 and the top of Table 4. System line loss for 1983 was determined from historical data, assumed for 1988 and interpolated for the intervening years.The calculated result is the projected system KWH requirements. The KWH purchased section in this table has values of zero for all years and is included in the table only to provide an example of the capability of the model to incorporate future wholesale power suppliers or cogenerators,if any. SYSTEM DEMAND: The first section of Table 5A lists all the generation units by rated KW.It should be noted that the addition of the 1.4 MW unit and the 2-2.8 MW units were added at the direction of the utility manager and represent planned on contemplated additions.The Alaska firm capacity is computed by the model.This computation is a measure of the generation capacity available to a utility if its largest generation unit should breakdown.This "worst case assumption"has proven to be a useful measure of available capa- city for Alaskan electric utilities because of the isolation in which many generation systems exist.The Alaska firm capacity is computed by summing the capacity of all generation units,then subtracting the largest unit's capacity. The second section contains the computed demands for each rate class.The three categories of demand are computed based on the estimated load factor for each demand category for each respective rate class (see Table 5B),and the projected KWH sales for each rate class as projected on Table 4.The total demand in each of the three categories is added at the bottom of this section. The third section computes the average demand of the system,the system load factor,and the system's Alaska firm capacity in excess of the system's projected coincidental peak demand.When this excess demand approaches zero,the system should consider adding another generation unit.This occurs in 1985.The KW capacity of any wholesale supplier or cogenerator has not been considered in this computation,although provision for a supplier of firm power could be readily added. SYSTEM LOAD FACTORS: Table 5B,System Load Factors,identifies the load factors for each category of demand by rate class. The load factors are input for 1983 and 1988.The load factors for the intervening years are interpolated.The load factors for 1993,1998,and 2003 are the same as for 1988.This method is used for all rate classes.The selection of these input load fac- tors are critical to the accuracy of the complete model.Close attention should be paid to historic and current load factor information.Present data are dependent upon the judgment of the rate designer involved with this study.As the system matures, more reliance can be put upon the available historic data. CONCLUSION: Based on this assumptions.and factors as stated above,the system projected peak demands are as shown in Table 5A. TASK 2: Analyze the existing service area to determine the economic viability of system expansion to currently unserved consumers and_the willingness of those potential consumers to purchase power from the City including the rates that potential consumers would consider eco- nomic and the amount and timing of potential purchase of electricity from the City. Through discussions with the utility manager and the public works director the following list of potential customers were identified. Based on assumed peaks and load factors as listed,annual KWH require- ments were calculated. Annual Load Projected Annual Customer Load Factor KW KWH Boat Harbor Firm 25%250 438,000 City Dock Firm 25%100 175,000 Airport -Firm 50%75 295,650 UNISEA Interrupt 50%950 3,700,000 Process 10%.1,500 1,314,000 Standard Oil Interrupt 50%105 413,910 Eastpoint Sea Interrupt 20%100 131,000 Process 10%860 753,360 Pacific Pearl Interrupt 45%100 350,400 Process 10%570 499,320 Panama Marine Interrupt 45%100 350,400 Pan Alaska Interrupt 30%1,750 3,832,500 American Presid.Interrupt 45%120 420,480 Process 10%750 657,000 Sea Alaska Interrupt 50%150 591,300 Process 10%1,750 1,533,000 Strawberry Hill Firm 50%50 197,100 Ir -1 From discussion with the electric utility manager and the Director of Public Works,four of the above are considered to be potential custo- mers:the Boat Harbor,the City Dock,the Airport and the UNISEA System.These potential customers are shown joining the City's system in 1984 (the first three mentioned)and the UNISEA System in 1985 (Tables 3 and 4). The willingness of these potential customers to hook-up to the City's system and the rates that they might be willing to pay is dependent on several factors.Typically,a business that must provide its own power needs does not segregate its accounting for the related costs in a manner that will provide a true cost per KWH.In most cases,costs of labor,capital investment,maintenance,etc.,relating to self- generation are combined into other cost centers.In addition,the circumstances of each of these potential customers is,in all likeli- hood,different with respect to condition of equipment,capacity v/s needs,availability and quality of maintenance requirements and response to emergencies,etc.Therefore,each potential customer's concept of an attractive rate will differ.However,the rates offered should be cost based as is developed in the accompanying tables. There are,however,two incentives that should be considered by these potential customers: e Since certain utility costs are fixed,the costs per KWH decreases as KWH sales increase. e Establishment of an interruptable rate. The interruptable rate is discussed more fully in Task 6.Generally, such a rate recovers fuel cost,customer cost and a small return such as one or two cents per KWH.This type of arrangement should be attractive to the potential customer who has sized his equipment to handle his peak requirements but experiences periods of time that require self-generation at very inefficient load levels.Thus,the II -2 City could offer power during the low load level periods at attractive rates provided that these periods coincided with non-peaking periods on the City's system.The City would determine the periods of availa- bility of power under these rates and control the flow of power. II-3 TASK 3:3 Analyze the service area with respect to existing electrical genera- tion systems in order to determine cogeneration potential.-Estimate the City's avoided costs (broken down into energy and capacity avoided costs)and provide an estimate of the value of cogenerated power to the City.Analyze the effect of the City's cogeneration policy ordi- nance on the economics of cogenerated power and,if appropriate,make recommendations for revisions to the ordinance. CONSIDERATIONSs The City's electric utility is not a regulated utility. Therefore,the order issued by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission pursuant to federal regulations (PURPA)relative to cogeneration are not requirements that the City needs to comply with.However,there may be advantages to the City of entering into cogeneration or power purchase agreements.There are several potential suppliers of power that will be within the City's distribution system when it is completed (see Task 2-<-interrup- table loads).In addition,it is our understanding that the City has been approached regarding purchasing power from a potential privately developed hydroelectric facility and a wind generation facility. There are numerous factors to be considered before entering into any agreement to purchase power.Among these are: e Firm power or interruptable e The timing of power availability,i.e.,at which points in the systems daily,monthly and annual load curves. e Can the City avoid the investment of adding more genera- tion capacity? III -1 e Is the cogenerated power such that City equipment would be operated at inefficient loads? ) e Would the power be provided in such a manner that the City could overhaul or maintain their production units on a more frequent basis and thereby prolong their use- ful lives? e Responsibilities for safety requirements on suppliers facilities. e Is the pricing of such power of any advantage to the City and it's consumers? e Are there social or political considerations? e Long-term consideration of non-fossil fuel sources of energy. | e Engineering standards. The primary considerations should be the engineering integrity of the system when and if any cogeneration is attached and the purchase power rate should not exceed the cost of power generated by the City's utility.The controlling document in this case should be standards which are to be developed by the Director of Public Works pursuant to ordinance No.82-84.Cogeneration offers made'to the City must be considered on a case by case basis and should include the analysis and advice of a qualified electrical engineer. In summary,appropriate cogeneration is a viable source of energy assuming it meets (1)engineering considerations and (2)economic considerations necessary to make it attractive.However,in no III -2 case should it be considered at the expense of he existing con- sumers if alternatives are available. AVOIDED.COSTS: On August 20,1982,the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) in Docket U-81-35 Order No.5 adopted regulations to encourage the development of cogeneration and small power production in Alaska. The regulations,3AAC 50.750--3AAC 50.820 are used for the basis to compute avoided costs below and in the accompanying section relating to the City's Ordinance No.82-84. This section of this report addresses the purchase of non-firm' power only.Non-firm power is defined in the regulation as electric power generated by the qualifying facility (OF)that is supplied to the electric utility in unpredictable quantities and at unscheduled times and intervals,and will enable the electric utility to avoid energy related costs.The regulations state the following: e For purchases from a qualifying facility which supplies non-firm power,rates shall be based on the cost of energy which the electric utility avoids by virtue of its interconnection with the qualifying facility. e Unless otherwise modified by the commission,avoided energy costs,expressed in cents per kilowatt-hour, shall be determined from the sum of fuel and variable operation and maintenance expenses and/or the energy portion of purchased power expense for a 12-month period,approved by the commission,updated by sub- sequent fuel costs,divided by the number of kilowatt- hours sold for the same time period.Expenses)and III -3 kilowatt-hours sold associated with hydroelectric generation shall be specifically excluded from the com- putation of avoided energy costs. Until such time as the OF's'interconnected to a utility's system contribute ten percent of its total energy requirements,the Commission will allow,but not require a utility to set variable O &M expenses at zero.However,when the ten percent energy threshold has been reached,the utility will be required to reassess the extent to which variable O &M expenses are avoided by its purchase of energy from OF's and to recalculate its avoided cost.This approach recognizes that,given the size and operating conditions of Alaskan electric utilities,it is extremely unlikely that OF's will materially affect O &M costs until they contribute at least ten percent of a utility's total energy requirements.Therefore,it attempts to reduce the utilities'computational burden accordingly. According to the direction furnished in the above regulations and tariffs filed with and approved by the ApPUC relative to the purchase of non-firm power,the calculation of avoided energy costs is accomplished as follows: Current price of fuel x Fuel consumed previous 12 months KWH sold during the previous 12 months Note (1)KWH sold should be decreased for purchased KWH,if any. Note (2)Assumes avoided 0 &M at O. Accordingly,the avoided energy cost for the City of Unalaska Electric Utility as of June30,1984 is: III -4 Fuel consumed during previous 12 months 287,884 gals. Latest fuel price x $.876 Cost of fuel $252,186 KWH sold during previous 12 months -2,858,222 Avoided energy costs per KWH $-0882 ael Considering the substantial changes currently in process relative to the City's distribution and production systems along with the potential of substantially increasing the KWH sales,the avoided energy cost for non-firm power purchases should be expected to change significantly.Production efficiency and line losses will not be the same as indicated from historical statistics. Accordingly,statistics relative to KWH sales,fuel consumption gallonage and average fuel purchase price (for each respective month)should be maintained for each of the preceeding twelve months on a schedule which updates this informaiton monthly.The avoided energy cost can then be recalculated at any time.In addition,there are other uses for this schedule as mentioned further in this study. AVOIDED CAPACITY COSTS: Avoided capacity costs relate to purchases of firm power for base load or peaking purposes.Such purchases are usually based on long-term contracts which provide for demand guarantees and true=- ups.Typically,the need or desirability to consider and/or enter into such contracts is based on system planning results in which load growths and capacity reserves are estimated.This planning process is complicated by uncertainty and technological constraints.Load growth may be slower or faster than expected leading to demand that is higher or lower than anticipated. Determination of target reserve capacity is extremely complex due III -5 to technological constraints such as fixed unit sizes,lead time requirements,and marketability of off-peak power. In considering the generation planning,three cases are likely: Case 1:The