HomeMy WebLinkAboutPelican Power Alternatives Phase I - Reconnaissance Assessment 1982?
,.. 9803
Final Report
j~
:.-.~~! ~ -;m
ALASKA POW~R AUTHORITY'
On
:1
.~
PELICAN POWE~ ALTERNATIVES
PHASE I -RECONNAISSANCE ASSESSMENT
.~
:~
\
I'
'~
i
,~
~
~
. "l
..
" ,. .
O· ',' ., ... } ,.:....~ .. '" ";" ~.'
'-
APRIL 1982
. . ..... liJ£~' '~-ENGINEERING SCIENCE A-JOINTVENTURE ,Uf . :,. ,,·t·""r .. ~ .. STREET • ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 • 907/276·4245
<, I~ :-. ~ '~~. •
'!' . . . ...
f j:t:" "" ·--t .,.-. \ <
U
r-
W
'u ' j
I u
U
!l .~
'~
.~ <0
".....
0)
ex>
C\I
0
Q ,....
0
0
LO
LO
".....
0 (t)
(t)
IU I ,
iU
i
I
W
W
W
, .. ,
, I
W
I 0
I
U
r~ ~,
U
USKH
Report On
PELICAN POWER ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 1 -RECONNAISSANCE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
April 1982
Prepared by
USKH-ENGINEERING SCIENCE - A Joint Venture
2515 "A" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Engineering-Science
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
ARLIS
Alaska Resources LilmllY & Information SeNI\:'
LibraI)' Uuilding. Suite III
32)1 ProviJcnce Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508-4614
,
M-
/LlZ5
pifS
(?Y.S
/qg2.
r 1
U
ID
W
U
U
~
IW
D
!U
U
IU
f 1 W
[ 1
U
r-l
~
U
0 ,...
r-.
CD n 'OifI
Col I.i II')
N
Col
Col
r~ 1
II') W en
Col en
~ ('I') U
ES ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
600 BANCROFT WAY. BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710.415/548-7970
CABLE ADDRESS: ENGINSCI
TELEX: 33-6438
Mr. Jerry Larson
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Street
Anchorage, Alaska
16 April 1982
9803
Subject: Pelican Project, Final Phase I Report
Dear Jerry:
This letter transmits five copies of the final Phase I
Report on the Pelican Project. It differs from the copy which
Harvey gave you at Pelican dated 9 April in the following re-
spects:
1) Appendices E and F are included.
2) The economic analyses are based on a 50-year study
period, which represents the economic life of the
hydro facility, rather than the 35-year amortization
period. The text is edited to reflect these changes.
Harvey reports that we are authorized to complete our
obligation under Phase I, so the remaining 45 copies will be
printed and expressed to you next week. Have a good holiday,
and I hope to be seeing you soon.
PJC:mmb
cc: H. Hutchinson
USKH
B. C. Haight
OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES
Very truly yours,
pa~ ..I.. ~~~g"'awn-
Vice Pres ent
Northwest Region
u
u
'1./
!
r ' u
f \
U I
:w
!
I~'
I
U
~
jU
, ; 1
iW
I
U
, 1
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
Authorization
Pelican, Alaska
The Problem
SCOPE OF WORK
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
Location
Regional Geology
Regional Seismicity
Geology at Pelican Damsite
Physiography and Climate
at Pelican Cove Creek
Precipitation
Hydrology
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY
Pelican Hydroelectric Station
Standby Diesel Plant
Water System
Power Distribution System
CRITIQUE OF PELICAN HYDRO SYSTEM
Introduction
Dam
Flume and Penstock
Powerhouse and Generating Facilities
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-4
5-1
5-1
5-6
5-7
5-8
6-1
6-1
6-5
6-7
Q
I~
o
o
i W
I , Cl
W
{ 1 ,w
I
U
u
11
U
u
SECTION 7 HISTORY OF PELICAN UTILITY COMPANY
LOADS AND REVENUES
Introduction
SECTION 8 PLANNING SCENARIOS
SECTION 9 PUBLIC REACTION TO PROJECT
Public Questionnaire
SECTION 10 WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
Introduction
SECTION 11 ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Discarded
Alternatives Studied
Afterword
SECTION 12 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Introduction
Summary of Economic Analyses
Discussion and Recommendation
SECTION 13 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Introduction
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
Phase II Studies
FERC Application
DAM Restoration Application
Water Rights Application
PUC Rate Adjustment Application
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWS
REPORT OF FIELD INVESTIGATION
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE
HYDROLOGIC BASIC DATA
COST ESTIMATES
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
PHOTOGRAPHS
REPORT OF BENJAMIN C. HAIGHT
PROJECT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
REVIEW COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
7-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
9-1
10-1
10-1
11-1
11-1
11-2
11-5
12-1
12-1
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-2
13-2
13-3
13-3
n -
c 1
W
u
; 1
..J
U
I
u
u
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
6.1
4.1
7.1
9.1
10.1
10.2
12.1
12.2
LIST OF FIGURES
Location Map
Map of Watersheds
Gaging Stations
Pelian General Plan
Single Line Diagram
Section Thru Pelican Dam
LIST OF TABLES
Mean Monthly Runoff for Study Area
Load and Revenue Trends
Results of Public Questionnaire
Pelican Water and Power Demands,
Scenario #1
Pelican Water and Power Demands,
Scenario #2
Summary of Cost Estimates and Economic
Analyses
Analysis of Operating Year (Fiscal)
1980-81
4-3
4-7
4-8
5-2
5-9
6-2
4-6
7-1
9-1
10-2
10-3
12-2
12-4
:w
I
:U
I
r 1
11.J
u
, )
( 1
W
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to commend the Pelican Cold Storage Company for
their outstanding cooperation in this project and to thank
them for the hospitality and help extended to us. Specifi-
cally, this refers to Jim Ferguson, President; Torn Whitmarsh
and Cal Boord at Pelican: and Cavin Philbin at Seattle.
J
U
I u
U
,Q
o
iJ
! U
I
I U
( ) u
I
U
I
I
I U
I W
I
U
o
'0
I
U
1°
IU
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
o
u
I 1 U
) 1
I~
iW
I
o
r ! U
U
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
The Pelican hydropower plant, located on Pelican Creek,
has been and still is a valuable source of renewable energy.
This study reviewed the various reports written on one phase
or another of the plant and/or creek. The published infor-
mation was used where applicable and augmented with new data
to supply needed information. The report points out that
the town of Pelican, with its fish processing plant and cold
storage, is a vital link in the economy of the Alaskan fish
industry. The report also points out that a reasonable cost
energy at Pelican will aid the fishing industry in being
competitive with the world market. The report concludes
that the Pelican hydropower plant facilities are in need of
modernization to overcome the low efficiency that the pres-
ent equipment is operating at, and take better advantage of
available head and water supply.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The energy demand at Pelican is increasing.
2. The present hydropower plant does not have the ca-
pacity of meeting present load demands without diesel aug-
mentation.
3. The diversion dam is in need of immediate repair.
This would consist of replacing the lost rock mass.
4. The dam is in need of grouting, to keep the abut-
ments from eroding, save water, improve power yield and
safety, and extend the life of the facility to 50 years.
1-1
120/5 1/82
r:
I
W
I~
r;
.~
I
u
, Ul i , !
I
'W I
, U' l I '
\ 1 U
I
U I '
U
n 11.1
'l
W
5. The intake gate needs to be replaced and remotely
operated, for protection of the operator. This can be ac-
complished by using a simple hydraulic system.
6. Using the full head from the dam to the forebay
would increase the hydropower production by 4 percent. It
is recommended that a 60" pipe replace the present flume,
some of which is in need of replacement.
avoid the chronic tunnel caving problem.
It would also
7. The forebay should be improved into a surge chamber
and efficacious debris basin.
8. The penstock needs to be replaced.
9. The present control valve, turbine, governor, gen-
erator and switch gear should be replaced with a new machin-
ery package (one 500 kW and one 250 kW turbine).
10. The powerhouse needs to be remodeled for the new
equipment and repaired where needed.
11. Additional head should be utilized by extending the
draft tube and building a new afterbay with tailwater eleva-
tion at MHW.
1-2
120/5 1/82
I jO
i
I~
~~
Q
iO ,
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
D I
.~
I
o
LJ
Q
( I
~
U
f I -
( I . ) I ';..
U
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
AUTHORIZATION
USKH-Engineering-Science (USKH-ES), located at 2515 A
Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, was selected by the Alaska
Power Authority (APA) in response to its submittal of qual-
ifications. After being selected to perform the feasibility
assignment of Power Alternatives for Pelican, a letter was
received from APA, dated 4 November 1981, notifying it to
proceed. The contract between the parties was signed Novem-
ber 3, 1981.
PELICAN, ALASKA
Pelican is a small community governed by a town coun-
cil. It has a permanent population of approximately 180
people and 200 temporary residents during the fish process-
ing season. It is located on the banks of the Lisianski
Inlet at the mouth of Pelican Creek on Chichagof Island, 70
miles west of Juneau. The site for the town was selected
because of its central location to service the fishing
fleets 500 miles north and south, its harboring facilities,
its water supply, and its hydropower potential. The economy
is based on fishing and fish processing facilities which are
located within the community. It has its own high school
and grade school. The water is obtained from Pelican Creek
for the community and fish processing plant. It is treated
with chlorine before being placed into the system. The
electrical power provided by the Pelican Utility Company,
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, supplies about
2-1
120/6 1/82
u
u
:U
I o
o
u
o
2,500,000 k\'lh of electricity to the community and storage
company annually. The community is small, but served about
1,500 fishing vessels in 1980 and is critical to the fishing
industry in that area.
Pelican Potential for the Future
with storage and a small diversion on Phonogaph Creek
there is a potential of about 1.1 MW of additional hydro-
electr ic capabil i ty. The feasibil i ty of that additional
power is dependent of whether the cold storage and secondary
processing is expanded. The expansion of the fish process-
ing plant, which is presently being investigated (Scenario
#2, Section 8) by the Pelican Cold Storage Company, calls
for only about .66 HW in total production.
THE PROBLEM
The APA has employed the services of USKH-ES to perform
a reconnaissance-level study, as outlined in Section 3! on
the power facilities at Pelican, Alaska for the purpose of
leading to a feasibility study of a suitable alternative to
meet the power needs presently and in the future. The re-
quirements are outlined in the APA register 1981 3AAC
94.055, Sec. 4 as amended.
2-2
120/6 4/82
( } IW
I
./l :w
I ,
U
I ,
I 1 \ . I~
o
I
SECTION 3
SCOPE OF WORK
o
u
o
o
I
:I I~
o
iU
I
I
W
'U
u
u
SECTION 3
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for the Phase I Reconnaissance As-
sessment of Pelican Power Alternatives is quoted directly
from the contract as:
"PHASE 1 RECONNAISSANCE ASSSESSMENT
"1. Data Research
Obtain existing documents and guidelines from
Alaska Power Authority in Anchorage. Contact
State and Federal agencies in Juneau and
Anchorage for reports and projections
concerning the project area. Contact the
Pelican Utility Company and the cold storage
plant at Pelican by phone to obtain data on
loads and load projections. Research in-
house files of consultants on similar proj-
ects. Review regional faulting and seismic
data. Interview DNR and COE officials famil-
iar with dam safety programs and the Pelican
project, in particular. Consolidate the
research information.
"2. Field Investigation
Observe existing crib dam, dam abutments and
channel conditions, flume foundation support,
wood-stave penstock foundation and anchor
support, assess overall slope stability, and
tunnel condition. Observe general geologic
conditions, and note particular zones of
weakness such as faults and shear zones as
they may affect the project. Make an initial
assessment of cause of "settlement" reported
under spillway. Observe power house and
foundation conditions. Make initial geotech-
nical reconnaissance of overall project area
to assess possibility of transmitting water
directly from sources at higher elevations in
the watershed. Document observed conditions
3-1
120/7 1/82
I
1°
U
U
0
0
Q
0
U
U
U
'u
I
U
U
'1
I
u
. n IW
I
0
i~l ~
U
U 120/7
using photographs, sketch maps and cross
sections.
Obtain and confirm one-line diagram of sys-
tem, distribution plan, nameplate data of
generating equipment. Obtain revenue records
and daily load records for the past five
years, or obtain the best possible estimate
for this data. Determine the amount of pota-
ble water provided and the impact on the
hydroelectric installation. Obtain informa-
tion on contemplated load growth and changes
in load. Determine to the extent possible
the wishes of the community for future power.
Obtain data required for environmental as-
sessments. Identify potential thermal loads
for cogeneration.