utility has a unit planned or under construction but has the ability to cancel the unit,defer the on-line date,or to alter the size of the unit by either down- sizing the unit or by selling or leasing part of the unit,as a result of the cogenerator's supply. Case 2:The utility has a unit under construction,but the unit cannot be altered or deferred. Case 3:The utility has an adequate supply of generation capacity now and for the foreseeable future. Combinations of these are possible.For example,a utility with one unit virtually completed and ready to go on-line and other units on the planning board would be a combination of Case 1 and Case 2. The results of Table 5A indicate that Case 3 is an accurate description of the City's electric utility.This comment, however,should be qualified for the following reasons: e The 1.4 MW unit is included in Table SA (lot test unit). The unit has not been installed and costs for transpor- tation,installation,related equipment requirements, and purchase price at the end of the two year test period have not been provided by the City. e Additional capacity on Table SA is reflected by the 2-2.8 MW units pursuant to instructions from City mana- III -6 gement.These units are apparently available at bargain purchase prices and it is anticipated that grant funds will be utilized to acquire,transport and install them. Accordingly,costs have not been included in the study to reflect depreciation or return. e The 600 KW unit purchased in 1984 and the 300 KW unit rebuilt in 1984 have not been installed but are included in Table 5A as available capacity. e Large power loads as listed in Task 2 may become firm power customers of the utility but have been included only to the extent shown in Task 2. To illustrate the estimated effect of adding all of the estimated loads listed at Task 2,graphs are prevented at appendix 4.It should be noted that significant excess capacity remains even after adding these loads assuming the capacity additions reflected in Table 5A. : Typically,avoided capacity costs are computed based onthe decreased revenue requirement resulting from avoided investment, carrying costs and operation and maintenance costs,including insurance.The computation is based on the estimated costs of a planned unit or a recently installed unit.Operation and main- tenance materials,are determined based on records maint:ained for specific units. Therefore,considering the above comments,the City has not pro- vided sufficient information to compute an estimated avoided capa- city cost.Technically,a unit financed entirely by grant funds would result in a zero avoided carrying costs.Only avoided Operation and maintenance costs would be considered in these cir- III -7 cumstances.Should the City desire a computation on a hypotheti- cal unit or on the basis of a planned unit not made known or on the 600 KW unit acquired in 1984 and not installed,then the following information or assumptions are required: KW rating Assumed annual operating percent Financing cost rate Return required if more than interest cost Annual operation and maintenance cost Insurance cost Estimated life Capitalized interest,if any Inflation rate The City is currently considering purchasing power from a proposed privately owned hydroelectric project.It does not appear to be economically appropriate to purchase such power as long as the City can provide its own capacity requirements through grant funds Or extremelylow cost loan funds.However,the availability of such a long-term facility not subject to variations in costs relating to fossil fuels may be desirable should the present plans of the City not materialize as anticipated or alternate uses of grant funds be considered. In this case,several new issues are presented that will require the consulting services of our electrical engineer.These issues include: e The avoided KW costs relating to hydro cogeneration are typically based on the estimated lowest KW available from the cogenerator.Possible variations might occur if the system peak period coincides with the hydro peak III -8 which is possible with the addition of significant fish processing loads. Should wind cogeneration be installed and situated to economically provide for excess power and power fluc- tuations utilization in pumping recycled water for hydro storage,the KW characteristics of the hydro will change. The term of a contract in this situation will probably encompass the life of at least two diesel units. Therefore,inflation factors would need to be estimated for replacement cost purposes. Determination of when a cogenerator begins to accrue or earn a capacity value.This can occur when the coge- nerator unit comes.on line,or at a later date, depending on the utility's reliability level or the scheduled on-line date of the next available unit. The timing of payments determination,i.e.,on-line date On avoided planned unit on-line date results in financing problems for the cogenerator relative to on- line date of the planned unit and discounted payments relative to the cogenerator on-line date. The payment pattern to the cogenerator can be based on either of the following: 1)Payments that reflect the avoided revenue requirement relating to the associated unit. This would result in decreasing payments over time to reflect decreasing interest costs. III -9 2)Any other payment pattern provided that the present value of the total payment stream is equal to the present value of the avoided cost stream over the life of the utility unit. There are several valid arguments for either of the above options. COGENERATION ORDINANCE: The Cogeneration Ordinance should address all of the provisions required by the APUC for cogeneration tariffs since both documents provide rates,rules and regulations to the general public,con- sumers and potential suppliers of power.Primarily,these requirements include: e Avoided energy cost rate stated in cents per KWH (non-firm power). e Notice that avoided cost will change with changes in fuel cost and generation efficiency. e Recovery of interconnection costs,if any. e Rates for sale of power to interconnected facilities including supplementary power,back-up power,main- tenance power,and interruptable power. e Disconnection rights. The above do not include regulations or rules relative to safety requirements since APUC felt that such rules needed to be deve- loped. The ordinance should also address purchases of firm power.This section should state that the purchased power rate shall be based IIr -10 on the costs of energy and capacity which the electric.utility avoids by virtue of its interconnection with the qualifying faci- lity.Each proposed interconnection should be considered on a case by case basis and be subject to a negotiated contract. Attached as appendix 2 to this document is the cogeneration tariff of Kotzebue Electric Association to provide guidance to you for amending your ordinance.This tariff has the most provisions of all the tariffs reviewed.Included in appendix 2 is 3AAC 50.820 DEFINITIONS.These definitions should also be incorporated in the Ordinance for clarity.This can be done by reference,if desired. TASK 4:wa Analyze the waste heat recovery potential for sale and consequent reduction of system operating costs. The task does not consider existing heat recovery systems at Unalaska. It appears that in the new generation configuration the existing heating loads will be taken off the waste heat recovery system and replaced by direct fired boilers. Expenditures made to-date in preparation of heat recovery systems at the new generation site are approximately $280,000. Only one current site is ready to accept energy from heat recovery as primary source of heat--City Airport. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITE: To connect the Airport to the proposed new generation site would take about one-half mile of thermal insulated transmission piping to the site and an equal amount of return facility.If one used a conservative figure of $50/foot for the installed system one would find the cost to be $132,000.The current fuel consumption at the Airport Site is 23 gallons of fuel per day.Assuming fuel cost of $1 per gallon and no other cost reflected,the total savings would only amount to $8,400 annually.There appears to be no justifica- tion to include this in a "feasibility study". ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL SITES: Near Term Under present conditions,and with present generation sizes the only potential use for the in-place heat recovery materials would Iv -1 seem to be within the generation plant itself.From an economics standpoint the heat (BTU)output of the generation is not great enough to allow for the transmission to distant points. It does seem appropriate to use the heat at the generation site and if other uses of the building facilities which house the generators can be developed in a compatible manner,the City could expect to begin to recover some of the funds expended on the deve- lopment of the heat recovery system. | Long Term With the system in-place the chances are good that the facilities will be available for use in adjacent camps,processing plants, and housing developments.However,with current generation sizing and loads and the cost of development of the outside facilities necessary to connect services of this type may not fit into the feasibility. There are potential uses for waste heat that can be developed to specifically fit the availability of heat at the site.This could be in the form of greenhouse facilities or some sort of heat pro- cess requiring temperatures in the 180 degree range. | SOME NOTES OF CAUTION: The.current heat recovery system in the City of Unalaska is an interesting case study.The idea of providing heat to the public buildings and the school fits well into the feasibility in the front end,however,as the system grew,the source and use deve- loped other problems such as noise which made the systems adjacent location unacceptable--one had to go.This situation is common in the history of heat recovery systems. IV -2 Another problem that seems to follow heat recovery development is that the heat load may grow faster than the demand for the product that produces the "waste heat."Because the heat delivery system is in place it then becomes tempting and in some cases necessary to supplement the "waste heat"with some type of direct fired. system.This supplemental supply is much more expensive and the ability to recover these cost becomes a complex problem of setting the proper rate for the BTU's used -one can no longer say that they are "excess"and a fixed fee to cover the installation and operating cost will not do the trick of recovering the true cost. Metering BTU's and spreading variable (fuel)cost in some manner becomes necessary. SUMMARY: A qualitive analysis of the subject seems to indicate that the existing system should be restricted to on-site use as a source of heat.As the system matures and adjacent heat loads develop the system will be ready to meet the demands.Such loads should be assumed with caution.Considerable long term planning should go into may determination of connecting any heat load.'Contractual arrangements should be developed to avoid situations wherein supplemental heat requirements may become an issue. The hard data is not available to produce a quantitative analysis of the issue.At best,a complete feasibility study of further development should be prepared.This would require projections based on growth assumptions which have not been made available at this point. This study has taken into consideration the facts that are available and has made provision for incorporating any future pro- Iv -3 jections that may become available.Until a full blown feasibi- lity study is completed the question of the effect of the "waste heat"facilities on the overall Unalaska Electric Utility will have to be "best guess." At the present the "best guess"is the primary value of the "waste heat facilities"that are or may be put in place will assist only in the dispursement of the engine heat developed in the generation of electricity.The long run value may be that the system was developed with the idea of waste heat in mind. Iv-4 TASK 53 Analyze the existing City electrical system,planned upgrades,coge- neration potential,and waste heat recovery potential and provide a capacity addition plan and a capacity retirement plan.Determine the rate requirements necessary for operation,maintenance and debt retirement. PLANT CONSTRUCTION: The study consultants were provided a tour of the City's electri- cal facilities.The City is currently involved in extensive distribution system additions and the relocation of the power house. The costs for these projects were arrived at by examining expen- ditures to date,and expected additional costs to complete as pro- vided by the utility manager,and assumed to be placed in service as follows: 1984 --Primary line construction $39,052 Secondary line construction 44,523 S 83,575 1985 =-Substation construction 600,000 Distribution project 1,775,648 2,375,648 1985 -Power house renovation 676,599 Generation placement 90,017 Machinery and equipment 10,614 777,230 1984 -Heat recovery system 334,141 Total known additions S$3,570,594 eee PLANT ACCOUNT ASSUMPTIONS: The plant account assumptions are shown in Table 2A.The topmost section of this table identifies the assumed inflation rates used to trend up the previous years Plant balances.The second section identifies the dollars added to plant resulting from these infla- tion factors. The third section identifies large dollar additions to plant due to the known large dollar additions listed above.No distinction or allocation was made between grant funds or borrowed funds (see Task3 comments relating to generation additions). The fourth section contains the total account balances as of year end.The account balance includes the previous year's balance plus plant additions from both the inflated dollars from section two and the large dollar additions from section three. Streetlights and meter costs were estimated for beginning plant and reclassified from the distribution lines account. PLANT ADDITIONS AND DEPRECIATION EXPENSE: The plant additions and depreciation expense tables track the account balances for each to the plant accounts from year to year. For each category of plant,the following information is accumulated:the ending balance of the current year,total plant additions from Table 2A are added to the beginning account balance,and plant retirements are subtracted from the beginning balances.The plant retirements,if any,are the only amounts input in this part of the schedule.No retirements were assumed. The depreciation expense is computed based on the plant balances, and the designated useful life as input.A half years depre- ciation is taken on both plant additions and retirements. Note that depreciation expenses has been computed on all plant additions regardless of the source.of financing.Accordingly,any plant additions financed by grants,if any,have also been included in this computation and in calculating revenue require- ments in Table 6,Operating Expenses and Revenue Requirement.The City may wish to account for depreciation on grant financed faci- lities as a reduction to the computed depreciation expense and thus,remove this cost from revenue requirements. LONG-TERM DEBT: The City's debt to the Alaska Power Authority (APA)related to the plant additions reflected herein is $1,810,486.This debt is repayable over a 20 year term including interest at the rate of 2% per annum commencing on the first day of the calendar year following completion of the project and annual payments thereafter.However,an agreement dated November 30,1983 with APA provides for a repayment schedule that is contingent upon cer- tain occurances in future periods.Therefore a definite debt retirement schedule is not determinable.However,a level payment schedule would require approximately $110,700 in annual payments. Additional financing of $145,231 has been obtained from a bank which is repayable in monthly payments of $3,649 (S43,788 annually)including interest at the rate of 9.5%per annum and maturing in February 1988. One year's interest on these loans is calculated to be $47,947. RATE OF RETURN: The required return has been considered in the computation of forecasted revenue requirements in Table 6 in the _following manners e Interest expense has been assumed to be the return com- ponent in the calculation of revenue requirements.This assumption is pursuant to the wishes of the City Council expressed at the presentation of a draft of this study. The draft study has used an 8%of rate base return. e Depreciation expense has been included in the study for all plant additions as stated earlier in this task. Since depreciation is a non-cash expense,its inclusions in the revenue requirements computation provides'the cash resources to fund principal debt retirement. REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND COST ALLOCATIONS: The operating expenses and rate of return are allocated to classed of consumers using the guidelines suggested by the cost allocation manual prepared by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).However,because the City's utility is not regulated by the Alaska Public Utility Commission,there are some discretionary changes that can be made by the City of Unalaska in determining the rates: e The individual operating expenses may be allocated to the individual customer classes on a different basis.. e The rate of return may be set at another rate. The cost of service and revenue requirement schedules are biult up from the information in Table l. EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS: the upper portion of Table 1,Expense Assumptions identified the inflation rates used to trend up the previous years operating expenses on Table 6 operating expense and revenue requirement. The percent increases for the years 1993,1998,and 2003 represent the compounded percent increase over the 5-year period. Note that the test year data in Table 6 reflects expenses for hte fiscal year ended June 30,1984.This information was updated subsequent to the draft presentation. The bad debt expense is computed using the ratio of the previous year's bad debt expense to the previous year's total operating "expenses,and thereafter are trended from 1983 data. The fuel costs are computed using the most recent 1984 fuel cost available of .876¢/gal.This is projected to increase at a rate of 3%annually.The fule efficiency was determined to be 10 KWH/gal of fuel in 1983.This as held constant into 1984 and escalated up to 12 KWH/gal in 1988,and held constant after that. The fuel cost and fuel efficiency are used along with projected KWH produced (as computed in Table 4)to compute the projected annual fuel expense (on Table 6).Because this is a large com- ponent of total operating costs these parameters should be closely monitored. The lower of Table 1 identified any large dollar additions to these operating expense accounts beyond the annual inflation fac- tor.After discussion with the Electric Utility Manager and hte Public Works Director,the model factors in the wages for an addi- tional employee in hte generation facility in 1984,and then an additional employee in 1985.Given the assumed growth in the system,additional employees were projected for 1985 as follows: 1 full time Administrative Employee $35,000 1 part time meter reader S$6,000 Both sections of the table are used to project the future operating costs in Table 6.Table 6,Operating Expenses,adjusts the operating expenses during the test year ended June 30,1984, for known changes in operations,as well as for the projected changes per Table l. RETURN ON RATE BASE: The return on rate base is the amount of interest expense as discussed under Task 3.the rate of return computes the return the City realizes on its investment in the electric facility, i.e.,the amount invested in plant as well as the cash needed for 45 days of working capital. The return on rate base is added to the normalized expenses to arrive at the total revenue required by the utility to finance day to day operations.From this required revenue the other electric revenue is backed out to arrive at the revenue required from the sale of energy to customers. The last two lines of Table 6,average costs/KWH and the percent increase/years,are memorandum entries only. SUMMARIZED DATA FOR MENU SCHEDULES: This table is just a summaryof the information used in the rate design computations in Tables 8 and 10. PLANT &COST OF SERVICE ALLOCATION TABLES: These two tables allocate the Revenue Requirement to the rate classes as prescribed in the above mentioned NARUC manual.The intent of this allocation process is to assign the costs that were incurred by the utility to that class of consumers that caused the utility to incur the costs.Or as the Alaska Public Utility Commission states the matter "the cost causer must be the cost payer." RATE DESIGN: This table uses the allocated revenue requirement to design the rates for each class.This table uses all the assumptions discussed above,and the usage statistics developed on all other schedules to compute the rates. Two versions of Table 10 are included in the study.The version for fiscal 1983 doesn't include any additional customers to the electric system.It represents what this rate should be,given the test year data and the known changes.The 1984 version shows what the rates should be if the additional customers noted on Tables 3 and 4,are added to the system. The customer charge is a monthly charge levied on all customers. It represents the fixed costs of reading meters,billing custo- mers,etc.that the utility will incur no matter how many addi- tional KWH are sold. The demand charge is a charge for each kilowatt used by large power consumers.Implementing this charge will require this class of customer to have demand meters rather than the current type of meters used.The demand charge is intended to send a price signal to these consumers that will encourage them to even out their demand for electricity on the City's electric system. The large difference in the electric rates between the two years is caused primarily by the three additional large power consumers who would significantly increase the energy usage of the system. The model can be updated to reflect any changes in these critical assumptions.. RATE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES: The model provides for the development of rates on any revenue requirement that is developed in Table 6,Operating Expenses for Rate Design.Alternatives to the suggested rate design are numerous and include the arbitrary shifting of costs from.one class of consumer to others based on managements decisions.The model provides for this alternative in Table 10,Rate Design although it has not been used in this study and was not suggested at the presentation of the draft report.Alternative rate designs that might be appropriate in this system are as follows: Flat rate with no customers charge' Flat rate with no distinction between customers classes A declining block rate structure with a customer charge A declining block rate structure with a minimum charge Block rate structures are typically developed from the results of bill frequency analyses which determine the historical usage pat- terns at various levels.The model provides a target monthly revenue per customer for each class in Table 10.The model will accomodate the insertion of any rate design and calculate the revenues result and compare it to the above mentioned target. In this study,the information and current factors were used to arrive at the rates reflected in Table 10. The magnitude of usage on this system suggests that the customer charge and single energy charge are appropriate.Declining block rates are useful on systems which have high average usage by the residential class.This is not the case on this system and pro- bably will not be the case in the future due to the high cost of energy.The inclusion of a customer charge is appropriate in that it allows recovery of some of the utility's fixed costs regardless of usage. The recognition of rate classes in the rates is a step forward in providing equitable pricing to large users.These classes and the rate design suggested in this study,i.e.,a customer charge and Single energy charge,reflect the preferred methodology of the Alaska Public Utility Commission. CONCLUSIONS -RATE REQUIREMENTS: Present Rates: The City's present retail rates are a flat KWH charge for all KWH's sold to all classes of consumers.While such a rate is easily administered and readily understood by the consumer,this type of rate does not reflect the cost causal relationship on encourage the usage characteristics desired by the utility. Basis for Recommendations: The Alaska Public Utilities Commission in Docket U-83-47 adopted regulations (3AAC 48.500--3AAC 48.560)relative to cost of service methodology and pricing objectives in the design of electric rates.The regulations and guidelines were incorporated in the accompanying study.The regulations relating to this case state: °Pricing objectives for pricing electricity are: 1)The cost causer should be the cost pager -2)The revenue requirement or utility financial need objective ;- 3)The equity objective which includes the fair- cost apportionment among customer classes 4)The conservation objective 5)The optional use objective which includes con- sideration of efficiency The Commission has expressed its'preference of the three part rate as follows: o)Customer charge °Flat energy charge °Demand charge (for customers over 7500 KWH/mo on 20 KW in 3 consecutive months) Recommendation: Based on the results of the accompanying study at Table 10,the rates that should be adopted to recover the revenue requirement for the test year ended June 30,1984 which reflects the sale of 3,698,796 KWH are as follows (rounded): Customer Energy Demand Charge Charge Charge Residential $17 29.2¢/KWH $0 'Small Commercial $25 23.3¢/KWH S$0 Large Power $34 15.3¢/KWH $15/KW Street Lights s 0 20 .02/KWH $0 Interruptable Ss 0 15 .3¢/KWH $s 0 Heat Recovery $457 0 $s 0 Demand Ratchet 75% It should be noted that the KWH statistics furnished by the City indicate that KWH sales increased approximately 27%for the period January through June 1984 over the like period in 1983.Single this represents a substantial change and additional large power customers are now within the systems service area,it is recommend that the revenue requirement and the resulting effect on rates be redetermined at least on an annual basis. The City should also consider implementation of a fuel cost adjustment provision in its'rate ordinance.In'a period of declining fuel prices,the utility overrecovers its revenue requirement and the reverse is true in a period of escalating fuel prices.The formula for computing this charge or credit is as follows:, {¢/gal base cost]-[¢/gal current cost]=£¢/KWH FCRA KWH sold per gallon of fuel based on a moving 12 month average Note:The revenue requirement determined herein is based on a fuel price of 87.6¢/gal (base cost). CAPACITY ADDITION PLAN: The first step in the process of the determination to add genera- tion capacity is to project future demand requirements and compare the