Prepare a brief report of findings illustrat-
ed with maps, photos and sketches.
"3. Load Forecast
After examination of population growth, eco-
nomic activity, future uses, appliance satur-
ation levels, anticipated cost of power and
existing power generation facilities, a fore-
cast using APA's regulations will be made of
electrical energy and peak load requirements
to the year 2002.
"4. Alternatives
Review and determine the marketability of the
available power generation options. Include,
as a minimum, consideration of: repair and
improvement of the existing hydro plant,
increasing the hydro capability by drawing
water from other watersheds, adding generat-
ing capacity to the existing hydro plant, or
diesel generation.
Based on initial screening, formulate three
or more energy supply plans to satisfy Peli-
can's forecasted power needs over a 20-year
planning period. One plan, termed the base
case plan, should be based on a continuation
of present practices and a minimum level of
repair work to maintain an acceptable level
of safety. The other plans should be formu-
lated using one or more of the options earli-
er identified. All plans should incorporate
the utilization of waste heat (if any) to the
extent that such use is economically justi-
fied.
3-2
1/82
o
o
o
u
( 1 U
r )
l.I
\ 1
\.J
o
o
(1
I~
I \1 '~
I
, / 1
,U
"5. Cost Estimates
Develop detailed, site specific, cost esti-
mates for each alternative that passes the
initial screening. Calculate the present
worth of life cycle costs for each energy
supply plan in keeping with the Alaska Power
Authority standard procedures.
Collect the necessary data and evaluate the
impacts of each energy supply plan in keeping
with the economic, environmental and techni-
cal indicators specified in Power Authority
reconnaissance study regulations.
"6. Report
Prepare a draft Phase 1 report in 20 copies,
respond in writing to comments received on
the draft report and prepare a final report
in 50 copies. The Phase 1 report should
identify the additional data collection and
analysis needed to complete a detailed feasi-
bilty report and prepare the necessary permit
and license applications for project con-
struction. The draft Phase 1 report will be
submitted not later than January 31, 1982,
and final report March 15, 1982."
Task 1, Data Research, is reported in Appendix A.
Task 2, Field Investigation, is reported in Appendix B,
and Sections 5 and 6.
Task 3, Load Forecast, is based on response to a ques-
tionnaire sent to the Pelican Cold Storage Company. This
method of forecasting was used because Pelican is a lIone
company town": the company has the only record of power
consurnption~ and the company alone knows its plans for power
consumption. The completed questionnaire is included in
Appendix C and the actual load forecast is the subject of
Section 10.
Task 4, Alternatives, is the subject of Section 11.
Task 5, Cost Estimates, is included in Appendix E.
3-3
120/7 1/82
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
[,
W
o
I
IQ
r~l
'~
I
I
U
u
i '
i !
~
u
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
LOCATION
Pelican is a small fishing village (population 175-200)
located on the westerly side of Chichagof Island in south-
eastern Alaska.
Its water supply, used for domestic and industrial
con:sumption and for hydroelectric power generation, comes
from nearby Pelican Cove Creek on which the Pelican Cove
Creek Dam (long. l36°l2.4'W: lat. 57°57.4'N) is situated.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Chichagof Island lies in a broad belt that strikes
northwest and southeast in conformance with the prevailing
trend in southeastern Alaska. Within this belt, intrusives,
made up largely of quartz diorities and other granitoid
rocks, have been intruded parallel to the stratified country
rock. These intrusions were accompanied by metamorphism of
some rocks and extensive deformation of pre-existing rocks
including folding, breaking, and moving of rocks by uplift-
ing along vertical faults, strike-slip faults and possible
thrust faulting.
REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Chichagof Island lies within the broad region of earth-
quake activity that includes much of southeastern Alaska,
southeastern Yukon, and northwestern coastal British Colum-
bia. , Records are few and of short duration due to the
'-
4-1
120/8 1/82
o
o
D
o
r 1 , I
1.1
u
, r I 'w
I
( 1
U
o
D
o
U
o
u
meager population and scarcity of seismology stations in the
region. The village of Pelican is located on the hidden
Peril Strait fault which appears to join the Fairweather
fault with the Chatam Strait (Lynn A. Yehle, 1974). The
records show that, within a r~dius of SO miles, an earth-
quake of magnitude 7.1 on the Richter scale took place in
1927 and one of magnitude 6.7 took place in 1973. The vil-
lage is in seismic zone 3.
GEOLOGY AT PELICAN DAMSITE
The damsite is on Pelican Cove Creek, a deep, steep,
narrow gorge running down the mountainside from a narrow
plateau to tidewater. Bedrock has been identified as a
syenite. At the damsite, the weathered zones have eroded
away due to water action and the exposed foundation rock is
a moderately jointed, sound, durable material.
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE AT PELICAN COVE CREEK
The drainage basin (see Figure 4.1) above Pelican Darn
is 12.95 square miles and is located about 1/4 mile above
the mouth of Pelican Creek which empties into the Lisianski
Strai t near Pelican about 70 miles west of Juneau. The
drainage basin is one of a multitude of watersheds which
drain excess precipitation and snowmelt from Chichagof Is-
land. Basin topography ranges from a steep narrow canyon at
the damsite to gentle sloping streambeds in the intermediate
elevation zone with headwater areas beginning on steep pre-
cipitous mountain slopes whose peaks reach about 3,000 feet.
Lower elevations of the watershed are covered with dense
stands of conifer trees underlayed by a thick blanket of low
growing vegetation and a surface mantle of spongy peat. As
elevation increases, vegetation decreases. At about 1,500
feet, vegetation is near non-existent with the soil mantle
removed to near bedrock by past glaciation. Prevailing
maritime storms drench the area with heavy precipitation
4-2
120/8 1/82
I~
o
D
u
u
u
U
I
U
I 1 'U I
I
U
o
u
"d','
LOCATION MAP
~. 0. ' ... . ~ " , .
FIGURE 4.1
CANADA
::;;.. • N &
USKH-ENGINEERING SCIENCE
I
1
I o
i ,w
D
Ii i~
I :0
I
U I
!
u
I U
, U· 1 :
I
U
I
'U
I 10
(I
W
I~ I
, r 1
IW
during the summer and cover the higher elevation zones with
deep snow in the winter. As temperature moderates in the
spring, snowmelt occurs, leaving the island nearly snowfree
by the end of July. Late October and early November rain
normally produces the most severe runoff condition when 24-
hour accumulation reaches 8 inches or more. Long-term cli-
matic data are not available at Pelican; however, climatic
conditions at Sitka could be used for correlation. Climatic
conditions at Sitka for a 99-year period show a mean annual
temperature of 43°F with extremes of 90°F and -15°F and
average annual precipitation is 97 inches. During the last
five years, the Pelican precipitation has averaged ISO" per
year, while at Sitka the average was 120" per year during
the same period.
PRECIPITATION
G. O. Balding reports average annual precipitation at
Pelican for the period of 1967-1972 to be 126 inches, dis-
tributed as follows:
January 10"
February 12"
March 9"
April 7"
May 9"
June 3"
July 3"
August 11"
September 19"
October IS"
November IS"
December 8"
HYDROLOGY
Any surface water supply or power study requires know-
ledge of the hydrology of tributary watershed. When no raw
",
4-4
120/8 REVISED 4/21/82
D
D
o
r I ~
( ~ ,
I I . I.
I
data exist, they must be inferred by correlating to points
where there are data.
The U.S. Weather Bureau reports that no published pre-
cipitation records exist for Pelican. G. O. Balding reports
an average rainfall of 126 inches per year at sea level,
while others report 180 inches per year to be common. But
both are significant because they indicate that Pelican is
in one of the wettest spots in the north American continent.
Topographically, it produces very high rates of runoff. The
land above elevation +750 has been polished through glacial
action and will produce almost 100 percent runoff. The land
below elevation +750 supports conifers, is steep and has
quite a thin soil mantle. Therefore, it will also have a
high runoff factor. These observations related to precipi-
tation were not used directly in the hydrologic investiga-
tions related to the project studies, but were used indi-
rectly as checks on the reasonableness of conclusions.
There are no runoff records on Pelican Creek, but the
U.S.G.S. does have some gaging stations nearby. One is at
Black River on the far western slopes of Chichagof Island
only about 20 miles southerly from Pelican. Two are on Hook
Creek, located about 43 miles southeasterly from Pelican on
the leeward side of Chichagof Island. Another is on Tono-
lite Creek, sometimes known as Kadashan River, into which
Hook Creek flows. Black River has only one year of pub-
lished record, while Hook Creek has eleven years. Oddly,
the mean runoff of Black River during the year of record
(8.91 cfs/sq mi) was exactly as recorded at one of the Hook
Creek gages during that same period. Since Black River is
judged to be representative of conditions on Pelican Cove
Creek, it was decided that Hook Creek would be ideal to use
for correlation studies. This was done (refer to Appendix
D) and the significant estimates used in project formulation
are contained in Table 4.1.
4-5
120/8 REVISED 4/21/82
u
U TABLE 4.1
0 MEAN MONTHLY RUNOFF FOR STUDY AREA
(cfs)
U Total
Upper Pelican Pelican Pelican
Month Phonograph >EL+750 <EL+750 @ Damsite
0 Normal Year Average
D Oct 19.0 150.0 19.3 169.3
Nov 10.2 80.0 19.3 99.3
U Dec 5.7 45.0 11.5 56.5
Jan 2.5 20.0 13.0 33.0
IW Feb 4.0 31.7 16.7 48.4
Mar 3.5 27.5 11. 5 39.0
I Apr 7.3 57.5 9.1 66.6
U May 19.9 156.7 10.2 166.9
I Jun 16.3 128.4 3.9 132.3
U Jul 6.4 50.8 9.1 59.9
I Aug 3.1 24.2 14.1 38.3
'U Sep 7.8 61.7 24.5 86.2
I Dry Year (75% of Mean) ,
U Oct 14.2 112.4 14.6 127.0
I Nov 7.6 59.8 14.6 74.4
,U Dec 4.3 33.6 8.6 42.2
I Jan 1.9 15.0 9.7 24.7
U Feb 3.0 23.8 12.5 36.3
lu
Mar 2.6 20.8 8.6 29.4
Apr 5.5 42.8 6.8 49.6
May 14.9 117.5 7.6 125.1
Jun 12.2 96.1 2.9 99.0 ,0 Jul 4.8 38.0 6.8 44.8
I Aug 2.3 18.1 10.6 28.7
'W Sep 5.8 46.2 18.4 64.6
I
U
I 4-6
IU 120/8 1/82
c
(J)
A :r:
I m
Z
G)
z m m
:0
Z
G)
(J) o
m z o
-._-_._----_ ... _------
.'
\ .
+
... ." L I~... ". /.;! /' ""i' \ \
___ ~-_-~?'_, ~!.;!....I.~. t.W.......h----=::.l.-~_ -",' , '.
31
"
MAP OF WATERSHEDS
.--.~------------.--------~ --------------
--\ Ii
',-_~, :7
. --,
. ,'j ~1t;
mL-________________________________________________________________________________ __
r 1 ;W
I
'W I
U
u
U
I
jU
I
GAGING STATIONS
USKH-ENGINEERING SCIENCE
I
I IJ
U
U
U
W
D
D
, 1
W
IU
I
iU
I
'W
W
W
IU
I~
SECTION 5
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY
D
U
u
u
r 1
U
U
W
LJ
U
W
o
SECTION 5
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY
PELICAN HYDROELECTRIC STATION
The Pelican hydro system, mapped on Figure 5.1, is
comprised of a diversion dam, gate structure, flume complex,
penstock, and powerhouse. In 1940, the Pelican Cold Storage
Company constructed a wood frame powerhouse, 18' x 33', with
concrete foundations. Within the foundation wall is a draft
tube sump (afterbay) with a 10 I wide weir set above the
tidewater level leading to a 6' wide x 5 I deep concrete
tailrace.
The concrete in these facilities is heavily deteriorat-
ed. The deterioration appeared to be caused by freeze-thaw
action on outside walls, lack of converting water energy to
electrical energy in the afterbays, and saltwater freeze-
thaw on the lower foundation outer wall and the raceway
walls.
The equipment in the structure is a James Leffel & Co.
horizontal hydraulic turbine, 23-inch double discharge,
constructed in 1906, 26-inch twin draft tubes, 42-inch di-
ameter intake and gate valve (Ludlow Valve), 4-7/8-inch
diameter shaft, 14-inch pressure relief valve, Woodward Type
VR 3000 ft Ib, 5-1/2 x 9, Patents 5/13/1890, 8/2/1898,
7/15/1890, 8/30/1901, and 8/11/1914, hydraulic oil governor
that was rebuilt in 1974.