result to available (and planned)firm demand capacity. This step is accomplished in the accompanying Table 5A.The results of the computations in Table 5A,given the planned addi- tion of 5.6 MW diesel generation (Currier letter 9/13/84)and load assumptions discussed in Task 1,indicate that additional genera- tion capacity will not be required through the year 2003,even if the test cat unit is removed from the system. v-ll The critical point with this schedule is the unknown existing at the time of conducting this study relative to the large potential customers available to the system.Providing full service to any of these potential customers not included in the assumptions at Task 2 could create significant variations in the results at Table 5A.A graphic comparisons is provided at appendix 3 to provide a "worse case scenario."Table 5A should be updated annually so as to incorporate changed conditions and current assumptions. CAPACITY RETIREMENT PLAN: A capacity retirement plan is a new term to the consultants involved in this.study.It is anticipated that such a plan involves the monitoring and recording of information relative to each production units efficiency performance,utilization,repair and maintenance performed and the related cost. It is assumed that,except for very large systems,a capacity retirement is an integral part of the capacity addition process. In this process,the statistical information listed above enters into the decision process relative to sizing of capacity additions other considerations may include: °Powerhouse space availability fe)Logistics fe)Salvage value,if any,of existing units °Physical depreciation v/s accounting depreciation CONCLUSION: In the City of Unalaska's case considering the present and near- term changes taking place in the system,the utility should adopt a format and procedures that will provide for the accumulation of the statistical date mentioned above and for summarizing these stat- istics into monthly reports. Analyze rate structure and load management alternatives based on the existing system,planned upgrades,and capacity addition and retire- ment plans in order to determine options that would levelize daily peak capacity demands and stabilize load factors. RATE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVE: Rate structure features that could be considered in an effort to levelize daily peak capacity demands and stabilize load factors include the following: e Time of day rates e Demand charge for large power customers e Interruptable rate TIME OF DAY RATES: Time of day rates could be a potential approach to levelizing daily peaks.However,the determination to utilize this type of rate should be based on historical daily load curve statistics. This information is not presently available.In addition,the substantial charges presently occuring with the City systems will, in all probability,have considerable effects on these daily sta- tistics had they been maintained.Therefore,it is recommended that a time of day rate not be considered until the system has Operated through a full years'operating cycle with daily load curve data accumulated. If this is to be considered in the future,metering should be developed now so that daily peak information could be taken on each class of service.This type of equipment will be expensive vI -1 @iagbut necessary if one is to prove up the need and correctiness or time of day rates. DEMAND CHARGES:| Demand charges,for large power customers are considered to be an efficient and effective means to minimizing peak demands.This is accomplished by the installation of demand meters including a demand charge in the rates. The manner in which a demand charge accomplishes this goal is that a price signal is sent to the customer imposing large demands on the system.This becomes even more evident if an annual ratchet provision is included in the demand rate.The ratchet provision requires that the customer be billed each month for at least a percentage of the highest peak recorded on his meter during the proceeding 12 months (billed demand).Generally,the percentage is 70%to 80%and it is not out of the relm of possibility to impose a 100%ratchet where fixed costs are high,such as in this case. INTERRUPTABLE RATE: To optimize load factor stability,the City needs to encourage use of interruptable loads.There could be large loads as projected in the study at Task 2 or could be relatively (at some point) small loads such as controllable electric heat.However,it is not recommended that experiments into controllable electric heat made until the City's system is operated in a stabilized condition for a full year's operating cycle.Relatively small interruptable loads could also be established by in-line electric heaters on hydrophonic systems.This would require facilities investment by the utility (including a second meter)and dispatch control by VI -2 'G@stagCity personnel.For further information regarding these systems, see appendix 3--Paper prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Robert Retherford. The rate offered is generally established at an amount per KWH that recovers energy costs,customer costs,and a small return component.Typically,a demand component is not included.Such a rate would have to be attractive when compared to oil or other fuel in the area. The objective of this rate is to encourage customer use of the system to take advantage of existing capacity (and planned capacity)to maximize production efficiency.Control of usage under this rate is accomplished through dispatching by City per- sonnel or by contractual arrangement relating to specific periods of time. Inclusion of this type of rate in the City's ordinance of electric rates is recommended,The recommended KWH charge is included in the conclusion in Task 5. LOAD MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES: Load management alternatives relative to mechanical means,produc- tion unit sizing,etc.are subjects that are best addressed by electrical engineers and are not within the expertise of the con- sultants engaged in this study. Load management alternatives relating to cost driven techniques are addressed under the section entitled "Rate Structure Alternatives.” ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor , Anchorage,Alaska 99501 LETTE™OF TRANSMITTAL DATE a -o JOB NO (907)276-0001 ATTENTION -*(907)277-7641 Mp ee €Cue?- RE TO 4 a f ft c é : . GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU (y Attached (J Under separate cover via the following items: O Shop drawings )Prints O Plans Ly Samples O Specifications O Copy of letter Change order D COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION !--7 , - THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: QO For approval QO Approved as submitted OO Resubmit_____copies for approval Cd For your use O°Approved as noted O Submit_____copies for distribution QO As requested O Returned for corrections O Return______corrected prints ©For review and comment O O FOR BIDS DUE 19 QO PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS ' L 'i °i? COPY TO SIGNED: Crews NMacinnes Hof fmnan/WiITRS May 31,1983 (RESPOND TO ANCHORAGE OFFICE) Mr.Paul Sanders Director of Public Works Unalaska,AK 99685 Subject:Proposal for Engineering Services for Waste Heat Recovery System for the City of Unalaska Dear Mr.Sanders: Attached is our proposal for the subject waste heat project for the City of Unalaska.We believe it is pretty much self- explanatory;however,please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions.When calling,please ask for Mr.Duane Bessette or myself. We have furnished Mr.Jerry Larson with a copy of the proposal for his review and are prepared to negotiate a contract either directly with the City of Unalaska or through the Alaska Power Authority depending upon your desires. We look forward to working with you on this most interesting waste heat project. Sincerely, C/INNES,MOFFMAN/VITRO Walter E.Stetge,P.E. President kh Attachment cc:"Jerry Larson,APA w/Attachment Gonsulline Engineers 1835 Terminai Drive Suite 220 |Richtand,Washington 99352 |509-943-9187 9725 3rd Ave.N.E.Suite 302 |Seattle,Washington 98115 |206-524-6000 _____3812 Spenard Rd.Suite 100 |Anchorage,Alaska 99503 |907-277-5605 PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICE FOR WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF UNALASKA CMH/Vitro is pleased to offer engineering services for study and design of a jacket water cooling and waste heat recovery system for the proposed Unalaska power plant. In preparing this proposal,CMH/Vitro has made the following assumptions:. 1. 4. Documents will be prepared for force account construc-tion by local labor,rather than conventional competi-yttivebid;the City of Unalaska will act as its own general contractor and contract administrator. The manufacturer and model of the diesel generator will ol be known before design is finalized. CMH/Vitro is responsible for design of the cooling/heat irecoverysystemonly,for up to four 2500 KW diesel ”)generators and up to three Caterpillar generators of approximately 600 KW each. Design does not include any of the heat distribution albeyondthepowerplant. Basic Services: The design effort is proposed to consist of three divisions. 1.Pre-Design Phase:Study and recommendation of acoolingsystemwhichwillbeappropriateforthenew ol power plant,both in terms of first cost and continuing maintenance and operation.Sea water cooling may appear.to be the simplest to apply,but experience elsewhere raises questions of reliability,cost of maintenance,and life expectancy. Design Phase:Once the type of cooling is chosen,|design the complete system to include provision for U recovery of the maximum practical jacket water heat. Pre-Construction Phase:Assist the Owner with materialsprocurementbypreparingmaterialslistsandequipment ANspecifications;check suppliers'submittals and advise the Owner of suitability of proposed equipment. The scope of services is defined in more detail below: Pre-Design Phase: 1.Field Trip:Site visit by a Principal or Senior -- Mechanical Engineer to: a.Inspect the proposed power plant building. b.Inspect the existing sea water cooling sumps. c.Interview other users of sea water for cooling in t the Unalaska-Dutch Harbor area. d.Inspect potential waste heat using facilities. e.Gather information on existing Caterpillar generators. 2.Field Trip Report:Prepare written presentation of © field observations. 3.Research Salt Water Cooling:Use of sea water for cooling stationary shore-based machinery invites e maintenance problems from corrosion and fouling. Research will investigate materials and methods best suited for the particular application,and predict the probability of success. 4.Study Cooling Options:Using information obtained in 3.above,sea water cooling options will be compared with other options such as water-to-air.The compari- sons will consider first cost,maintenance costs,and estimated component life. 5.Recommended Option Report:A written presentation of the study results,with a definite recommendation for the preferred type of cooling system. 6.Research Equipment:Gather and study information on ” the proposed generators,heat exchangers,pumps and other components. Design Phase: 1.Estimate Heating Loads:Using information supplied by the utility and from the field trip,estimate the maximum likely demand of foreseeable heat loads within a practical distance from the new power plant.Use to size heat exchanger(s)for transferring heat from the _ jacket water loop,for sizing pipe and pumps,and to reserve adequate room in the power plant for the installation of future equipment,part of which is to provide building heat for the power plant. 2.Calculate Flow Requirements:Given the desired outlet and inlet jacket water temperatures and the maximum V number of units contemplated,calculate necessary maximum flow in the primary jacket water circuit,as well as,in the sea water side (if used)and in secon- dary (waste heat)side. Size Piping,Heat Exchangers and Pumps:Calculate o capacities of the various system components based on present and future demands, Control System:Design a control system to assure L adequate cooling flow to each and all engines and to efficiently control flow to heat recovery systems. Electrical Power and Control:Design a motor control|center (MCC)and size feeders,disconnect switches; integrate electrical control into the overall system control.AKyMaterialandInstallationSpecifications:Prepare an YNoutlinespecificationsuitableforuseoflocalforceKSeyaccountlaborindeterminingmaterialsandpracticesofanxinstallation.Specificationwill be much less compre-4 ©hensive thanspecificationsnormally supplied with AScompetitivebidprojects.7 LY e4\ b.Drawings:Provide mechanical and electrical drawings 0 in sufficient detail to allow construction by force account labor with experienced supervision.Drawings will include plan,isometric and schematic views of the mechanical systems,with other detailing to allow on-site fabrication and installation.Plans and details will not be dimensioned or presented in detail sufficient for shop fabrication. Coordinate with CH,M-Hill:Meet with the CH.,M-Hill design team and continue communication as required to ensure coordination of the design effort. Field Trip to Verify Design:Trip to Unalaska by the project engineer to present the design to the Owner and to field verify details of the design as may be required. Pre-Construction Phase: 1.Materials and Equipment List:Prepare comprehensive lists of materials and equipment to allow the Owner to provide material orders. Specifications for Owner-Purchased Equipment:Prepare specifications for major equipment items (heat exchangers, pumps,etc.)for use by the Owner in procurement. Review of Submittals:Review material submitted by equipment suppliers to determine compliance of proposed equipment with the specifications and advise the Owner. Fees The not-to-exceed fee ceiling for each of the phases proposed above is: Pre-Design $12,500 Design 26,700 Pre-Construction 9,100 Charges will be made on actual hours and expenses incurred.The Owner will be notified if and when accumulated charges exceed the ceiling amounts proposed.The above noted figures include $2,250 direct expenses for travel,lodging,telephone,printing,etc. which will be billed as reimbursible expenses. The hourly rate schedule for our offices,covering a cross-section of those personnel likely to be involved,is included. Proposal submitt Walter E.Stéige,P.E. President by CMH/Vitro. kh STRAIGHT TIME RATE PER HOUR Principal Engineers Senior Engineers Project Engineers Field Inspectors Designers II Designers I Technicians &Draftsmen All Others PROJECT: DATE: Proposal for Engineering Services for Waste Heat Recovery System for Unalask. May 31,1983 CREWS,MAC INNES,HOFFMAN/VITRO ATTACHMENT COMPENSATION SCHEDULE ANCHORAGE EMPLOYEES RATE EFFECTIVE 1/1 -12/31/83 $88.00 78.00 72.00 65.00 61.00 56.00 46.00 35.00 SEATTLE EMPLOYEES RATE EFFECTIVE 1/1 -12/31/83 $€6.00 58.00 54.00 50.00 48.00 45.00 36.00 27.00 Unalaska 84-1 SOLICITATION,OFFER AND AWARD Contract No.Solicitation No. Unalaska 84-1 ISSUED BY: City of Unalaska Department of Public Works Unalaska,AK 99685 SOLICITATION: Date Issued Sealed offers in original for furnishing the shop fabricated piping outlined in these documents will be received at the above address until 12:00 noon local time October 31,1984 Hour CAUTION: Date Late submissions,modifications,and withdrawals are not authorized after the closing time and date. TABLE OF CONTENTS: DescriptionSpecification number:#Division 15--Pre-fabricated pipe systems Drawings T-1,M-1 thru M-9,E l and E-2 Bid Sheet Special contract requirements Contract clauses OFFER: In compliance with these documents the bidder agrees, if this offer is accepted within 60 calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror)from the date for receipt of specified above,to furnish any or all items prices are offered at the price set opposite delivered at the designated point(s),within specified in this solicitation. offers upon which each item, the time Unalaska 84-1 DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT: .10 calendar days 20 calendar days 30 calendar days ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS: Amendment No.Date Name and Person Authorized to Sign Address of .Name: Offeror Title: -Telephone No.Signature Offer Date AWARD Accepted as to Items Number 1 &JA Amount CityofUnalaska Representative Award Date Name: .Title:." Signature: Unalaska 84-1 DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS "|SEE DIVISION 15,SECTION 15750,PREFABRICATED PIPE SYSTEMS SPECIFICATION -(ATTACHED)BID SHEETS AND DRAWINGS ™ Unalaska 84-1 BID SHEET oe is -Ss .15750 Pre-Fabricated Pipe System Job Unalaska Prefabricated Piping Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. No.1 Division Page 1 of 1 Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1 a Fabrication,testing and shipping of prefabricated piping as described in specifications section 15750,and drawings "Power House"T-l,M-1,-2,-3,-4, 5,-6,-7,-8,-9,E-1,-2.Piping to be fabricated is identified on the drawings. Pg.4 Total Bid #1 15 Unalaska 84-1 No.1A-Division 15 BID SHEET Page 1of 2. Materials Supply Job Unalaska Heat Exchanger (Bid with Prefabricated Pipe Systems) Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1.Shell and U-Tube Bundle Heat Exchanger:3 Each Steel shell with 90-10 Cupro nickel tubes,brass tube sheet and brass head. Removable Tube Bundle:Pressure rated 100 psi working ASME stamped.Inlet and outlet of shell shall be on top (see Section A,M-4). Operating Conditions (Design): Shell Fluid:50%ethylene glycol/water. Temperature In:200°F. Temperature Out:170°F. Tap:8"flanged 150 1b.ANSI.Both flanges installed facing up,raised face. Maximum Pressure Drop @ Maximum Flow Rate:7.9 feet. Flow Maximum:500 gpm. Tubes Fluid:Sea water. Temperature In:45°F, Temperature Out:75°F. Flow Rate Maximum:500 gpm. Maximum Pressure Drop @ Maximum Flow Rate:4.5 ft. Tap:6"NPT Fopling Factor:.005.Capable of 7.0 x10°BIU/Hr.heat transfer. Manufacturer:B &G QWU 146-2 11.5 or approved equal.Exchangers shall be warranteed against defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one year from date of installation. Supplier of heat exchanger shall be required to coordinate proper piping fit up to exchanger with pipe fabricator. Unalaska 84-1 No.1A-Division 15 BID SHEET Page 2 of 2 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Heat Exchanger Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 2.Flat Plate Heat Exchanger:316 1 Each stainless steel plates.Nitrile rubber gaskets. Operating Conditions (Design): Hot Side: Fluid:50%ethylene glycol/water. Flow Rate Maximum:500 gpm. Temperature In:190°F. Temperature Out:170°F, Head Loss @ Maximum Flow Rate:11.5 ft. Connections 6",150 psi ANSI raised face flanged. Cold Side: Fluid:50%ethylene glycol/water. Flow Rate Maximum:500 gpm. Temperature In:160°F. Temperature Out:180°F. Head Loss @ Maximum Flow Rate:11.5 ft. Unit shall be factory tested for leakage.Frame shall meet ASME requirements.All ports on front with 304 stainless steel 6"flanges 150 1b. ANSI,raised face. APV SR65MT or approved equal. Exchangers shall be warranteed against defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one year from date of installation. Supplier of heat exchanger shall be required to coordinate proper piping fit up to exchanger with pipe fabricator. Pg.6 Total Bid No.1A Unalaska 84-1 . DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE PLACE OF DELIVERY | All offers/bids will be submitted FOB,Unalaska,Alaska. (See Division 15 Specs,Part 3 I) TIME OF DELIVERY Delivery is desired by the City of Unalaska in accordance with the following schedule: Bid Item No.Time (within the number of days stated below after date of contract) 90#1 Calendar days $A ___90 __Calendar days Unalaska 84-1 Continuation of DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE If the offerors/bidders are unable to meet the above schedule, he may,without prejudice to the evaluation of his bid,set forth his proposed delivery schedule below but such delivery schedule must not extend the delivery period beyond the time for delivery called for in the following REQUIRED delivery period set forth below: All items to be delivered to Unalaska,Alaska,no later than 120 calendar days after date of contract award. days Bids offering delivery of a quantity under such terms or conditions that delivery will not clearly fall within the applicable REQUIRED delivery period specified above will be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected. If the offerors/bidders do not propose a different schedule, the City of Unalaska's DESIRED delivery schedule shall apply. OFFERORS /BIDDERS PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE (to be completed by bidder) Bid Item No.'Time (within the number of days stated below after date of contract) #1 .Calendar days #1A Calendar days NOTE: Award here under,ora preliminary notice thereof,willbemailedorotherwisefurnishedtotheofferor/bidder the day the award is dated.Therefore,in computingthetimeavailableforperformance,the offeror/bidder should take into consideration the time required for the notice of award to arrive through the ordinary mails. _Pg.8 "Unalaska 84-1 _CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA ADMINISTRATION This contract shall be administered by the City of Unalaska Public Works Division,Unalaska,Alaska. PAYMENT PURPOSES Offerors/bidders shall indicate below the address to which payment should be mailed,if such address isdifferentfromthatshownfortheofferor/bidder. Address City State ZIP Code INVOICES Invoices shall be prepared,and submitted in duplicate to the City of Unalaska Public Works Department, referencing the contract number and date of award. Pg.900 OO Unalaska 84-1 AWARD OF CONTRACT The Contract will be awarded to that responsibleofferor/bidder whose offer conforming to the solicitationwillbemostadvantageoustotheCityofUnalaska,price'-and other factors considered. The City of Unalaska reserves the right to reject anyoralloffersandtowaiveinformalitiesandminorirregularities in offers received. AWARD TO SINGLE OFFEROR/BIDDER Subjectto the provisions contained herein,award shall be made to a single bidder.Bids must include a price for each item listed on the bid sheets in order for bids to be properly evaluated.Failure to do this shall be cause for rejection of the entire bid.Bids shall be evaluated on the basis of the quantities shown and award shall be made to that responsive,responsible bidder whose ageregate price is low. Pg.10© "Unalaska 84-1. SPECIAL PROVISIONS PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY . Preservation-packaging for all items shall be in accordance 'with vendor's best commercial practice unless specifiedotherwiseinthespecifications,drawings,or bid sheets. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE Inspection and acceptance will be at Unalaska,Alaska, except where specified otherwise in the specifications or drawings.The City of Unalaska Manager or his/her designated representative shall inspect and accept the supplies/material called for in this bid/contract.(See Div.15 Specs,Part 3 I) PAYMENT Payment will be by the City of Unalaska upon receipt of acceptable invoice.However,payment of the invoice does not constitute acceptance of unsatisfactory suppliesorservicesorinanywayrelinquishtheCity's right tomakecommensurateadjustments. MATERTAL All materials will be new unless authorized otherwise by.the Dir.of Public Works or his/her authorized representative.If at any time during the performance of this contract.the contractor believes that the furnishing of supplies or components which are not new is necessary or desirable,he shall notify the Dir.of Public Works immediately in writing,including the reasons therefor and proposing any consideration which will flow to the City if authorization to use the supplies is granted. PERMITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor shall,without additional expense to the City of Unalaska,be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits,and for complying with any applicable Federal,State,and Municipal laws,codes,and regulations in connection with the prosecution of the work.He shall be similarly responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of his fault or negligence.He shall take proper safety and health precautions to protect the work,the workers,the public, -and the property of others. Pg.11 Unalaska 84-1 CONTRACT The Contract resulting from the acceptance of this agreement is to be governed by the uniform commercial code as adopted in the State of Alaska as effective and in force as of the date of this agreement and all statutory,charter and ordinance provisions that are applicable to public contracts in the City of Unalaska and the State of Alaska shall be followed with respect to this contract. WARRANTY Seller expressly warrants that all the material and work covered by this order will conform to the specifications,drawings,samples or other description furnished or specified by the City and will be of good Material and workmanship and free from defect.Seller expressly warrants that all material covered by this order which is the product of Seller or is in accordance with Seller's specifications,will be fit and sufficient for the purposes intended. INSPECTION All material shall be received subject to the City's inspection and rejection.Defective material or material not in accordance with the City's specifications will be held for Seller's instruction and at Seller's risk and if Seller so directs,will be returned at Seller's expense.No goods returned as defective shall be replaced unless authorized by the City.Payment for material on this order prior to inspection shall not constitute acceptance thereof. CHANGE IN SPECIFICATIONS The City reserves the right at any time to make changes in specifications as to any material and/or work covered by this contract.Any difference in price or time for performance resulting from such changes shall be negotiated and the contract shall be modified in writing accordingly. PATENTS By accepting this agreement,Seller agrees to defend,protect and save the City harmless against all damages,claims and demands,for actual or alleged infrincenents of any United States or foreign Patent or Copyright by reason of the use of the material ordered. INTERPRETATION No course or prior dealing between the parties and no usage of the trade shall be relevant to the supplement of explanation of any term used in the agreement.Whenever a term is defined by the uniform commercial code and used in this contract,the defination contained in the code is to control. Pg.12 Unalaska 84-1 FEDERAL,STATE,AND LOCAL TAXES Except as may be otherwise provided in this contract,the contract price includes all applicable Federal,State,and Local taxes and duties. Pg.13 ee Unalaska 84-1 UWH PART 1 DIVISION 15 SECTION 15750 PRE-FABRICATED PIPE SYSTEMS GENERAL Description:This section describes specific requirements, products,and methods of execution for shop fabricated piping,as shown on the drawings.Field erection will be performed by others. Shop fabricated piping is shown on the drawings as the shaded pipe.Field fit up is identified on the drawings. PRODUCTS Heating and generator piping systems as shown on drawings. 