The turbine was originally manufactured in 1906 for a
Denver, Colorado manufacturing plant to operate under 85-
foot head delivering 560 horsepower at 600 rpm with 58 cfs
5-1
120/10 1/82
c
(fJ
A
:J:
I m z
G>
z m m
:D
Z
G>
(fJ o
m
Z o m
/
.--1 -----'
r-PELICAN
• COLD
STORAGE
CO.
LJ LJ CJ
o 100 200 300 400 500 --- - -GRAPHIC SCALE:
PELICAN GENERAL PLAN
C>
C
::0
fTI
01
Q
o
u
u
u
r '
LJ
u
u
u
o
o
of water. Two 150 kW generators were originally connected
directly on shaft--one on each end. In 1940, the Pel ican
Cold Storage Company purchased it. Since that time, the
turbine has been partially rebuilt in 1950 when a new runner
was installed and the Woodward governor added to the instal-
lation. Other items have been replaced or additional items
added on the turbine as the need for improved efficiency and
greater reliability has arisen. One of the added items was
the necessity to lubricate the wicket gates which were
sticking under certain loads. However, the system of lubri-
cating would prevent the Pelican Storage Company from using
the water from the power plant afterbay for a planned fish
hatchery due to the water quality during the time of lubri-
cation. From tests that have been run recently, the turbine
has lost from about 20 to 30 percent of its efficiency. Tom
Whitmarsh, the plant superintendent, inspected the interior
of the turbine and found some of the sharp edges of the
impeller bent in the same manner as the old one that is
stored in the powerhouse.
The 42-inch shut-off gate valve (Ludlow Type) just
ahead of the turbine had developed a crack in an old repair.
The cause was determined to be water hammer generated when a
tree fell on the penstock and broke it. In 1980, this valve
caused a two-month shut-down. The condition of the valve
was recorded in Tom Whitmarsh's report, January 1981, where
he reported the valve to be in poor shape. Its condition is
due to age.
The penstock, constructed in 1940, is a continuous wood
stave pipe 36 inches in diameter expanded to 42 inches just
ahead of the Ludlow Valve in the powerhouse. It is about
310 feet long on a grade of about 19°, on a timber (yellow
cedar) trestle. It terminates at a wooden box forebay. In
November 1981, a tree fell on the penstock and broke it.
The repair necessitated bringing in new material and a spec-
ialist to make the repair. Before the repairs were made,
5-3
120/10 REVISED 4/21/82
IU
I
I~
o
Q.
: ' iW
\
(
I~
'U
I
r )
\W
U
n U
the specialist inspected the remaining penstock and found
several places that were thin and the H connectors corroded
and failed. He felt that the facility was nearing the end
of its useful life. This winter at low water and freezing
temperatures, the penstock is leaking so badly that it is
dangerous for a person to walk along it.
The generator is General Electric Schnectady A.C. No.
607224 PFI Type ATB 10/500(750/735) Form C, 500 kW, 2300
volt, 125 amp speed 750/735 Patented 12/15/96, 8/29/99,
11/20/1900, 4/2/1·901, and 12/2/1902. This generator was
designed for and driven by an induction motor. It was rated
for 500 KVA at unity P. F. and sui table for a 50 percent
overload for 2 hours. The field winding was designed for a
125 volt excitation. The calculated field current for 500
KVA at 1 P.F. is 65 amps and at 50 percent overload it is 75
amps. The field resistance at 25°C was measured to be .75
ohms. This type motor-driven generator was not designed for
the overspeeds that occur on water-driven turbines. Over-
speeds have been recorded on the volt and cycle meters.
Those meters pegged out at 3000 V and 64 cycles. The over-
speed didn I t seem to do any damage to the generator. The
insulation is flaking off, but is being painted over with
glyptol. This past summer when water was available, the
generator was brought up to its 500 kW capacity.
The generator excitor is a Westinghouse 10 kW, 80 A
(amps), 125 V, 1150 rpm, Type SK, Fram 63, Style 1167920,
serial 244, D.C. driven by a CV belt pUlley. This piece of
equipment runs hot and must have a cooling system to oper-
ate. The new excitor is a Fidelity Electrical of Lancaster,
PA, 10 kW, 120 V, 83.3 amps, serial 046380, 1450 rpm. It
has never operated as intended. Both of these excitors are
not reliable enough to continue operation for any extended
period.
The switch gear is as follows: 1 synchroscope, 1 W.C.
ammeter, reads to 150 amps, 1 G.E. voltage regulator, (di-
rector type GDA-32) 1 AC voltmeter reading 2210 through
5-4
120/10 4/82
U
Q
U.
C
I [I
U
~U
I
U I
I
U
I
r,
2480-4160 V/240-480 transformer to produce 480 V in engine
room, 1 frequency meter, 1 time meter recording hours of
operation, 1 G.E. power circuit-breaker (type MG-5B, sole-
noid operated, oil-ballast circuit breaker), 1 G.E. type P
C-7 time-delay under voltage device, 1 Cutter hammer 180 ohm
max late type filed rheostat CR-8000-Bl, 1 G.E. copper oxide
rectifier for circuit breaker closing service, 1 transformer
2400 V/240/l20 V for safety cut out trip voltage.
Several pieces of the above listed equipment are obso-
lete and do not perform within the time of new equipment and
they are only partially reliable.
The forebay past the head of the penstock has a 3'-6" x
4'-4" rising stem, handwheel-operated gate. This was de-
signed to shut the water off for maintenance of the lower
system. The gate is too small to handle the flow and does
not seal tightly. It also allows the water to flow over the
top.
The manually-cleaned screens are also located in the
forebay. These screens take care of removing about 97 per-
cent of the debris, however, at the velocity that the water
travels through this structure, some larger sticks and rocks
do not get removed and pass into the system. The old impel-
ler showed evidence of being struck by objects at high ve-
locities which cut the efficiency of the impeller and cause
loss of power and revenue. The impeller that is now in the
turbine is reported to show the same type of damage.
The wooden flume from the forebay to the tunnel is 511
feet long, 5 feet wide, and 4 feet deep. Most of this sec-
tion was replaced in 1974 and 1977. This section has a
variable slope. Some of the slopes appear to be critical
and some subcritical so that at the point that the two meet,
a small hydraulic jump occurs and water is lost over the
side, washing out some of the support system. This has been
adjusted by adjusting the flow at the dam, but that doesn't
last long because the turbine has a variable demand.
5-5
120/10 4/82
'0
I
Q
C
ID
1°
U
Q
. (l
I
U
1
0
I
.) 1 . ~
u
11 I~
I
r 1
J
U
I[J
The tunnel is 5' x 5' X 85' long. The flumes are at-
tached at each end and show some leakage at the connecting
points. The tunnel has had cave-ins that have closed off
about 1/3 of the capacity. The flume from the tunnel to the
dam is 5' x 5' X 104' long and is the original structure.
This section is in need of replacement due to the condition
of the timbers and loss of water. The maintenance of this
area is very costly. The intake gate at the dam is worn out
and very dangerous to operate. It will not shut the water
out of the flume which causes a slowing of the maintenance
workers who have to get into the facilities.
The rock-filled timber crib dam is 135' long and is 22'
high. The spillway is 50' wide and has had as much as 5'
flowing over it at one time. Due to the lack of soil and
vegetation to cover the drainage areas, the flow over the
spillway can vary 5' in a l2-hour period. This variance is
not an unusual occurrence. During the cold months, Decem-
ber, January, and February, there is rarely enough water to
generate much power. Most of the available water is used
for the town. During most winters, the hydropower plant is
completely shut down for a period of up to 4 weeks. The
plan~ing on the lake side of the crib dam is vertical T & G
3"thick and 8" wide. The dam top surface is 2" x 12"
double-planked with the lower board joints lapped by the
upper boards. The wing walls are vertical planks. The rock
fill under the spillway has slumped about 3 to 5 feet. The
abutments that did not have a tight seal are showing signs
of heavy erosion.
STANDBY DIESEL PLANT
There are four diesel generators which provide about 25
percent of the electrical power and are used when the hydro-
power plant cannot supply the needs. Those periods of time
are usually in the summer when the fishing season is at its
peak and the winter when Pelican Creek is at low-flow and
5-6
120/10 .. 4/82
Q
U
r-: U
U
!W
I
U
u
the town system needs the majority of the creek flow to keep
the water system from freezing. The generators are:
1. Caterpillar D-333A, 1800 rpm, 100 kW, 480 volts, 3-
phase, serial 105 SH 489, purchased 1964.
2. Caterpillar D-333A, 1800 rpm, 100 kW, 480 volts, 3-
phase, serial 105SH501, purchased 1964.
3. Caterpillar D-343, 1800 rpm, 285 kW, 480 volts, 3-
phase, serial 200TH3669, purchased 1974.
4. Caterpillar D-3408, 1800 rpm, 200 kW, 480 volts, 3-
phase, serial 205SHI099, purchased 1974.
WATER SYSTEM
The water system is supplied directly out of Pelican
Creek after it is chlorinated. The Cold Storage Company
uses most of the water for its fish processing. The water
system is under pressure which is provided from a connection
to the penstock. During most of the year, there is adequate
water for all users, hydropower, town, and processing
plants. In the winter, water from the creek is passed
through the system to keep it from freezing. This winter
use is a wise use of the heat that is in the water. If this
heat could not be taken advantage of, then the town would
have to heat the water system with electrical power.
The watershed that provides the water has little cover
to provide some natural purifying processes. The water,
when it rains, will often find its way into the town system
within a few hours, too short a time to catch some form of
contaminents. Since the water is used for processing food
and preserving fish throughout southeastern Alaska in the
form of ice made from the waters of Pelican Creek, the sys-
tem in the future may need a means of protecting its water
quality from some forms of biological contamination.
5-7
120/10 4/82
o
u
u
u
,U
I
r I I~
r 1
jW
U
I
IU
U
Iu
<
ID
W
POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Appendix H contains the report of Benjamin C. Haight,
our project electrical engineer, and describes the status of
the power distribution system. Figure 5.2 shows the single
line diagrams for that system.
5-8
120/10 1/82
1\1\ 12.0· ZJk>
PELICAN C.R.EEK.
~ '( DRO -G.E-~E-R.A.TOR.
NOTES
I. DISTANCE.S A.R.E A.PPRDx I N\J'o.TE',
2.. RESIDE..NTIAL. )(J:"MR'O-SI~E.5 UNKNowN.
3. N\ETe:R.IN~ C.ONNE:CTIONS NOT "E.R..IF"I~'D.
1-------,
~/20-e40 I l' : i 5
)L.A:
lj.) I -:-I
i
100' +-_:z~o:..:o:....'---.t-__ ..:z..Io"""-___ --,
,
__ ~ rlV\!O ~:. 1 i ~~. b;l I
~....., Jv 1U>-lMV'\ I 6. 11\1\. (~ 1<"1-
5"0 I \3)10(, I J c.
1
1
I
I
1
/\(\ I~D·2AO : "f'A. I ( 8O~T I HARBOR.. I CANNER.Y I r------------.J --.J
I --: ------4e;; V0L:r
I l
M'::TEL
r
1\1\ I eo -Z40
--l
1 :
IDI~. ~
1 OPER,. LJ
I
b I ( ( (( T50 l~)= I 'I 'I 'I 'I ME"". '"0<40 'f <40: o 0 0 0 ~IGH pOWER I I I L DI£SEL DR.lvEN GENe.RATO~ ~
-------------------
GOLD STORAGE POWER PLANT
SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM -DISTRIBUTION S,(STEM
r --------------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~E6.No.~ I ___________________ L_,
t:1~O ! :
F,.~:-~-:~~~=~---L j
e:.XC-. "-10.2.
~l~GLE LiNE DIAGBAM HYDRO C':!ENEMTOR
NOTE 3
TO LOAD
(COLD :':>TORAGE) TO 6.EN!:.. ~ NOl!>.I,2.,S
(rip. M.En:.RII\IC ... )
(
SINGLE LINE DlAGRAt-A.-DIE~EL GENERATORS
Be HAIGHT
CONSUL TINe. E NGI NEE R-C',)
i I~ SEWN<,t:> ST. NO. 2.