1.Design Conditions: a.Maximum Temperature:210°F. b.Service Fluid:50%ethylene glycol/water mix. c.Pressure:50 psi. 2.Pipe:ASTM A53,Type E or S,Grade A or B,or ASTM A106,Grade A or B,Schedule 40. 3.Fittings:Wrought steel per ASTM A234,Grade WPB. Wall thickness same as pipe.Long radius elbows only, unless specific reference is made to other types. 4.Flanges:Class 150,forged steel per ASTM A181,Grade 70,or ASTM A105,raised face.Weld neck per ANSI B16.5.Bore to match pipe ID. 5.Branch Connections: a.2"and under:Standard weight carbon steel per ASTM A105 screwed (Thread-O+Let). b.2-1/2"and over:Standard weight carbon steel per ASTM A105 butt weld (Weld-O-Let). Cooling water piping systems as shown on drawings. 1.Design Conditions: 15750-1 'Unalaska 84-1 PART 3 3 D. .O1 A. DIVISION 15 SECTION 15750 PRE-FABRICATED PIPE SYSTEMS a.Maximum temperature:180°F. b.Service fluid:Sea water. c.Pressure:50 psi. Pipe:Filament wound reinforced thermosetting resin. pipe.ASTM D2996 RTRP-11FE. Flanges (RTRP):Class 150 per ANSI B16.5.Filament wound or molded plastic,socket type adhesive joint. Fittings:Flanged filament wound reinforced thermo- setting resin.Long radius 90°unless specifically referenced on drawings. Branch Connections:Tapped connections 3/4 NPT stainless steel type 316.9/16"thick RTRP,180°saddle,adhesive jointed to pipe. Pipe Supports:9/16"thick,RTRP,180°saddles,6"long. EXECUTION Fabrication: 1.All fabrication and testing shall be according toANSI/ASME B31.9,1982 Building Services Piping. Standardized fittings only to be used. Drawings show dimensions and location of piping (shaded). Fabricator shall provide spool piece identification, with all pieces numbered and referenced to original Owner-supplied drawings.These plans shall be approved by the Engineer before fabrication can begin. Maximum length of a spool piece shall be 20 feet. Field make up pieces,field welds are identified on the drawings to be performed by Owner.It is also the intent of the drawings to show the physical limitations of the existing building and the constraints of field erection of the piping. Inconsistencies and ambiguities in the drawings shall be brought to the attention,of the Owner. 15750-2 '"Unalaska 84-1 DIVISION 15 SECTION 15750 PRE-FABRICATED PIPE SYSTEMS 6.Fabricator shall coordinate his efforts for proper fabrication of piping into sea water and waste heat recovery heat exchanger with owner. Testing: 1.<All pieces which have shop fabricated joints and saddles shall be tested watertight at 75 psi.No leakage will be permitted. Supply Items: 1.All pipe,fittings,and flanges (except blinds)shaded on drawings is to be supplied.Owner will be supplying gaskets,nuts and bolts,and valves. 2.Owner will be performing field erection. Certification: 1.Supplier shall certify that material and fabrication supplied by him meets all ANSI B31.9 requirements and has been tested to be watertight. Painting and Cleaning (Steel Pipe):Interior of pipe shall be flushed and all loose material removed.Exterior shall be sand blasted to remove all loose mill scale,rust,oil, grease or other debris which would interfere with paint application.Commercial blast cleaning according to SSPC-5P-6-63 standards.All exterior surfaces except mating surfaces (flanges,threaded joint area)shall have a minimum one coat,1 mil thickness of inorganic zine rich coating.Paint to applied according to manufacturer's instructions.There shall be a 6"cutback of paint from field welded ends. Protection While in Shipment (All Pipe):Flanged surfaces, threaded openings and fabricated pipe ends shall be pro- tected from damage in shipment by use of end protection or other suitable covering. Submittals:These items shall be submitted to the Owner for approval.No work shall begin until approval is received. 1.Shop (spool)drawings. 15750-3 Uanlaska 84-1 UWH DIVISION 15 SECTION 15750 PRE-FABRICATED PIPE SYSTEMS 2.Paint type,brand name. 3.Acknowledgement of requirements for testing,certifica- tion,shipping instructions,delivery date,and pro- tection of fabricated pipe. Shipping:Fabricated pipe pieces shall be banded to heavy duty wood pallets.Loose fittings shall be boxed and covered. Owner Acceptance:Owner or his representative will inspect the prefabricated pipe at the place of fabrication after testing has been completed.Owner will accept and approve pipe prior to shipment after it has been completely tested and meets the requirements of these specifications.The pipe fabricator shall notify the owner when testing is complete so the inspection trip can be scheduled. 15750-4 INFORMATION TO OFFERORS OR QUOTERS Solicitation number: J Advertised (IFB) Unalaska 84-2 [SY Negotiated (RFP) ISSUING OFFICE: City of Unalaska Department of Public Works Unalaska,AK 99685 PROJECT: Power Plant Cooling and Waste Heat Recovery System BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE PURCHASED: Supplies,i.e.,valves,electrical parts,pumps, pipe hangers,tanks,heat exchanger,pipe,etc.as outlined on the bid sheets. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Bidders will thoroughly examine the specifications and drawings and submit their bids in strict compliance with the spec's,drawings and contractual documents. FOR INFORMATION ON THIS PROCUREMENT WRITE OR CALL: Name and Address Telephone Mr.Jeff Currier (907)581-1260 No (Same as Above)nee Collect Calls 'Unalaska 84-2 SOLICITATION,OFFER AND AWARD Contract No.Solicitation No.Date Issued Unalaska 84-1 ISSUED BY: City of Unalaska Department of Public Works Unalaska,AK 99685 SOLICITATION: Sealed offers in original for furnishing the supplies or services in these documents will be received at the above address until 12:00 noon jo¢a1 time October 31,1984 Hour Date CAUTION: Late submissions,modifications,and withdrawals are not authorized after the closing time and date. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Description - Specification number Bid Sheets Special contract requirements ;Contract clauses OFFER: In compliance with these documents the bidder agrees,if this offer is accepted within 30 calendar days (30 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror)from the date for receipt of offers specified above,to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each iten, delivered at the designated point(s),within the time specified in this solicitation Pg.ls Unalaska 84-2 DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT: 10 calendar days 30 calendar days ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS: Amendment No.Date Name and Address of Offeror Telephone No. AWARD Accepted as to Items Number City of Unalaska Representative Name: Title: Signature: 20 calendar days Person Authorized to Sign Name: Title: Signature Amount Award Date Offer Date Unalaska 84-2 NOTE: DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS See bid sheets . Rea 2 BID SHEET Page 1 of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Hangers and Supplies Refer to Instructionsto Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1.Anchor Bolts,Phillips Wedge Anchors: a.3/4"D x 4-1/2"L 100 b.3/4"D x 7"L 25 c. 1/2"Dx3-1/4"L 50 2.Hanger Rod:Continuous thread, electrogalvanized,Grinnell Fig.146: a.3/4",6 ft.lengths 2 b.5/8",6 ft.lengths 20 3.Turnbuckle,galvanized,Grinnell Fig.230: a.3/4"2 b.5/8"10 4. U-bolts,galvanized,Grinnell Fig.137, pipe size: a 8"14 b.6"8 c.14"10 Each U-bolt provided with four each hexplated nuts suitable for galvanized U-bolt specified. 5.Clevis,Grinnell Fig.299: a.3/4"with pin ) . 6 oe Pg.4 BID SHEET Page 2 of 3 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Hangers and Supplies Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 6.Pipe Clamp,Grinnell Fig.212: a.14"galvanized 6 b.8"galvanized 4 Cc.6"galvanized 4 d.4"galvanized 2 7.Riser Clamp,Grinnell Fig.261,gal- vanized:° a.14"2 8.Single Lug Plate,Grinnell Fig.47: a.For 3/4"rod 6 9.Beam Attachment,Grinnell Fig.66,(with bolt/nut): a.For 3/4"rod 2 b.For 5/8"12 10.Clevis Plate,Grinnell Fig.49: a.For 3/4"rod 2 b.For 5/8"rod 2 ll.Steel Bracket,Grinnell Fig.195: a.No.1 wt.16 b.No.2 wt.6 12.Welders Eye Nut,Grinnell Fig.290: a.For 5/8"rod 12 Der BID SHEET .Page 3 of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Hangers and Supplies Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Grinnell Fig.290L: a.For 3/4"rod 5 13.Welded Eye,Grinnell Fig.278L: a.For 5/8"rod 6 14.Right-and Left-Hand Thread Rods, Fig.253 for 3/4"diameter 6 ft. lengths.4 15.Steel Washer Plate,Fig.60: a.5/8"diameter 24 b.7/8"diameter 10 Total Bid No.1! BID SHEET -Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Valves Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1.Butterfly Valves:Full taped lug body for 125/150 pound ANSI flanges,EPDM resilient seat which isolates stream liquid from body.Suitable for all position mounting. a.Body:Cast iron. b.Stem:316 stainless steel. Cc.Seat:EPDM. d.Disc:Aluminum bronze. e.Handle:90°notched plate bolt-on 8"valves or less,10°throttling positions. Body shall be one piece,125 psi rated, bubble tight.Dry stem design.Suitable for shutoff or throttling service. Temperature rated to 210°F.,50%ethylene glycol/water or 100°salt water. a.1)8"18 2)Alternate:8"with Monel disc/stem 8 These valves in lieu of a.1).Total number of valves to be purchased remain the same. b.1)6"32 2)Alternate:6"with Monel disc/stem 12 These valves in lieu of a.l).Total number of valves to be purchased remain the same. 2.Gate Valves:Bronze body and trim, 125 lb.rising stem,union bonnet, screwed ends,rated 200 psi WOG solid disc. a.1".30 b.2"1 c.1-1/2"6 Total Bid No.2 BID SHEET Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pumps Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost l.Rotary Vane Vacuum Pump:Lubricated,1 Complete separate drive,maximum vac.28"Hg.,Unit with 11 cfm @ 10"Hg.motor and pump Parts mounted on base,coupled, GAST Equipment No.: Pump 2065-V4A-T334,480/60/30/1 H.P., 1725 rpm or approved equal Filter AA900D Relief Valve AA840A Base AB320F Motor 1 hp. Traps AA673 Guard AE873 Gauge AA640 Oil AD220 Repair Kit K295 Assembled and ready for operation. 2.End suction centrifugal pump with motor,1 Each unitype,20 gpm @ 55'TDH,3/4 hp. minimum efficiency at design flow 452, PACO 1250-1,3500 rpm,cast iron base, bronze fitted or approved equal.For use with 50%ethylene glycol mixture 70°,120 volt,60 AC. 3.End suction centrifugal pump with motor.2 Each Frame mounted,cast iron base,bronze fitted for use with 50%ethylene glycol/ water 200°F.,480 volt,60 AC,3 phase, 5 hp.,1150 rpm,500 gpm @ 29'TDH, minimum efficiency 75%,B &G 1510 5" BB 9.0"Imp.or approved equal.5”flat face discharge flange,6"flat face suction flange. Pg.8 Job BID SHEET Page Materials Supply Unalaska Pumps Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 4.Unit type end suction centrifugal pump 1 Each with motor,cast iron,base mounted, bronze fitted,25 gpm @ 30'TDH,120 volt,60 AC,3500 rpm,PACO 1250-1, 1-1/4 x 1-1/2,1/2 hp.,50%minimum efficiency or approved equal.For use with 50%ethylene glycol/water @ 170°F. Pg.9 Total Bid No.3 Job BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Tanks Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification Units Cost Required Per Unit Total Cost Glycol Make-Up Tank:See drawings and specifications. Fluid Service:50%ethylene glycol in water. Maximum Temperature:210°F. Maximum Operating Pressure:Atmospheric. Capacity:300 gallons. Dimensions:36"0.D.x 6'-6"long (maximum). Construction:All welded carbon steel with NPT female connections,for size and location of connections see Sheet M-4, ASME Code stamp not required.Prime painted. Remarks:Tank to be complete with cradles for horizontal floor mounting with sufficient depth to provide 8"to 12"clearance between tank bottom and floor after installation. Expansion Tank:See drawings and specifications. 'Fluid Service:50%ethylene glycol in water. Design Pressure:50 psig. Maximum Temperature:210°F. Maximum Operating Pressure:12 psig. Capacity:170 gallons (minimum). Dimensions:30"x 7'-0"high. Construction:All welded carbon steel shell,equipped with butyl rubber diaphragm and NPT screwed connections. For size and location of connections see Sheet M-5.ASME Code stamp required. Remarks:Tank shall be equipped with support ring or legs for vertical floor mounting.Prime painted. Pg.10 1 Each 1 Each Job BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Tanks Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification Units Cost Required Per Unit Total Cost Hot Water Tank:See drawings and specifications. Fluid Service:Potable water. ,Maximum Temperature:210°F. Maximum Operating Pressure:100 psig. Capacity:300 gallons. Dimensions:36"0.D.x 6' 6"long (maximum). Construction:All welded carbon steel construction,epoxy coated interior, with NPT female connections.Tank shall be equipped with horizontally removable copper heating coil having a minimum of© 24 sq.ft.of heating surface,ASME Code stamp required.For size and location of connections see Sheet M-7. Remarks:Tank to be complete with cradles for horizontal floor mounting with sufficient depth to provide 8"to 12"clearance between tank bottom and floor after installation.Zinc sacrificial anodes mounted in tank for cathodic protection.Prime painted. Expansion Tank:See drawings and specifications. Fluid Service:50%ethylene glycol in water. Design Pressure:50 psig. Maximum Temperature:210°F. Maximum Operating Pressure:25 psig. Capacity:44 gallons (minimum). Dimensions:18"diameter x 5'-0O"high. Construction:All welded carbon steel shell,equipped with butyl rubber diaphragm and NPT screwed connections, for size and location of connections see Sheet M-7.ASME Code stamp required. oo To Pg.11 1 Each 1 Each Job BID SHEET :-Page 3 of Materials Supply Unalaska Tanks Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Remarks:Tank shall be equipped withsupportringorlegsforverticalfloor mounting.Prime painted. 