.JUNE.~U I ,e...L~~t<.A ~9BOI
(~O-=l-) S·BIo -~1 ~ P>
PELICA.N UTIL\TIES
E..L-Ec..TR,.IC.A.1-GENERATION
~D DISTRJSUT/ON
Ft>...C-ILITIE5
SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 5.2
,
\
\
~: NONE
bRA,WING.. : E I
, ,
Q
U
U
Q
U
Q
,w
I 'n
W
, r'
W
U
U
U
J
U
'Q
I
Q
I
IQ
SECTION 6
CRITIQUE OF THE PELICAN HYDRO SYSTEM
(:
i~
r I U
r I I-
, i-I
:U
I
U
SECTION 6
CRITIQUE OF THE PELICAN HYDRO SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
On the dates of 9 and 10 November 1981, an inspection
was made of the Pelican hydroelectric generation system for
purposes of surveying the condition of the facilities and
determining what would constitute a minimum and required
restoration program, and what would constitute a recommended
and desirable restoration program to keep the system in
operation. Appendix B includes the trip diary of that in-
spection. Section 5 describes the system composed of diver-
sion dam, gate structure, flume complex, penstock and power-
house. This section describes the works in more detail,
critiques their condition and discusses remedies.
DAM
Pelican Dam was constructed in 1941 to divert water
from Pelican Cove Creek into a powerhouse about 120 feet
below and into the water system serving the domestic and
industrial needs of the community. It is a rock-filled
timber crib structure about 135 feet long and 22 feet at its
greatest height. As-buil t plans of the structure do not
exist, but the approximate section, as described in the 1978
COE Phase I inspection report for the National Dam Safety
Program, is shown on Figure 6.1.
The cribs are skinned logs of Alaska yellow cedar,
approximately 8.5 feet on centers. The upstream face, the
braced right wing wall and the overflow spillway are all 3 x
8 Alaska yellow cedar planking.
6-1
120/11 4/82
c
C/)
" :::r:
I m z
G>
z m m
::IJ
Z
G>
C/)
o
m z o
--------------------------------------------
MIN. POOL ELEV. 142.60
22'-AT
MAX. SECTION
SECTI-ON THRU PELICAN DAM
m~ ____________________________________________________________________________ ~
."
m
-&.
u
u
r )
IU
I
, r 1
J.J
;U
I
U
:Q
I
W
f1 I~
I il
I-
U
The dam serves a valuable function but is in urgent
need of repair. Should it wash out, it would be difficult
and expensive structure to replace. Accordingly, if it
survives the spring runoff of 1982, restoration is recom-
mended during the next low flow months so as to give it
renewed economic life.
Pelican Lake, behind the dam, is a shallow reservoir
having a volume of perhaps 50 acre-feet or less. Total
failure of the dam is envisioned to occur during an excep-
tionally high flow, and would probably be progressive. No
downstream loss of life or property would be expected from
the dam failure itself, although such could be expected from
the one-half probable maximum flood. Restoration and up-
grading is required to protect the investment and permit
continued hydroelectric power generation for the community
of Pelican.
The dam leaks badly and the rockfill in the cribs is
reported to have slumped 3-5 feet. This slumping is judged
to be the result of a combination of bottom rock being car-
ried away by leakage through the dam and higher rock being
sucked out of the downstream face of the dam by negative
pressure under the lower nappe of the spill. during high
discharge.
Abutment abrasion has been reported. This is inter-
preted as the effect of jetting action at leaks.
The crib logs, connected with iron pins, are reported
to be in basically sound condition, with rot around some of
the pin holes.
The right wing wall also leaks badly and gives the
impression of being rather flimsy in the face of high flows,
which often reach 1000 cfs. The dam should be made capable
of passing 8,000 cfs.
The 54" slide gate at the flume intake needs to be re-
placed. At the present time, a jack is used to accomplish
6-3
120/11 4/82
o
u
u
o
D
( l
I~
i
I 'l U
U
U
I
:U
I
W
U
closure. It is located in the right wing wall, which is a
precarious and dangerous location for the man being asked to
operate the valve. Remote operation is recommended.
Minimum maintenance at this time calls for lifting the
spillway planks, refilling the cribs with rock, replacing
the spillway planks and replacing the valve. That progam is
"band-aid" in nature and is at best a temporary solution.
The dam would remain unsafe due to its inadequate spillway
capacity and would require subsequent repairs at frequent
intervals.
The recommended program is to convert the dam proper
from a rock-filled timber crib with a questionable life to a
permanent gravity concrete dam by intrusion grouting of the
existing structure. The procedure would be to:
1. Stop seepage by covering the upstream face of the
dam with tough temporary construction fabric.
2. Ballast the sheet with 2 feet of gravel.
3. Remove spillway planking.
4. Set 4 heavily perforated pipes 8" ~ steel pipes
vertically to bedrock at IS' + c/c along the axis
of the dam.
5.
6.
7.
120/11
Backfill these pipes and the dam itself to spillway
grade with 3" to 5" open graded gravel or shot
rock.
Cover the downstream face of the dam with a tough
construction fabric. Sheet over that fabric with
vertical Ix planking nailed to cribbing. Support
the planking with wales bolted to the cribbing.
Caulk at abutment contacts.
Set 2" ~ grout pipes in the 8" PMPs, and connect
these to a flexible header leading to the discharge
of a grout pump connected to a grout mixing tank.
Each grout pipe will be valved at the header and
6-4
1/82
I
I lu
u
u
o
u
o
u
U
I
U
U
will have a union at 4 t on centers to facilitate
gradual withdrawal during the grouting process.
S. Intrusion grout the dam. The grout should be a low
viscosity but rich mixture of cement and water.
The grouting operation should be continuous, and
the grout pipes progressively withdrawn--the grout
pipes functioning as tremies with the tip of the
pipes being maintained about 1 foot below the level
of grout in the Stl ~ PMP.
9. Pour a reinforced concrete spillway slab as a cap
on the dam.
10. Replace the timber wing wall with a buttressed
reinforced concrete wall, anchored into the rock
foundations. This wall will include a diversion
port covered by trash racks, with the existing gate
removed and replaced by a new hydraulically oper-
ated gate with remote control. This modification
will permit the dam to safely pass the 8,000 cfs
design flood, recommended by the COE, by overtop-
ping the wing wall: and will provide for a secluded
and safe location for the valve operator.
FLUME AND PENSTOCK
The flume between the dam and penstock is a 5' wide x
4' deep "u" shaped timber channel, supported on timber
bents, set on a gentle slope running 104 feet from the dam
to a tunnel portal: thence through 85 feet of 6' ~ unlined
tunnel dug through a point of rock: thence returning to the
bent supported timber channel, to a bar screen and diversion
and overflow box: thence continuing as a bent supported
timber channel to its terminus at a rock catcher box and
surge chamber at the penstock forebay. The length from the
tunnel to the rock box is 511 feet, making the total flume
system 700 feet long.
6-5
120/11 1/82
U
D
o
o
r f
W
, 1 lJ
u
u
u
The penstock is a 36" ¢ nominal circular wood stave
pipe with steel reinforcing hoops. It is 326 feet long,
running on a straight alignment and about a 19 percent
grade.
The only way the dam can pass design flood is by over-
topping the wing wall. This would take out the flume in
that section. In addition, the tunnel has experienced roof
spalling from time to time. To eliminate these problems,
under Alternative #1, it is recommended that the flume be
replaced from the dam to the downstream end of the tunnel
with a 5' ¢ pipe, properly anchored and with a timber roof
protecting it from being carried away in flood. Phase II
studies should determine whether this pipe be wood stave or
metal. Under Alternative #3 it is recommended to replace
the flume all the way from the dam to the penstock forebay
in order to take advantage of full head in the reservoir and
elirnnate the need for the overflow structure.-
Under Alternative #1 both the bar screen and overflow
structure and the rock box surge chamber (penstock forebay)
are called to be redesigned and reconstructed. The existing
bar screen is difficult to maintain and has passed sticks
through the turbine, causing damage to the impeller. The
latter is also recommended under Al ternative # 3, so as to
efficiently prevent rocks from passing down the penstock.
The penstock is worn to an estimated 1/2" wall thick-
ness in places and is called to be replaced. Because of
construction logistics, redwood wood-stave pipe is selected
over steel. It has a life of 35-40 years.
The area under the flume and penstock is in need of
housekeeping to reduce rot
should be guyed back so as
potential. Threatening trees
to preclude windfalls such as
took out the penstock last November.
The braced timber bent support structure is in fair
on a selected basis, should be condition. Certain members,
6-6
120/11 4/82
U
Q
u
o
D
J
u
u
U
! u
u
replaced to give the system a new life. This relates to
perhaps 10 percent of the members. The pile members are
founded directly on natural ground and can be expected to
have a longer life if supported up about l' off the ground
with concrete footings.
POWERHOUSE AND GENERATING FACILITIES
The 42-inch Ludlow Valve is old and has failed. The
water harruner which cracked the bonnet was only one in a
series of problems in the last three years. In 1980, this
valve caused a two-month down time of the hydro-system, at a
great loss of revenue.
The Leffel Turbine has an impeller that is producing
perhaps 20 percent less energy than a new one that would
have less down time, and more flexibility to operate effi-
ciently over a greater range of flows. The water quality
change caused by the lubrication prevents the company from
using the water for their proposed fish hatchery. The wall
thickness of the turbine casing is 1/2 inch. Certainly,
erosion during the 75 years of use has cut into its designed
safety factor. A major overhaul of this turbine would be
necessary but may not extend its useful life significantly.
The turbine was purchased because it was available, not
because it was the best suited for the flow of the creek.
To continue this equipment's life may not be the best de-
cision in lieu of the spiraling cost of energy.
The generator needs to be at least rewound.
The switch gear needs to be replaced with new equipment
because most of the components are old and not reliable
during times of stress.
The powerhouse needs major repairs to the foundation,
especially in the afterbay and tail race sections of the
facility. These, as a minimum, would require repair of the
walls and installation of new steel liner. For optimum
6-7
120/11 4/82
I
u
u
u
u
o
D
n W
r )
U
U
I
I
U
improvements, it is recommended that the draft tubes be
extended and a new afterbay constructed that will take ad-
vantage of extra head available and thereby increase plant
capacity by an additional 10 percent.
6-8
120/11 4/82
r 1 'U
I
; 1
I~
!
:1 .~
I
SECTION 7
HISTORY OF PELICAN UTILITY
COMPANY LOADS AND REVENUES
D
o
o
D
D
o
u
u
u
u
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 7
HISTORY OF PELICAN UTILITY
COMPANY LOADS AND REVENUES
Table 7.1 is drawn from information contained in Appen-
dices C and H.
TABLE 7.1
LOAD AND REVENUE TRENDS
Gross Revenues Gross Revenues
Fisca1a kWh From Water Sold From Power Sold
Year Produced Pelicari Utility Pelican Utility
1977 2,350,000 $ 6,000 $ 75,000
1978 2,540,000 6,000 125,000
1979 2,650,000 6,000 140,000
1980 2,450,000 6,000b 144,000c
1981 2,625,000 11,000 210,000
~pe1ican's FY is April 1 to March 31.
Pelican Utility water rates increased about 40% during FY 1981.
cPe1ican Utility power rates increased 22% during FY 1980.
7-1
120/22
Revenue per
kWh Produced
(mils)
31.9
49.2
52.8
58.8
80.0
4/82
D
o
u
U
I . { 1
~
U
I
r I
l.J
I
r :
• I I~
I ,U
I
: 1 I~
, '1
I
U
IW
I o
I
J
I
IW
SECTION 8
PLANNING SCENARIOS
Ii U
U
'U
U
U
r ' U
r-' U
I
D
U
I ,
r 1
\ . '~ I ,
J
-1
I
.1..-I
r \
U I
f 1
SECTION 8
PLANNING SCENARIOS
There are two planning scenarios:
#1 -The industrial and urban power requirements of Pelican
will remain more or less at present levels.
#2 -The industrial and urban power requirements of Pelican
will increase 34 percent within the next few years, due
to plans by the Pelican Cold Storage Company to change
their regional operations.
8-1
120/9 4/82
I o
o
u
,.-...
w
U
U
D
U
,U
I
!
U
r 1
iW
I
( 1
'U I
, \
! I
I~
U
I
SECTION 9
PUBLIC REACTION TO PROJECT
D
u
u
I
'0
I
r 1
U
U
I
r 1
U
I
U
I
U
!
:U
I
( \
I
W
J
SECTION 9
PUBLIC REACTION TO PROJECT
PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE
The data of this section were obtained through ques-
tionnaires sent by the Town Council to each household in
Pelican. There were only six questionnaires returned out of
50 sent out. The results of responses to that questionnaire
are tabulated in Table 9.1.