5.Vacuum Tank:See drawings and 1 Each specifications. Fluid Service:Sea water (vapor). Maximum Temperature:Ambient. Maximum Operating Pressure:27"Hg. vacuum. Capacity:125 gallons. Dimensions:24"diameter x 5'-6"long (maximum). Construction:All welded carbon steel construction,epoxy coated interior, with NPT female connections,for size and location of connections see Sheet M-6.ASME Code stamp required. Design Pressure:50 psig. Remarks:Tank to be complete with cradles for horizontal floor mounting with sufficient depth to provide 8"to 12"clearance between tank bottom and floor after installation.Prime painted. Total Bid No.4 Da 19 BID SHEET Page 1 of 1 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Y Screen Strainer Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. , Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Strainers,2"and Under::Class 250,"Y" pattern,screwed,bronze body with 20 mesh perforated Monel screen, a.1-1/2" Strainers,Over 2":"Y"pattern,cast iron per ASTM A278,Class 30 with 20 mesh (.045")perforated Monel screen, raised face,flanged to 125 lbs.ANSI Standards. a.6"- Total Bid No.5 Job BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Switches/Safety Valves Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification Units Cost Required Per Unit Total Cost Pressure Switch:NEMA Type 1,120 volt, 60 AC,15 amp.Variable 0-15 psig set point.Factory set 12 psig.1/2 NPT service 502%ethylene glycol/water 210°F. Single pole. Vacuum Switch:NEMA Type 1,120 volt, 60 AC,15 amp.Double pole.Double throw.Variable 0 to 30"Hg.vacuun, set at factory open at 20"Hg.and close at 10"Hg.,1/2"NPT,materials for service:sea water vapor.80°F. Pressure Relief Valves:Factory set as specified,brass body,field adjustable 3/4"NPT. a.16 psi,factory set. b.75 psi,factory set. c.100 psi,factory set. Air Vents:Valmatic 1"with No.22 stainless steel trim,100 psi pressure rated, Conductivity element,on-off liquid level control,Warrick Series 3H2Bl, 5/8-18NF connection,303 stainless steel body,UL listed. a Pg.14 2 Each _2 Each Total Bid No.6 No.7 BID SHEET - -Page 1 of-_ Materials Supply Job Unalaska Expansion Joints Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost | 1.Expansion Joints:8"diameter rubber fabric tube,spool type designed for sea water temperature 45°F,,150 1b.ANSI raised face flanges,pressure rated 100 psi,6"maximum flange to flanged dimension.3 Each Uniroyal 4140 or equal. Total Bid No.7 ee Pg.15 Job- Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Instrumentation (Measuring) Material Specification Units Required Cost Per Unit Total Cost Thermometers:9"industrial red reading thermometer,separable stainless steel type 316 wells,fully adjustable hinge (all angles).Insertion length 2-1/2", aluminum or steel case,3/4"NPT with test (dry)wells for each thermometer. Manufacturer:Trerice. a.Range 0-100°F. b.Range 30-240°F. c.Range 0-160°F. Pressure Gauges:Industrial quality 4-1/2"solid front dial Bourbon tube type.1/2"NPT,Monel Bourbon tubes and socket.Manufacturer:Gage Solfrunt Series 1900. a.Range 0-30 psi. b.Range Compound 30-0-30. Thermometer:Remote indicating dial thermometer 3-1/2",stainless steel, armored capillary,solid liquid filled, back flange bottom outlet.Manufacturer: Trerice. a.Range 0-100°F.,18"capillary length for 6"immersion length for sea water service,plain connection. b.Range 30-240°F.,2-1/2"D immersion with 1/2"separable brass socket well 15"capillary tube. 10 20 20 Total Bid No.8 BID SHEET Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1.Pipe:ASTM A53,Type E or S,Grade A or B,Schedule 40,or ASTM A106,Grade A or B,fittings wrought steel per ASTM A234, Schedule 40.Gr.WPB.Flanges:Class 150,forged steel per ASTM A181,Grade 70 or ASTM Al05,raised face,bore to match pipe I.D.Elbows long radius. Pipe 20 ft.lengths. a.8"1 b.6".; 3 c.2"1 d.4"1 e.1-1/2"4 2.Flanges (per above specification). Blind. a.12"2 b.8"5 c.6"10 Full bore weld neck. d.6"20 e.5"4 f.4"2 3.Gaskets:1/16"compressed asbestos. For use with raised face blind flanges, no bore hole,full face gasket. a.12"2 --..Pg.17_- BID SHEET Page 2 of 3 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost b.8"3 c.6"6 For use with raised face flanges (ring type). d.12"80 e.8"40 ff.6"40 For use with flat face flanges (full face). g.6"4 h.5"4 4.Bolts:Cadmium plated,carbon steel, heavy hex series bolts per ASTM A307, Grade B,and hex nuts per ASTM A563, Grade A for use on butterfly valves ANSI Standards.For 150 1b.flanges. Butterfly valves (cap screws). a.6"valves:2":3/4"°10 sets 70 b.8"valves:2-1/4":3/4""°10 sets 32 For flanges,stud bolts with two nuts. c.12"flanges:7/8"x 4-1/2"sets 36 d.8"flanges:3/4"x 4"sets 20 e.6"flanges:3/4"x 3-3/4"sets 20 Pe.18 BID SHEET Page 3of 3 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 5.Fittings:(Per 1.specification.) a.90° 1)6"10 2)1-1/2"10 3)2"4 b.45° 1)6"2 6.Tees:(Per 1.specification.) a.6"2 b.1-1/2"6 7.Unions:Wrought iron ASTM A197,-Class 150,screwed per ANSI B16.3. a.1-1/2"4 b.i"6 c.2"1 wa ee Pg.19...Total Bid No.9 No.10 BID SHEET Page of 4 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material 'Specification Required Per Unit Cost Programmable Controller,Honeywell R7510-11 1 each Excell Unit or approved equal.Which includes:complete unit R7510 CPU,1 each R7511 I/O Board,1 each P981 Relay Board,1 each P982 Relays,6 each AT74 Transformer,1 each 14M Control Cabinet in Dripproof Enclosure, 1 each R461 Telephone Modem,1 each W7035A Plug-In Operator's Terminal,1 each $7400 Temperature Monitor,1 each Software Programming,Documentation, Start-up and Training for Operators at Unalaska Temperature Sensor --Honeywell L7033A with 5%Copperwell,1 each Furnished system can provide for 32 control function without any additions as follows: Variable signal inputs (analog inputs)such as temperature,pressure,flow,etc. Variable outputs (analog outputs)such as variable speed pumps,modulating valves, dampers,etc. Da on BID SHEET Materials Supply Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification Switch monitor inputs (digital inputs)such as manual switch,relay contact flow switch, alarm switch,etc. On-off contacts (digital outputs)such to start pumps,fans,light,alarm lights,etc. System has programmable interlock capabili- ties,programmable time and time delay functions.System has programmable control sequences.System can be expanded to eight times this size by adding input/output modules (R75t1). All set points,alarm set points can be changed by operator's command at the operator's terminal.Operator's terminal will display variable input valve such as temperature on command.It will display alarms on occurrence. It will display status of pumps,fans,etc. Provide a minimum of two days start-up and training for operators at Unalaska.Include all necessary travel and expenses.Coordina- tion is required so that start-up of the programmable control system is occurring during start-up of the variable speed pump P-1,The owner will coordinate the start-up of the units. Unit to be programmed to this sequence. Programmable Process Control System Operation The programmable controller system will be programmed to sense temperature measurements of the liquid in the 8"glycol cooling supply line and to control the electrical operation of the sea water supply pumps,for the purpose of maintaining a relatively constant temperature of 185°F.in the liquid flowing =eee Pg,21 BID SHEET Materials Supply- Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements, Material Specification No. Page 10 through the glycol cooling supply line. 'Increase of flow rate in the sea water supply line results in decrease of temperature of the liquid in the glycol cooling supply line. The flow rate of sea water in the sea water supply line is accomplished by the following pumps:Note:Time delays specified are arbitrary.Operator adjustable time span required. 1.P-l,variable speeds (900 rpm to 1800 rpm).. 2.P-2,two speed (900 rpm,1800 rpm). 3.P=-3,two speed (900 rpm,1800 rpm). Upon start-up of one or more of the generators,the variable speed sea water supply pump system "P-1"will be energized. Pump "P-1"will operate between a minimum speed range of 900 rpm to a maximum speed of 1800 rpm. Should the temperature of the glycol cooling liquid exceed 187°F.,the control system will energize pump "P-2",which will operate on low speed.Further increase in temperature and five minutes after pump "P-2"has been operating at low speed,pump "P-2"will transfer to high speed.Additional increases in the temperature of the glycol cooling liquid and after five minutes pump "P-3"will begin operation on low speed.Should the temperature of the glycol cooling liquid increase again after five minutes or should the temperature reach 190°F.,pump "P-3"will transfer to high speed.|= No.10 BID SHEET Page 4 of >- Materials Supply Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification As the temperature drops,the control systemwilllowerthespeedoftheseawaterpumps and de-energize each system in five minute time delays and in the following sequence. 1.Pump "P-3"reduce to low speed. 2.Pump "p_3"de-energize the pump. 3.Pump "P-2"reduce to low speed. _4.Pump "P-2"de-energizethe pump. 5.Pump "P-1"will remain energized and *runnning between 900 rpm and 1800 rpm. Additional control functions can be adapted to make desirable sequential adjustments in the event of motor failure,etc.,however the operation objective of controlling the sea water supply pumps so that a relatively constant temperature of 185°F.in the glycol cooling supply line can be maintained during the operation of the generator engines. Programmable controller shall be warranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one year from date of installation. Total Bid No.10 No.11 BID SHEET 'Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska (Electrical Parts)(Bid with No.12) Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Reliance three phase duty master XE motor,1 Each 10 H.P.,synch.speed 1800 rpm,Model P21G3366, frame 215T,460 volt,60 Hz.or approved equal for use on pump specified in Bid No.12. Adjustable frequency controller/variable 1 Each -torque A-CV*S controller Model "IVT4210"in NEMA 12 enclosure,with the following options: 1.Isolated process control follower accepts 0-5,1-5,4-20,10-50 ma;0-8, or 0-10 VDC signal. 2.Process controller interface 460 volt, Model 34C482. 3.Tester card for use during start-up and to simplify troubleshooting. 4.Adjustable full-time current limit -50 of 110%of controller maximum sine wave current rating. 5.Output contactor for positive motor disconnect. 6.Output overloads using individual phase bimetallic thermal sensors. 7.<Ammeter --ampere scale depending upon drive rating. 8.Voltmeter --400 volt controller, 0-500 volt scale. 9.Frequency meter 0-120 Hz.scale. 10.Isolation transformers. Job BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska (Electrical Parts) Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification ll. 12. Motor overload kit for 5-25 controller H.P.rating,Model 34C452,. Provide a minimum of two days start-up and training for operators at Unalaska. Include all necessary travel and expen- ses,Coordination is required so that the start-up of the variable speed system is occurring during the start-up of the programmable process control system.The owner will coordinate the start-up procedure of the units. Motor controller and motor shall be warranteed against defects in workman- ship and materials for a period of one year from date of installation. Total Bid No.11 Job Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Pumps (Bid with No.11) Material Specification Description:Three each identical vertical shaft turbine pumps.Two equipped with two speed motors and one equipped with a variable speed drive unit and motor assembly.(Specified in electrical Bid No.11.)Service conditions are inside a power plant, ambient temperature 60°F.,fluid pumped sea water,temperature of fluid 40°F. Design conditions:1,000 gpm @ 30'TDH, 80%efficiency or greater. The suppliers of these units shall warrantee the pumps,motors and variable speed drives (specified in electrical), as a compatible system for the use intended.Suppliers shall provide minimum 16 hours on site in Unalaska for system start-up and operational check-out of the pumps and variable speed unit and instructions to owner. The owner shall coordinate this trip with the trip of the supplier of the programmable controller.Owner will be installing pump motor units with force account crews. Drawings show dimensions and base type. Motors:Two motors shall be two speed, approximately 1/2 speed and full speed, 1800 rpm,480 volt,3 phase,60 A.C. Vertical shaft,squirrel cage induction motor,Class B,solid shaft.Motor horsepower shall not be exceeded on pump curve.Open dripproof construction, 1.15 service factor.One motor shall be variable speed as described in Spec. No.ll.Constructed to latest NEMA standards.Coupling between pump and motor shall be self release type. Grease lubricated thrust bearing. Pg.26| Job Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Pumps Material Specification No.12 Page 2 of 3 Head shaft shall function as one piece combination driver and head shaft,316 stainless steel construction,terminat-- ing below the discharge head,connected to the line shaft by a threaded solid bar stock coupling. Assembly shall have water lubricated discharge head.Discharge head shall function as motor base,mounting stand, discharge elbow,equipped with 150 lb. raised face flange ANSI rated,lifting lugs,nameplate data,rotation arrow, air release valve.Equipped to allow alignment of pump motor driver and pump shaft. Discharge head and column shall be water lubricated.Column sections shall be maximum 10 foot lengths.Materials shall be specifically suited for sea water service and supplier shall certify that the materials supplied are suitable for extended use (greater than 10 years) in the service specified.