TABLE 9.1
RESULTS OF PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE
(November 1981)
Existing Utilities and Appliances
Wood Oil Electric Gas Other
Heating
Cooking
Toaster
Dishwasher
Clothes dryer
Washing machine
Hair dryer
Water heater
TV
Radio
Clock
Baseboard heating
Other
120/15
3
1
6
5
4
9-1
3
5
1
1
6
4
1
3
2
2
4
1/82
u
u
u
D
I :u
U
u
W
J
IJ
~
\W
TABLE 9.1 -'Continued
Utilit;t Costs for 1981
Questionnaire Water Electric Fuel
No. $ $ $
1 60.00 540 1950
2 134.40 458 950
3
4 372 1006
5 67.20 480 1380
6 72 577 1200
Even though only six questionnaires were received, they
do contain some very valuable information. Out of the six
questionnaires received, all said that they now use oil for
heating and five use it for cooking. All said that if hy-
dropower were cheaper than oil they would change to electri-
cal heating. One user reportedbis costs over the last six
years for electricity and fuel.
follows.
That information is as
Electrical Bill
Year
Cost($)
Cost( $ )
1976
300
700
1977
300
700
1978
360
1979
360
Fuel Bill
750 1320
1980
420
1825
1981
480
1950
Increase
60%
178%
This points to be beneficial effect that the hydro-
generation has had on the price of power. The hydropower
costs have ,escalated about 60 percent in the past four
years, wH'ereas the fuel costs increased at almost three
times that rate.
One questionnaire 'pointed out that power: fluctuations
have destroyed many radios, freezers, clocks and other major
9.-2
120/15 4/82
u
u
u
U
D
D
U
D
'U
I
i U
:U
I
U
I J
I
electrical items. This is borne out in other parts of the
study and is caused by obsolete and worn equipment that
needs replacing.
9-3
120/15 4/82
u
u
W
D
0
U
:D
I
'U
, r:
iW SECTION 10
:
'U
I
WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
,
I
U
I
u
I
J
U
W
I~
:0
I :J "
I
[0
D
D
D
u
u
u
D
U
SECTION 10
WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
INTRODUCTION
The water and power demands shown in Tables 10.1 and
10.2 are derived from data presented in Appendix C. This is
the response of Cavin Philbin, of the Pelican Cold Storage
Company, to a questionnaire sent to the company. There is
only about a 15 percent growth in power demand anticipated
for Scenario #2 over Scenario #1.
They estimate that on an average year, 25 percent of
their power has been generated at the diesel plant. This
agrees well with Lowell's report of 1977 and Haight's report
(Appendix H) taken from the annual reports of the Pelican
Utility Company:
Year % Diesel Generation
1971 23.0
1972 24.9
1973 19.2
1974 36.9
1975 30.6
1977 21.3
1978 31.5
1979 20.4
1980 14.7
Mean 24.7
10-1
120/13 4/82
~
o
D
D
o
u
, 'I
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Ju1
Aug
Sep
TABLE 10.1
PELICAN WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
SCENARIO #1
Water Demands
1000 ga1/mo cfs
2,425
8,625
8,625
8,625
8,625
1,648
1,648
30,648
30,648
30,648
1,648
2,425
.124
.441
.441
.441
.441
.084
.084
1.568
1. 568
1.568
.084
.124
Power Demands a
1000 kWh/mo HP
186 346
186 346
173 322
173 322
252 469
252 469
191 356
191 356
187 348
187 348
324 603
324 603
b cfs
31. 767
31. 767
29.564
29.564
43.061
43.061
32.686
32.686
31.951
31.951
55.364
55.364
Total C
cfs
32
32
30
30
44
43
33
34
34
34
56
56
a These are production demands. Comparing Table 7.1 with
Scenario #1 in the Pelican Cold Storage questionnaire re-
( .) kWh produced _ 2,625,000 _
sponse Appendlx C , kWh consumed -2,201,000 -1.193
This factor .193 is made up of distribution los5es and ap-
bparent1y some unmetered consumption.
Assumes 100 percent hydroelectric generation anq an up-
graded plant that will have improved efficiency and will
utilize 10 feet additional head in the system by extending
the draft tube(s), constructing a new afterbay to a lower
elevation, and replacing the flume with pressure conduit.
550 HP
Q = 62.4(110+10)(.8)
CTotal if all power is to be furnished by hydroelectric
generation.
10-2
120/13 4/82
U
D
D
u
u
TABLE 10.2
PELICAN WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
SCENARIO #2
Water Demands a Total C Power Demands b Month 1000 ga17mo cfs 1000 kWh7mo HP cfs cfs
Oct 2,568 .131 280 521 47.835 48
Nov 9,388 .480 280 521 47.835 48
Dec 9,388 .480 215 400 36.725 37
Jan 9,388 .480 215 400 36.725 37
Feb 9,388 .480 301 560 51. 416 52
Mar 1, 767 .090 301 560 51. 416 52
Apr 1,767 .090 240 447 41. 041 41
May 33,667 1. 722 240 447 41.041 43
Jun 33,667 1. 722 258 480 44.017 46
Ju1 33,667 1. 722 258 480 44.017 46
Aug 33,667 1. 722 464 864 79.327 81
Sep 1,767 .090 464 864 79.327 80
a These are production demands. Comparing Table 7.1 with
Scenario #1 in the Pelican Cold Storage questionnaire re-
( .) kWh produced _ 2,625,000 _
sponse Append1x C , kWh consumed -2,201,000 -1.193
This factor .193 is made up of distribution losses and ap-
bparently some unmetered consumption.
Assumes 100 percent hydroelectric generation and an up-
graded plant that will have improved efficiency and will
utilize 10 feet additional head in the system by extending
the draft tube(s), constructing a new afterbay to a lower
elevation, and replacing the flume with pressure conduit.
_ 550 HP
Q -62.4{110+10){.8)
CTotal if all power is to be furnished by hydroelectric
generation.
10-3
120/13 4/82
I J
u
u
u
o
o
D
r )
U
:U I
!
f 1
i I
jl.l
:
:U
I
i U
SECTION 11
ALTERNATIVES
SECTION 11
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES DISCARDED
Phonograph
The alternative of diverting water from Phonograph
Creek by a darn at Phonograph Lake was studied in detail.
The system would consist of a 10-foot darn at Phonograph
Creek with about 1,700 acre-feet of storage which would be
diverted into the head waters of Pelican Creek during low
flow periods and piped to a new 1.2 MW powerhouse (Power-
house #2) that would discharge into Pelican Lake. A pipe-
line would also collect the Pelican Creek water at the 750-
foot elevation and convey it to Powerhouse # 2. The hydro
capacity of the Pelican Utility Company would be increased
from .50 MW or .75 MW to 1.75 or 1.95 MW, respectively_
After receiving the questionnaire response from the Pelican
Cold Storage Company, it was determined that their expansion
requirements were smaller than first anticipated. The pres-
ent cold storage rooms were found to be using about twice
the energy of similar modern facilities. Phase I I should
consider the power savings potential in replacing the exist-
ing sawdust insulation with new and more efficient material.
It was determined that the Phonograph alternative is viable,
but there is no present market for the power. When the town
grows, this alternative is a good one to expand its present
power supply, and is compatible with the continued operation
of the proposed program.
11-1
120/12 4/82
D
D
o
o
u
I ) u
J
I r \
U
U
W
'U
1
'0 I
Wind
The high electrical load requirements of Pelican are
periodic. The electrical demands are greatest during the
time of processing, therefore the electrical facilties have
to produce energy on call. The wind generated energy is not
dependable enough to supply those energy needs on an on-call
basis.
The town of Pelican is located several miles inland
from the mouth of the Lisianski Inlet. The town is sur-
rounded by mountains that reach heights above 3,000 feet.
These mountains deflect the winds. The winds at Pelican are
moderately light compared with sites that are optimum for
wind power generators.
Since these moderate winds are not steady , it would
take a great amount of money to build the storage system to
make wind generation even workable. For that reason, it was
discarded as not being a viable al ternati ve when compared
with hydro and diesel.
Solar
The solar alternative was considered and judged not
feasible due to the generally prevailing conditions found at
the Pelican site. The cloud cover, which provides the rains
that make an ideal site for a hydropower plant, curtail the
opportunity for a productive solar site. The construction
of the town on piers due to the steep rock slopes that it is
constructed against does not lend itself to burrowing in to
provide cover of above 2/3 of the structure for installation
purposes. There may be a few sites that could supplement
heating by heavier insulation and construction of insulated
windows to collect the heat.
lectors for water heating.
Others could use solar col-
Solar generation of electricity is still in its infancy
and has no commercial generation equipment.
11-2
120/12 4/82
u
o
D
o
r )
'W
I
U
I u
Geothermal
The alternative of geothermal was considered. The only
si tes that provided any possibilities were on Chichagof
Island nearer to Hoonak. There was not enough information
on those sites to determine whether they could be economi-
cally developed or not. Even so, the long transmission
lines of above 30 miles would be required for this alterna-
tive to be workable. Due to the high costs of construction
and other factors, this alternative was discarded.
Fossil Fuel
Of all the fossil fuel options, it is obvious that
diesel generation would be the most competitive, since a
plant exists at Pelican and there would be no capital works
to construct except an additional Cat. 3408 size or larger
standby generator. Diesel is presented as Alternative #2,
under the options studied.
ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Three alternatives were studied, each under load condi-
tions of Scenario #1 and Scenario #2. The cost estimates
for each alternative are included in Appendix E, and each is
analyzed on the basis of the present worth of life cycle
costs in Appendix F.
Alternatives #1 and #3 relate to upgrading the existing
hydroelectric generating facilities, and have a minimal
environmental impact because they represent a continuation
of the status quo. Alternative #2 features abandonment of
hydroelectric power in favor of an all diesel supply. This
has the negative environmental impact of mining a nonreplen-
ishable resource. In addition to the adverse economics of
Alternative #2, it would require the continuous annual con-
sumption of 6,700 barrels and 7,700 barrels of diesel, re-
spectively, under Scenarios #1 and #2.
11-3
120/12 4/82
Q
Q
u
u
u
r 1
l..
r I
W
I TO' I ' , I
I
~-l
I~
n I~
O&M costs (exclusive of fuel) for this reconnaissance
portion were not included in Phase I in the economic analy-
ses of alternatives because of the way Pelican Cold Storage
Company operates. The same crew maintains both the hydro
and the diesel system. Since labor is such a large compo-
nent of the O&M costs of a modern facility, it was judged
that the O&M costs would be comparable for all alternatives.
Accordingly, in comparing the differences between alterna-
tives, the O&M costs were deleted.
this issue in more depth.
Phase II will address
Heat recovery from the diesel engines in this situation
could only be practical under Alternative #2, the all diesel
option, because under Alternatives #1 and #3, hydro will be
on line for such a high percentage of the time, with the
diesels being idle. This waste heat recovery potential for
Alternative #2 has not been evaluated since it is judged
that only the cold storage plant could benefit from its use.
That will be addressed in Phase II.
Heat recovery from the refrigeration compressors is a
source that needs to be investigated. The existing compres-
sors are larger than needed in a current design, because of
the improvement in modern insulation. It is assumed that
heat recovery off existing equipment would be reduced by
about 40 percent due to Pelican Cold Storage upgrading the
insulation of the existing cold storage facilities. Using
rough figures and assuming a 40 hp motor to drive the re-
frigeration compressor, there may be as much as 120,000 Btu
that could be utilized for heating or processing that is
presently being supplied from electricity and/or oil. This
cost saving will be evaluated in the Phase II study.
Alternative #1 (Base Case)
This alternative calls for:
1. Repairing Pelican Dam and reconstructing the wing
wall, as recommended in Section 6.
11-4
120/12 4/82
o
D
W
I
I
U
[ )
I~
i
U
U
U
2. Replacing the upper 189 feet of flume and tunnel
with a 60" ¢ pipe.
3. Replacing the diversion valve at Pelican Dam with a
48" ¢ remotely operated sluice gate.
4. Reconstructing both the screen diversion box and
the rock box on the lower flume.
5. Replacing the penstock with a new 36" ¢ wood stave
pipe.
6. Housekeeping under the total flume and penstock
support system.
7. Making minor repairs to the flume and penstock
support system, and providing concrete footings for
the bent columns.
8. Completely abandoning the now obsolete generating
machinery and switch gear in favor of a modern 500
kW package, including: 30" motorized Class 150
butterfly control valve: francis type turbine:
Woodward governor: new generator and switch gear.