(Sea water averages 45°and has low suspended solids.) Line shaft shall be machined ground, straightened and dynamically balanced for the pump assembly.Pump drive shaft shall be Monel alloy.Bearings shall be nickel aluminum bronze. Pump shall be mounted on a heavy steel base plate.Pump equipped with suction strainer.Impellers shall be_semi enclosed bronze type and pump colum shall be coated for corrosion protec- tion. Pg.27 -_- No.12 BID SHEET Page 3 of 3 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pumps Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units 'Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Pump shall be an Aurora -l1OJKH,Style 1.2 Standard Shall be equipped with a 6"150 ANSI Pump Units discharge flange or approved equal.with 2 Speed .Motors 1 Standard Pump Unit with a Variable Pumps and motors shall be warranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one year from time of installation. Speed Motor Total Bid No.12 TT BG.28°000 OT No.13 BID SHEET Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Provide factory assembled NEMA Type l,1 Class B motor control center complete with all incidental devices as specified and tested in accordance with U.L.Standards for dead front switchboards.The unit shall be free-standing,dead front,open bottom,with front accessible units.Provide across-the- line magnetic motor starters with ambient compensated thermal overload protection set at 115%measured full load current in each ungrounded phase,with maintenance-free, double-break,solid silver alloy contacts. Provide starters designed to prevent freezing of contacts upon coil failure;possible to install auxiliary contacts without removing starter from its enclosure.Provide control power transformers where necessary for operation of contactor solenoids nd circuit devices at 120 volts.Arrange control circuits for manual,auto,and other signal inputs from control panels and arrange control power to de-energize control circuits whenever operating power supply to particular equipment is disconnected.Provide overloads expressly designed for frame and NEMA class of motor.Provide each starter with handles locatable in ON and OFF positions and with motor running indicator lights.Provide appropriate relays and contacts to energize the motor strip heaters when the motor is not running. The motor control center shall include the following units: 1.Sea water supply pump "P-2"starter for control of two speed,10 H.P.,480 volt, 3 phase,60 Hz.motor with separate windings (for centrifugal pump application).The starter shall be selected for the largest recommended NEMA size. Job BID SHEET Materials Supply Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Material Specification Sea water supply pump "P-3"starter - same as "P-2",© Vacuum pump "P-7"starter for control of 1 H.P.,480 volt,3 phase,60 Hz.motor. No.14 BID SHEET Page of 1 Materials Supply Job Unalaska Electrical Parts Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost Combination starter/disconnect,NEMA size "0",2 5 H.P.,480 volt,3 phase,60 Hz.,magnetic across-the-line with ambient compensated thermal overload protection set at 115% measured full load current in each ungrounded phase,with maintenance-free,double-break, solid silver contacts.Provide starter 'designed to prevent freezing of contacts upon coil failure;possible to install auxiliary contacts without removing starter from its enclosure.Provide control power transformer for operation of contactor solenoids and control devices at 120 volts.Provide equipment in NEMA 12 enclosure and with start-stop push button and motor running indicator light mounted in cover.Equipment shall be Square "D"or equal. Manual starter for 1/2 H.P.,120 volt,1 phase 2 motor with thermal overload protection and in NEMA 12 enclosure.Size heaters for 115% measured full load current.Square-D 2510, Type FG71 or equal. Total Bid No.14 rPa.31 No.15 BID SHEET Page 1 of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Pipe Insulation Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements.| Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost 1"thick fiberglass insulation with all service jacket preformed sectional, maximum K =0.25.Owens Corning or equal.Straight sections of 3 foot lengths. 4"steel schedule 40 pipe 21 L.F. 6"steel schedule 40 pipe 150 L.F. 8"steel schedule 40 pipe 255 L.F. Preformed 90°insulated elbows with PVC cover 4"steel schedule 40 pipe 4 Each 6"steel schedule 40 pipe 25 Each 8"steel schedule 40 pipe 16 Each Preformed 45°elbows with PVC covers 6"steel schedule 40 pipe 3 Each 8"steel schedule 40 pipe 4 Each Preformed Tees with PVC covers 6"steel schedule 40 pipe 5 Each 8"steel schedule 40 pipe 20 Each L.F.=LINEAR FOOT Total Bid No.15 De 22 No.16 BID SHEET Page of Materials Supply Job Unalaska Check Valves Refer to Instructions to Bidders for Delivery Requirements. Units Cost Total Material Specification Required Per Unit Cost l.2-1/2"or Larger:125 1lb.,swing check, bolted cap,flanged ends,125 1b.ANSI. Face to face dimension ANSI B16.10, _bronze disc/seat renewable.Cast iron 'body,bronze trim,rated 200 psi WOG. a.8"4 2.2"or Smaller:Bronze body and trin, 125 lb.,swing check,screwed ends, integral seat,screwed cap.Rated 200 psi WOG. a.1-1/2"1 Pg.33 Total Bid No.16 Unalaska 84-2 PLACE OF DELIVERY DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE All offers/bids will be submitted FOB,Unalaska,Alaska. TIME OF DELIVERY Delivery is desired by the City of Unalaska in accordance with the following schedule: Bid Item No. # aA Time (within the number of days stated below after date of contract) 30 30° 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 30 30 30 30 Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Calendar days Unalaska 84-2 Continuation of DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE If the offerors/bidders is unable to meet the above schedule, he may,without prejudice to the evaluation of his bid, set forth his proposed delivery schedule below but such delivery schedule must not extend the delivery period beyond the time for delivery called for in the following REQUIRED delivery period set forth below: All items to be delivered to Unalaska,Alaska,no later than 90 calendar days after date of contract award. days Bids offering delivery of a quantity under such terms or conditions that delivery will not clearly fall within the applicable REQUIRED delivery period specified above will be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected. If the offerors/bidders do not propose a different schedule, the City of Unalaska's DESIRED delivery schedule shall apply. OFFERORS/BIDDERS PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE (to be completed by bidder) Bid Item No.Time below after date of contract) (within the number of days stated #1 Calendar days #2 Calendar days 3 3 Calendar days #4 Calendar days #5 Calendar days #6 Calendar days #7 Calendar days i 8 Calendar days 3 9 Calendar days #10 Calendar days #1i Calendar days #12 Calendar days #13 Calendar days Unalaska 84-2 Continuation of DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE Bid Item No.Time (within the number of days stated below after date of contract) #14 Calendar days #15 Calendar days #16 Calendar days NOTE: Award here under,or a preliminary notice thereof,will be mailed or otherwise furnished to the offeror/bidder the day the award is dated.Therefore,in computing the time available for performance,the offeror/bidder should take into consideration the time required for 'the notice of award to arrive through the ordinary mails., Unalaska 84-2 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA ADMINISTRATION This contract shall be administered by the City of Unalaska Public Works Division,Unalaska,Alaska. PAYMENT PURPOSES Offerors/bidders shall indicate below the address to which payment should be mailed,if such address is different from that shown for the offeror/bidder. Address City State ZIP Code INVOICES Invoices shall be prepared,and submitted in duplicate to the City of Unalaska Public Works Department, referencing the contract number and date of award. Wn ee ee i To Pa Ae @ Unalaska 84-2 AWARD OF CONTRACT "The Contract will be awarded to that responsible offeror/bidder whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the City of Unalaska,price and other factors considered. The City of Unalaska reserves the right to reject any or all offers and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. AWARD TO SINGLE OFFEROR/BIDDER Subject to the provisions contained herein,award shall be made to a single bidder.Bids must include a price for each item listed on the bid sheets in order for bids to be properly evaluated.Failure to do this shall be cause for rejection of the entire bid.Bids shall be evaluated on the basis of the quantities shown and award shall be made to that responsive,responsible bidder whose aggregate price is low. Pa.B ra Unalaska 84-2 SPECIAL PROVISIONS PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY Preservation-packaging for all items shall be in accordance with vendor's best commercial practice unless specified otherwise in the specifications,drawings,or bid sheets. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE Inspection and acceptance will be at Unalaska,Alaska, except where specified otherwise in the specifications or drawings.The City of Unalaska Manager or his/her designated representative shall inspect and accept the supplies/ material called for in this bid/contract. PAYMENT Payment will be by the City of Unalaska upon receipt of acceptable invoice.However,payment of the invoice does not constitute acceptance of unsatisfactory supplies or services or in any way relinquish the City's right to make commensurate adjustments. MATERTAL All materials will be new unless authorized otherwise by the City Contracting Officer or his/her authorized representative.If at any time during the performance of this contract the contractor believes that the furnishing of supplies or components which are not new is necessary or desirable,he shall notify the Contracting Officer immediately in writing,including the reasons therefor and proposing any consideration which will flow to the City if authorization to use the supplies is granted. PERMITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor shall,without additional expense to the City of Unalaska,be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits,and for complying with any applicable Federal,State,and Municipal laws,codes,and regulations in connection with the prosecution of the work.He shall be similarly responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of his fault or negligence.He shall take proper safety and health precautions to protect the work,the workers,the public, and the property of others. Unalaska 84-2 Continuation of SPECIAL PROVISIONS FEDERAL,STATE,AND LOCAL TAXES Except as may be otherwise provided in this contract, the contract price includes all applicable Federal,State, and Local taxes and duties.re ¢45,860./ 2pTsCITYOFUNALASKAoR"P.O.BOX 89 Ce UNALASKA.ALASKA 99685 »A/Se 680581-1260 a "Capital of the Aleutians” RECEIVED caay 9 1933 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY. May 4,1983 UNALASKA,ALASKA Mr.Jerry Larson Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear Jerry: We wish to affirm the agreements we arrived at in your office on April 21,1983.We thank you for your time and valuable imput on the heat recovery portion of the city's capital electrical project. Please accept this letter as your authority from us to negotiate a contract with the mechanical engineering firm we discussed, based on your recommendation and our observation of the quality and detail of their work.Alaska Power Authority has control of a $340,000 grant awarded to the City of Unalaska for heat recovery.It is these funds that will be utilized in theengineeringandimplementationoftheheatrecoveryandcooling portion of the city's capital electrical project. The design entails a heat recovery system using flat plate heat exchangers in a closed loop fresh water system.However,in lieu of a multiple radiator system we will use sea water as the cooling medium.The power house and distribution system,when completed,will be capable of supplying in excess of 10MW and meeting the current electrical needs of our community.With the heat recovery system in operation,we should have in excess of 36,000,000 BTU per hour available to consumers as well as supplying the needs of several public facilities. Again,thank you for your help and consideration. Sincer , Paul Sanders Director Department of Public Works PS:rl cc:City Manager Electric Utility Mamanger,U.E.U. Finance Director Coy Ce.GTy of Unelorto ,Woghe Het Pop ou fey Larso,.hes cateol if ths AutouTy COM couTtiael Liuelly wT an £44 Bi unbadin Cotuparuy TWjrouviokUuabaskewiThTheseriesoliteciedliuthe aforelid hitur +h doct is ThoT tl.AutlonTy les Granted siuce October 199)Ti fule amount of Hu LeystoTive .autor'tetiou Te the Aty of Unaotosle ,¥380 ano _ ip tlhe ary udus To etch Prous envy Let sou(expedice for their propeltl.Arty of Uuclosto -Pheulll couTied with Tl aekecficl eugtecer aud derry levsou ,with Evie Youlel's CL ferovel ,coulollocAppoidedby"the ary project ULeueler,.TO Getler WIk Caul Squdels ,4uclaite Lineior of joutebie wats FG Bov'a_f/s3