9. Refurbishing the afterbay.
The capital costs for Alternative #1 are estimated at
$1.68 million; and the present worth of life cycle costs,
including the standby diesel operation, are $ 3.97 million
under load Scenario #1 and $8.43 million under load Scenario
#2. The essential objectives of Alternative #1 are:
1. Restoration of the entire system to a new economic
life.
and 2. Replacement of the worn out and obsolete machinery
with a system that will operate an estimated 15 to
20 percent more efficiently.
Alternative #2 (All Diesel)
This alternative assumes abandonment of the Pelican
Creek hydroelectric system in favor of relying 100 percent
11-5
120/12 4/82
n U
Q
D
n U
D
U
u
! 1
W
u
iU
'. u'
, I
I
D
:0
I
'0 I
U
U
on the use of the existing diesel plant to furnish industri-
al and domestic power for Pelican. The scheme would be
reliable with the addition of a Cat. 3408 or larger genera-
tor for standby. The maintenance costs would increase with
this alternative, but were neglected. Capital costs for
Alternative #2 are $.06 million and the present worth of the
life cycle costs for this alternative is very high, being
$13.18 million for load Scenario #1 and $17.55 million for
load Scenario #2.
The all diesel alternative would provide the opportuni-
ty for excellent waste heat recovery. The specific applica-
tions that the heat could be used for will be covered in the
Phase II study when in-plant uses are defined and the capi-
tal costs of the facilities estimated.
Alternative #3 (Improved Hydro)
This alternative is essentially the same in concept and
has the same objectives as Alternative #1 (restored life to
the existing plant, plus increased efficiency), but in addi-
tion, provides the following advantages:
1. Takes full advantage of the head in the reservoir
by replacing the flume in its entirety with a 60" ¢
pressure conduit.
2. Further increases plant efficiency and makes better
use of both high and low flows by installing two
turbines (500 kW and 250 kW) with flexibility for
adding another 250 kW turbine.
and 3. Further increases of power yields (by 10 percent)
may be available through increased use of available
head. This is accomplished by extending the draft
tube and constructing a new afterbay providing for
tailwater at mean high water level.
The capital costs for this Alternative are $2.36 mil-
lion and the present worth of its life cycle costs, includ-
ing fuel costs for the standby diesel operation, are $2.77
11-6
120/12 4/82
u
u
U
D
r 1
W
U
I
. r ) :U
I
r 1
W
r )
U
million under load Scenario #1 and $7.99 million under load
Scenario #2.
AFTERWORD
Under either Alternatives #1 or #3, the only shortcom-
ing of the hydro system is the fact that it is essentially
run-of-the-river and must rely to a degree on standby diesel
power during low flow periods. The diesel power plant ex-
ists, however, and the investigation has indicated that the
costs for storage , either at Pelican or through a trans-
watershed diversion from Upper Phonograph Creek, simply can
not be justified at this time. This is because the escala-
tion of power requirements for Scenario #2 over Scenario #1
are really quite modest. The solution is to make optimum
use of the naturally abundant watershed by increasing plant
efficiency and taking full advantage of available head.
11-7
120/12 4/82
u
u
u
~
U
ID
jW
I
I U
'u
U
SECTION 12
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
D
U
r '
W
u
SECTION 12
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
INTRODUCTION
Alternatives #1, #2, and #3 (reference Section 11) were
compared under Scenarios #1 and #2 (reference Section 8).
The alternatives are engineering options which are the re-
sponsibility of the planners; while the scenarios are opera-
tions options, exclusively wi thin the prerogative of the
Pelican Cold Storage Company. The cost estimates for Alter-
natives #1, #2, and #3 are presented in Appendix E. The
present worth economic analyses for the six combinations are
presented in Appendix F.
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
The economic analyses were made on the basis of the
following criteria, dictated by the APA guidelines:
1. 1982 fuel costs at Pelican (from information fur-
nished by the Pelican Cold Storage Company) are
$1.18/gallon. These are escalated for 20 years at
the rate of 2.6 percent per year, and then continue
at a constant level ($1.92/gal) for the balance of
the study period.
2. Diesel generators have a 20-year life.
3. Hydroelectric facilities have a 50-year life; ex-
cept that the runners are assumed to be replaced
after 20 years and the wood-stave pipe after 35
years.
12-1
120/19 4/82
fl U
r 1
W
u
4. Inflation rate is assumed at 0 percent. Therefore,
replacement costs are assumed to be 1982 costs.
5. The discount interest rate is 3 percent.
6. O&M costs (except for fuel) are assumed the same
under all options and therefore are not included in
the analyses.
7. A 35-year study period, equal to the amortization
period on capital works, is used.
Table 12.1 recapitulates the analyses.
TABLE 12.1
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES
Mi 11. kvJh
Generated
during 35-
Year Study
Alt. # Description
Capital
Cost
million
$
Present
Worth
million
$
Period P.W./kWh
$
Scenario #1
1 Base plan 1.68 3.01
2 All diesel .06 9.92
3 Upgraded
base plan 2.36 2.78
Scenario #2
1 Base plan 1.68 4.54
2 All diesel 0.06 11.42
3 Up graded
base plan 2.36 4.31
DISCUSSION AND RECot1MENDATION
86.905
86.905
86.905
100.319
100.319
100.319
.035
.114
.032
.045
.114
.043
Al ternative #2 is presented to show the economic im-
portance of preserving the hydroelectric plant. Nei ther
12-2
120/19 4/82
( 1
I~
,U
I o
o
1'1
I
U
[D
IU
Al ternative #1 or #3 is a "band-aid" solution, but rather
refurbishes the existing facilities to a new 50-year life.
Alternative #1 features dam, flume, penstock, and powerhouse
improvements and a modern and efficient 500 kW turbine. Al-
ternative #3 features dam, flume, penstock, and powerhouse
improvements with a modern and more efficient 500 kW and 250
kW pair of turbines, pI us provision for a future 250 kW
unit; plus replacement of the fl ume with a pipeline that
will take advantage of the full reservoir head; and an ex-
tended draft tube to gain suction head on the turbine.
Us ing the very same flows, Al ternative # 1 increases power
output over present conditions by a conservatively estimated
15 percent, and Alternative #3 by 27 percent.
Al ternative # 3 is recommended. It goes a long way
toward totally firming the power supply to Pelican by hydro.
Table 12.2 is very interesting in that it shows the effect
on the Pelican Utility Company for fiscal year 1980-81 if
either the Alternative #1 or Alternative #3 plans had been
on line. This assumes using the very same water that ran
through the turbine.
12-3
120/19 4/82
~-----.------.-~ ---------._--
I-'
I\)
I .;:..
Total
Month Produced
Apr 205,440
May 192,160
Jun 237,440
Ju1 259,680
Aug 296,640
Sep 206,880
Oct 199,360
Nov 107,780a
Dec 161,280a
Jan 124,480
Feb 227,040
Mar 198~080
10 Mo.
Totals 2,147,200
----------------------
TABLE 12.2
ANALYSIS OF OPERATING YEAR (FISCAL) 1980-81
(kWh)
Actual Alternative #1
1.15 x Remaining to
Produced Produced Hydro be Produced
by Diesels by Hydro Produced by Diesels
63,040 142,400 163,760 41,680
8,160 184,000 211,600 0
15,840 221,600 254,840 0
14,080 245,600 282,440 0
67,040 229,600 264,040 32,600
11,680 195,200 224,480 0
147,360 52,000 59,800 139,560
100, 480 a 7,300a . a
161,280a Oa a
6,080 118,400
40,640 186,400
59,680 138,400
433,600
Actual
Alternative #1
Alternative #3
136,160 0
214,360 12,680
159,160 38,920
265,440
Diesel Production
as % of 10-Month
Total
20.2%
12.4%
8.6%
a
a
Alternative #3
1.27 x Remaining to
Hydro be Produced
Produced by Diesel
180,850
233,680
281,430
311,910
291,590
247,900
66,040 a
150,370
236,730
175,770
a
24,590
o
o
o
5,050
o
133,320a
o
o
22,310
185,270
a
apower plant was down for repair of the Ludlow Valve.
Q
'U
W
'LJ
D
'0
Q
o
SECTION 13
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
fl '~
I
i W
I
U
LJ
o
o
u
i~
U
I
( ~ U
u
u
u
U
~
W
U
SECTION 13
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
Certain information, beyond the scope of services al-
ready authorized for the Pelican project, must be gathered
in order to complete:
The Phase II Studies
The FERC Application
The Dam Restoration Application
The Water Rights Application
and The PUC Rate Adjustment Application.
PHASE II STUDIES
Under Alternative #1 (base plan -restoring existing
facili ties) , a topographic survey of the existing works,
includ'ing floor plans and sections through the powerhouse,
should really be made to more accurately estimate the re-
habilitation costs. Alternative #2 (all diesel system)
requires no additional information. Alternative #3 (re-
stored and upgraded hydroelectric generation system) will
require that survey cited for Alternative #1 and supple-
mental topographic surveying of the tailrace channel.
Alternative #1
Right now the only topographic information that exists
is an unreliable profile of the penstock. Three field party
days and four designer-draftsmans office days are estimated
to produce:
13-1
120/14 1/82
U
D
o
_ .. ,
. I
I~
U
I
'U I .
,
( 1
11.J
U
I
U
, )
U
[Q
:u
I[J
1. A plan of the system from Pelican diversion dam to
the end of the tailrace.
2. Topography, axis profile and cross sections through
the dam.
3. Profile and cross section through the flume.
4. Cross section of the tunnel.
S. Plan and cross sections of rock box at head of the
penstock.
6. Structural sections through penstock support fram-
ing, including member sizes.
7. Floor plans, elevations and cross sections through
powerhouse.
Alternative #3
In addition to the surveys specified for Al ternati ve
#1, Alternative #3 will require detailed topography of the
tailrace channel from the existing afterbay to mean sea
level.
FERC APPLICATION
If there is an increase of hydropower capacity (Alter-
native #3), it would be necessary to submit a request to the
FERC for an Exemption from a Permit or License. The request
for Exemption is not as detailed or complex as one for a
Permit or License. The Phase II feasibility study agreement
should satisfy the requirements for this exemption. No EIS
is anticipated, since neither Alternative #1 or #3 modifies
existing environmental impacts.
DAM RESTORATION APPLICATION
Application should be filed with the Stage Forest Land
and Water Division Office (Dam Safety) for the restoration
of Pelican Dam. The technical information required in that
Application will be contained in the Phase II report.
13-2
120/14 4/82
(1 'i.-
I
U
( ) U
u
u
WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION
This Application must be made to the State Forest Land
and Water Division Office (Water Rights) under Alternative
#3. No supplemental information beyond the Phase II report
will be required.
PUC RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
This requires no supplemental information at this time.
Actual construction costs and O&M costs will serve as the
basis for any rate adjustment for the Pelican Utility Com-
pany.
13-3
120/14 1/82
•
I :u
I
I
U
n IJ
I
I
Q
Q
n IU
I
'I
i~
0
n ~ APPENDIX A
D REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWS
U
, )
! ,
W
( 1
U
[j
'LJ
0
J
0
U
u
o
Cl u
u
IU
I
U
I
r 1
IW
U
o
w
o
o
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWS
Interviews with Jim Ferguson, Cavin Philbin, Tom
Whitmarsh, and Cal Boord of Pelican Cold Storage Co.
Interviews with State Forest Land and Water Division
Rindy Patterson -Water Rights
Paul Janke -Dam Safety
U.S.G.S. water supply papers
U.S.C.&G.S. topographic quad sheets
Pelican Cold Storage Company questionnaire (Appendix C)
Citizens/Town Council questionnaire (Section 9)
Phase I Inspection Report for the National Dam Safety
Program. COE 1978
Water Reconnaissance Study of Pelican Alaska.
Balding, U.S.G.S. 1974
Electrical Study of the Pelican Utility.
Lowell and Associates 1977
Pelican Hydro System Repair Requirements.
Whitmarsh January 1981
Pelican Hydroelectric Plant Modernization.
Whitmarsh August 1980
G. O.
Leonard
Thomas
Thomas
Engineer's Report.
Corporation 19S5
Hubbell and Waller Engineering
Correspondence from the James Leffell & Co.
1978; May 1968
October
Preliminary Appraisal Report to the Alaska Power Au-
thority on the hydroelectric potential for 10 Alaskan
communities, including Pelican. Robert W. Retherford
Associates 1977
A-I
120/21 1/82
I
u
n U
o
II I..l , )
I W
( 1
I
W
. f)
, \ .
I
W
U
I
U
~
:Q
I
U
ID
IU
15. Increasing Generator Capacity and Saving Fuel by System
Power Factor Improvement. Thomas Whitmarsh July 1981
16. J. W. McKinley work report to Pelican Cold Storage Co.
1966
A-2
120/21 1/82
I :0
I
, \,1
I~ ,
IW
'U
I ,
C
~
D
o
iU
!U
I
IU
!
( )
W
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF FIELD INVESTIGATION
I ;n
'~
I
U
~
o
D
D
D
( )
W
I
IU
I
'U
I o
o
o
Ll
U
USKH-E~·JGINEERING SCIENCE A ,JOINT VENTURE
2515 "A" STREET. ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 • 907/276-4245
December 23, ',-198)
Alaska Power Authority
334 WQst Firth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attn: Jerry Larson
Dear Jerry:
This letter is a diary report of the visit or myself and Pat
Creegan to Pe 1 i ean and Anchorage, 1\ 1 aska, Novr~mber 9-] 3, 1981.
The purpose of this visit was outlined ill Alaska Power Author-
ity's "Pelican Power Alternative;" Scope or Work; Phase I:
Reconnaissance Assessment; Phase II: Field Investigation. The
team of Creegan and Hutchinson arrived at Pelican on the after-
noon of November 9, 1981 .• Jim Ferguson, President of Pelican
Cold Storage Co. was also in Pelican to investigate the break
of the power plant penstock.
The timing of our visit was due partially to the shutdown of the
power station that was necessitated when a large tree fell on
the power penstock and ruptured it. The shutdown allowed
access to critical areas of the facilities. When we arrived,
Pelican Power Company was using the auxiliary diesel generator
to take the place ()r the hydropower plant. This allowed us the
opportunity to review the auxiliary and supplemental power supply
under operation. Special thanks should be given to Jim Ferguson
and Cal Boord ror their holp and cooperation in giving us an
understanding or the overall picture 01' the impact that the
existing (or an nxpanded) hydropower ["aei lity has or would have
on the town 01' Polican and the fishing industry in the area. One
item discussed at length was the impact fixed-cost hydropower
energy could have over the next 50 to 80 years on the Alaskan
fishing industry. It was concluded that a stable source of energy
would help to keep the Alaskan fish industry competitive with
those in the world who had to rely on inflating oil as their
source of energy. Jim explained that the fishing area of Alaska
now serviced out of Pelican was 500 miles in both directions.
The number of rishing boats serviced last year was about 1500.
Much ()f the ice and freezing was done using energy from the -.....,."..--Pelican Hydrupower Plant, however, at the peak of the "ff~l:f'YQ d~es:~.power had to bt) us(~d which raised the costs 1'0 f1rYJctfrj~~
sIgn 1 f 1 can tl y . ~...,),' Ui/tl\
~ ~ .~
Uti', -
.., 4 C; 1981
Engine;. .. • llllg .. -
Berke' v\:It:f)Ce ley
'n
U
n
J
2-
I n r<~v i c:wi og tile h i~tory and !'('(:ords. i l was round tha t the
town ur Pelican was establishC'c\ becau~~ 01' its ideal site for
a hydropower plant and waleI' supply,
One key item that was dis(:ussed with ,Jim was: "What would the
company do if more hydropower w(~r(;;, deve loped?" The company was
going to study and respond to that question.
The records and studies 01' the present status of the town, pro-
cessing plant and service company indicated that they are at their
maximum capacity unless an addition;ll energy source, and a water
supply less susceptible to contamination rrom outside sources are
developed. The low-water ppr';od is when the maximum energy is
needed and presently not avai.lahle withuut diesel generator aug-
mentation, Thes(~ low periods arc in t1w months of June, July.
August, January, February and March. DUI'jng the summer, due to
I ow-wa tel', the company has to opera te j ts d h:se 1 generators to
conserve water 1'01' the town, I'ish processing and ice plant.
Ono or th(: most cri.tical items pvaluat(:d was the timber crib dam.
An evaluation (J1' the timber in the crib dam could not be made
due to t he heavy ra ins wh ich (:ause the wa te r to spi 11 over the
dam, nut allowing aecessibility to thn str'u(~tural members, However,
a repof't from the chior openlLor r<!veal(~d that when the timbers
wer<~ accessib]o this past yt:ar, th(~y round the najlings and lag
bolts tight, but the wood was rotten adjaL:t!l1t to some connections.
The depths of rot were not noted.
The reports indicated that about 4 feet of rock had been lost
out of the upper portion or the dam. After seeing the dam and
reviewing the pictures, we suspect the loss of rock is due to
erosion 0 f the ] ower rock by water f1 owing' through the dam which
caused a slumping (If mass. This loss or rock mass reduces the
dam's stability, The lost roek should be replaced as soon as
possible.
Some r(lt in the timber connections also causes some immediate
concern. It is reeommended that rock be added and a well-designed
intrusion groutjng be done as soon as possible. The intrusion
grouting would make a concrete dam instead of a crib dam.
The wing' walls were unstable to handle a high flood. The abutments
and channel conditions seemed adequate to take care of the ultimate
flood. The height of the dam could be raised, however, a careful
design or the spillway will have to be done to dissipate the higher
energy water paHsing over th(~ dam. By heightening the dam, water
which now is spilled could be stored and used for peaking power
when it is needed. An evaluation of the new dam height should
be made based on available water supply, town, processing and
power loads,
An evaluation or the I'lUIlH' foundation supports was made.
show s()m(~ r'ot. The company, in its rna in tenance program,
They
has
iO
I
I
r)
W
I 1 U
u
n
U
U
U
-J-
periodically replaced the supplJrts that became unstable as well
as other portions oJ the flunH'. The maintenance of these appears
to be a constant and costly errort.
The woodstave penstock was noted to h~ve several problems. The
foundat)on supports had the same pi'oblem as the flume supports.
The penstock appeared to have some thin sections at the top
where the wa ter-f1 ow 1 ines from the J'] ume are forced to change
direction. The company records indicated that other locations
where t h(~ r 1 ow-1 i. nes were forced to chan~e were a] so th in and
in ne(:!d or replacement. TIl<: rnatprja1 rrom the section where the
tree had hroken th I'ou~h wa sci OS(\ to t1w new material' B thickness,
A seric)us problem on the: penstock and rJume is trying to maintain
it sarely. Two men have to traverse the 10n/-;th twice a day.
That takes about an hour each time. The sarety problem is com-
pounqed j n the win ter when the wa 1 kways al'C covered wi th ice.
It is dif'rj(,'Ilt, if not impossibl(\ to mak!~ the existing facilities
safe under that condition.
The slopes in the area or the power racility appeared to be stable.
The local terrain is bedrock. No faulting was noted, however,
the Lishtnski Inlet was mad(! by J'au]Ung, so whatever is constructed
at Pc] iean should be constructed to Zone :3 requirements with a
credible earthquake estab] ished t() del"ine the design requirements
for structures. The /-;eology of the Pelican Creek drainage basin
will be included in the final report.
The flume tunnel was not accessible for inspection, so an evaluation
of that facility could not be made, however, a review of past
reports reveals that some caving was experienced in the last two
years.
The powerhouse superstructure was in good condition as can be seen
in the various pictures, however, the aging process is beginning
to show on the concrete foundations, especially in the afterbays.
The pr()cess 01 wear on the turbine's impellers appears to be caus-
ing more and more erosion or concrete in the at'terbays from the
erosion of high energy water.
The upper sections of Pelican Creek were inaccessible due to the
rain and snowstorm that had moved in. However, a Quad sheet and
a geologic map reconnaissance was made using J1m Ferguson, who
has flown in and photographed the upper reaches of Phonograph
Creek, especially the lar/-;e lake at its head. This lake picture
is ineluded in this report. From the information gathered, it
appeared as if the upper lake with a small dam on Phonograph Creek
could be used to store water in the dry months. The elevation
differencl' between the upper lake and the present power plant is
about 2000 reet. It appears that small flows delivered in a
penstock to a turb.ine above the existin/-; crib dam from the lake
at thf~ 1H:~ad 01" Phonograph Creek eould generate 1100 kw to give
I
, 'l .J
I
:1
W
o
D
o
( \
:W
I
:U
I
I
U
u
n . : I
!~
I
~D
o
IU
-1-
a good reliuble supply or power and wat(~I' during the dry period
when the town, l:old stol'age, and fish p,'ocC'ssing needs are
greatest. In the wet months, use 01' Pelican Creek's upper reaches
through the same facility could be acc.omplished. This would supply
about 1100 kw. One big item that pould not be addressed at
Pelican was the reljability oj' the:,watpl'. The water quality
supp 1 j eel 11~()1ll the Phonog I'aph Lake and upper Pe 1 i can Creek source
would b(: less susceptible to contamination.
The Pelican Power could have plac.ed a starr gauge on their dam and
rocorded the height ell' the water whenever anyone regulated the
water. This type or rt:cord would be very valuable. We recommend
that a stall gauge be instal led at the dum.
The intake at the dam js dangerous to personnel at high flows
as shown in Photo #7 and should be high on the list for modi-
f"ication in combination with 1.118 other jrnpl~ovements that may be
necessary.
The turbine: and gen(:r~at()r are almost 75 years old and appear to
work, but the records indicate that then~ has been a necessary
increase () r the; n ow to produee the sanH: amount 0 r energy. The
internal wear 01" the Lur'bine could n()t. 1)(· (~valuatnd, but the
a r tt~rhay shows (:1'os jon r rom high (:nel'gy W:l t('r coming 0 r f the
turbine, indicative or worn turbll1P blud(!s.
The generator was evaluated and round in need of improvement.
In order to generate at its past capacity, it was necessary to
install a cooling fan. This is not a serious condition, but
indicative of the condition of the facilities and equipment.
The generator and system is hHyond its design life and may
need replacement or a major overhaul. A c.omparison between the
two a 1 terna t i V(!s wj II have to be l1lad(-~ as a port ion 0 f the final
report,
A vi.sj t by the cdectrjeal engineer is to be made and his letter
will inelud(: the olwl jnt~ diagram or the system distribution
plan,
Al"ter a day at Pelican, we traveled to Anchorage. November 11,
1981 was. spent at USKII's ol"l"iees detailing tasks for the final
report, reviewing data that had been obtained from previous
reports, getting copies of reports that had not been available
previously, obtaining informati()l1 from agencies and meeting with
Jerry Larson of APA. Arter Wednesday, the most critical item
had not been resolvcd--the obtaining of the precipitation and
run-off records. W.ithout some good records of the Pelican
Creek or a creek or river elose enough to extrapolate data from,
all that cou.ld be clone was guess at what the hydropower potential
of Pelican Creek was.
Most () r Thursday, Novemb(~rl 2, was spent researching the water
records 0 r Sou theast ern Alaska, try i ng to rind records of Pe 1 ican
o
n U
11 U
U~
, )
W
r ) W
IU
(-1
·IJ
I
U
{ 1
~
-5-
Creek or creeks and'ri.Vf:r in the: near vicinity. The type record
that we sought was long-term that would have a record of a dry
year. The longer the record, the m()re reliable and dependable
would be our conclusions and recommendatiolls. At the USGS we
were able to j'ind such records. T~e stream records that were
round were Hook Cr(~ek near Tenakee",and Tonol ite River near
T(:nak(~e as shown on Map #1. The BlaL:k Htver at the windward
side oj' P(~l ican had a 3-year record. lIook Creek and Tonolite
RiveI' had 13-year records. Hook Creek is on the leeward side
or the mountain from Pelican and has a gauging station on the
stl'cam at eh:vutions comparahl() to 75){, or Pelican Creek. After
1'!:(:(;1v111g the l'e!',()l'ds, it W:IS c(}n(:lud(~d that these records were
adl.~quatu tu nxLr'ap()I:tL(~ <lat.:1 i'l'<lJil Lo pl'ovid(! a reliablp hydro-
POWCI' (:valuation or P('1 i("':11l CI'c(:k.
Fl'iday was spent traveling.
Arter ar-riving home, questionnail'es w()re s('nL to th(;: Pelican
Town Coun(;i 1 and Pel i can Storag(~ Company. WI: are waiting a
rospollse. Wh(~n those are reeei vc:d. tlH: I'i nal report ean be
(;ompleled.
A book is enclosed which has thu appropl'jate maps and several
photographs of our visit.
II' you have any questions, please call.
cc:
Yours truly,
~ 0~~------H~. Hutchinson p~'JManager
USKH
Peli('an Cold Slot'agp Co.
Pal Cn}ugan
I
I
J
10
I
'Q
I :u
I
'U
U
;l
W
:U
I
U ' I
I
11 , !.j
I
I
iU
I
: 1 U
r 1 ~
r )
U
0
0
!Q
I :J
I
W
1.
2.
APPENDIX C
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE
Pelican Cold Storage Company Response Included
Response from Citizens Summarized in Section 9
f \ . I ~
u
u
D
r I~
I
;'1 .~
I o
Hl..CE i V L 0 JiiN 11 m
LOCATIONS
POBOx 60' PH leAN At A$;r.A 99B3?
PO 80x 12b SANDPOIN1. ALA9-.A 99bb~
UTILITY COMPANY
GENERAL OFFICES: 653 N.E. NORTHLAKE WAY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105· PHONE (2061632-9000
GENERAL OFFICES MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX SS38, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105
January 8, 1982
Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
USKH-Engineering Science
2515 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Dear Harvey:
The following power and water usage figures are offered for use in
Engineering Science's study of Pelican's hydro resource. They are
based on calendar 1981 production figures from Pelican, Port Alex-
ander and Sand Point.
Before any
Phonograph
suited for
products.
final plans are made to utilize additional water from
Creek, it will be necessary to determine if Pelican is
a terminus for storage and boxing of all the company's
Some questions that still need to be answered are:
1. Is shipping from Pelican to the marketplace economically
feasible?
2. Is shipping from Sand Point to Pelican economically feasible?
3. Will the costs associated with developing the hydro and the
additional storage space at Pelican be more or less than is
presently being spent for storing and boxing products in
Washington and for fuel for product storage in Sand Point?
If you have further questions, please call.
Sinc~rely,
/J. I ~/·I! . 0t---'~ .I,~~
cavin w. Philbin
General Manager
cwp/ak
Enclosure
cc: Jerry Larson, Alaska Power Authority
rl
~
PELICAN COLD STORAGE COMPANY
QUESTIONNAIRE
Under the assumption that hydro can be developed to meet 100 percent of Pelican's
~ industrial and domestic needs, please describe the potential of Scenario #2, i.e.,
o
A. How the Sand Point operation would be cut back (See attached sheet.)
B. Additional plant and community expansion potential when certain Sand
Point and Seattle processing activities are shifted to Pelican
(See attached sheet.)
U SCENARIO ill -MAINTAIN PRESENT HYDRO SYSTEM
Water and Power Consumption
, r 1 Estimated
omitted) 1 ~ Water Consumption (000' s Power Consumption -KWHs (OOO's omitted~
Month Industrial Domestic Total Industrial Marina Commercia1/ Total Month
U (PCS) Residential
J 7,200 1,425 8,625 204 25 61 290 Dee/Jan '81
F 7,200 1,425 8,625 340 25 57 422 Feb/Mar '81
W M 1,000 648 1,648
A 1,000 648 1,648 256 8 56 320 April/May , f
W M 3_0,000 648 30,648
J 30,000 648 30,648 248 6 59 313 June/July 'E
:l J 30,000 648 30,648
.~
\
A 30,000 648 30,648 465 14 65 544 Aug/Sept '81
S 1,000 648 1,648 D 0 1,000 1,425 2,425 217 6 89 312 Oct/Nov '81
N 7,200 1,425 8,625
0 D 7,200 1,425 8,625 Annual Total: 2,201
Annual Total: 164,461
W 106/19
1 Gallons per month -1-2 utility bills bi-month1y 11/81
·W
'0
o
0
0
0
'U
U
u
I 1 I : W
I 1
U
( )
I '.
fl
I
~
i W
U
:1 ..
REVISED 3/25/82
SCENARIO # 2 -AMPLIFY HYDRO SYSTEM TO FULLY ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL PLANT AND
COMMUNITY EXPANSION WITH HYDRO POWER
Water Consumption (OOO's omitted) Power Consumption -KWHs (OOO's omitted)
Industrial(1)Domestic(2)Total Industrial Marina Domestic Total
7,920 1,468 9,388 269 25 66
F 7,920 1,468 9,388
M 1,100 667 1,767 417 25 62
A 1,100 667 1,767
M 33,000 667 33,667 333 8 61
J 33,000 667 33,667
J 33,000 667 33,667 362 6 64
A 33,000 667 33,667
S 1,100 667 1,767 694 14 70
0 1,100 1,468 2,568
N 7,920 1,468 9,388 369 6 94
D 7,920 1,468 9,388
Annual Total: 180,089 Annual Total:
(1) Industrial water use increases est. 10% over scenario #1.
(2) Domestic water use increases est. 3% over Scenario #1.
Boat Days @ Marina Employees Residents (1)
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Month 111 112 #1 112 111 112
I
I J I 50 60 175 180 I
I F 4,500 I
I
50 60 175 180
I
M I 60 70 175 180 I
j
A I 65 75 175 180 1,830 (l)
0"> M s:: 90 100 200 205 to
J )
;£! u 110 120 200 205
(l)
130 205 J ) 7,360 r-l 120 200 ~
A ) .,.,j 120 140 200 205 u
Q)
S $.i 40 80 175 180 0.
0 3.,720 0. 40 80 175 180 to
0
N z 40 60 175 180
D 3,050 50 60 175 180
360 Dec/Jan
504 Feb/Mar
402 Apr/May
432 June/July
778 Aug/Sept
469 Oct/Nov
2,945
Homes (1)
Scenario Scenario
111 il2
75 78
(1 ) Increases in residents and homes only reflect change in processing strategies and do not
. 1 account for an estimated 5% increase in population over the next 5 years due to a natural
I~ influx of people.
I J 106/19 -2-11/81
"0 ! Business Trends (OOO·s omitted) i ---------------
o
I
(1) Year
Gross Sales
Pelican C.S.
Gross Revenues
Water
Pelican U.
Gross Revenues
Power
Pelican U.
; Q -±9:j~· Seafood Store
I
FY 1977 Fn 1978
FP 1979
Fn 1980
F~1981
6,438 682
7,234 679
9,888 923
14,861
13,658
964
712
6
6
6
6 (3)
11
75
125
140
144 (2)
210
Ci
lJwnat do you anticipate the 1982 cost/kilowatt-hour for diesel generation will be
at Pelican? Assuming fuel costs at $1.18/ga1 and diesels generate same amount of KWHs in 1982
:las 1981, expect cost/KWH should be 23.5¢/KWH. Costs associated with this include labor for
~maintaining diesels, supplies, fuel, generating equipment annual depreciation and 25% of Dis-
tribution and Transmission Line Expense. This is based on the diesels supplying about 25% U of the total power generated.
What do you anticipate the 1982 costs per gallon of diesel will be at Pelican?
~AVerage 1982 price for diesel (heating fuel #2) will be approximately $1.18/ga110n .
. \
U
, I
U
J
, 1
I U (1)
. 1 (2) J (3)
Pelican's FY is April 1 to March 31.
Pelican Utility power rates increased 22% during FY 1980 .
Pelican utility water rates increased about 40% during FY 1980.
-3-11/81
o
D
D
r ' :U
I
, 1
, 1
J
Pelican Cold storage Company
Questionnaire
A. How the Sand Point operation would be cut back.
The Sand Point operation could be cut back in the areas of product storage
and boxing. By storing more product in Pelican and utilizing the location
to box seafood into a final marketable form, electric power that is used
to run refrigeration equipment at Sand Point to store products could be
saved. If this project were undertaken, a slight reduction in employees
is possible at Sand Point. The big savings, however, would be in discon-
tinuing Pelican Cold Storage Company's reliance on Seattle cold storage
companies for product storage and secondary processing.
B. Additional plant and community expansion potential when certain Sand Point
and Seattle processing activities are shifted to pelican.
Plant Expansion. Additional storage capacity will have to be added to the
Pelican facility to store product from Sand point, Port Alexander and Pelican
throughout the year. Pelican is presently able to store roughly two million
pounds of product and if the Sand Point and Port Alexander facilities utilized
the Pelican location to store products, it is estimated that Pelican would need
space for over 4 million pounds during the months of August, September and October,
providing the three plants produce on a scale comparative to 1981 season poundage.
This assumes salmon roe, opilio crab and roe herring are sold FOB plant and 1981
levels of salmon are canned. This also assumes utilizing Pelican totally for
storage and secondary processing. Additional storage requirements would pro-
bably necessitate an additional load of 175,000 KWHs per year for the additional
refrigeration needed. Boxing operations would not require a substantial in-
crease in power demand except for an increased use of heat, lighting and employee
power needs, creating an additional power demand approximately 100,000 KWHs/year.
An additional annual use of 50,000 KWHs per year would be needed for heat, lighting
and miscellaneous other needs to support the added cold storage area over and
above the refrigeration requirements. An additional 325,000 KWHs per year would
be required at Pelican providing this project were undertaken. Based on 1981
storage amounts from the three plants and estimated product life in storage at
Pelican, the 325,000 KWHs were spread over the six bi-monthly billing periods
in the following percentiles, (see Scenario #2 power consumption estimates):
December/January
February/March
April/May
June/July
August/September
October/November
15%
10%
10%
15%
30%
20%
· .
-2-
The domestic load would only increase by 15,000 KWHs as a result of Pelican's
expansion. There would be no effect on the harbor's power use.
Conserving energy will become an increasing effort by all users but as electric
power becomes more readily available and fuel prices continue to increase, any
savings from conserving will be negated by converting over to electric power
from fuel powered machinery.
I :J
I
ID
!
'e
I
o
,~
,~
u
o
~
J
j >
~
r )
I U.
I
!
I~
IW
i
'J
I
J
I
W
'J
:J I
APPENDIX D
HYDROLOGIC BASIC DATA
n U
iJ
In W
r 1
I~
TABLE D.1
COMPARISON OF GAGING STATIONS, 1977-1978
(cfs/sq mil
Month Black River Hook Creek Hook Creek Tono1ite Creek
(24.7 sq mil (4.48 sq mil (8 sq mil (14.5 sq mil
Oct 25.2 31.3 26.6 34.1
Nov 6.15 13.7 15.0 12.3
Dec 3.15 8.1 5.41 7.83
Jan 5.14 1.21 .75 1.30
Feb 7.41 .75 .44 .70
Mar 5.06 4.22 2.83 2.48
Apr 10.2 8.35 5.65 6.97
May 15.1 17.5 10.9 13.2
Jun 10.5 8.86 6.26 7.17
Ju1 6.92 5.13 3.49 4.54
Aug 4.49 2.66 1. 70 2.79
Sep 7.65 5.09 2.76 4.4
Total 106.97 106.87 81.79 97.88
Mean 8.91 8.91 6.81 8.16
Upon analysis of Table D.1, Hook Creek (4.48 sq mil was
selected for correlation to Pelican Cove Creek. The statis-
tics used are:
HOOK CREEK
Area: 4.48 sq mi total
3.82 sq mi above EL 750
0.66 sq mi below EL 750
Period of record:
Historical peak:
since August 1967
1290 cfs max.
1.5 cfs min.
12 year average runoff: ·20,810 AF/yr
or 85.5 in/yr
or 28.2 cfs
D-1
120/16 1/82
u
D
o
i ' U.
U
IU
I
D
r 1
W
J
J
I
J
ID
Year Runoff
1978-79
1977-78
1976-77
1975-76
1974-75
1973-74
1972-73
1971-72
1970-71
1969-70
1968-69
Mean
PELICAN CREEK
Area: 12.95 sq mi total
10.53 sq mi above EL 750
2.42 sq mi below EL 750
UPPER PHONOGRAPH
(acre-feet)
29,070
16,050
21,980
23,070
28,980
16,820
22,140
17,450
17,950
21,480
13,920
20,810
Area: 1.34 sq mi total (all above EL 750)
D-2
120/16 1/82
-------------------------... ----
TABLE D.2
HOOK CREEK RECORD
(cfs/ sq mil
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
78-79 31.3 13.7 8.1 1. 21 .75 4.22 4.35 17.5 8.86 5.13 2.66 5.09
77-78 16.4 4.4 1.4 2.12 2.18 4.09 6.54 10.9 4.38 1.6 .83 4.35
76-77 12 11.2 6.67 6.05 12.60 3.21 8.46 7.48 6.92 2.39 .77 4.24
75-76 8.37 2.34 6.54 3.62 2.68 3.1 5.71 17.3 15.2 7.52 2.61 10.1
74-75 23.9 14.2 8.86 2.88 1.27 :'.; .98 3.62 17 16.6 7.25 2.86 7.19
0 73-74 10.1 1. 72 1. 33 .73 3.66 1.21 6.18 15.5 11 4.73 1. 54 4.46 I
w 72-73 14 6.83 1. 77 1.6 2.66 1. 79 7.14 16.4 12.6 5.6 5.54 5.78
71-72 7.28 7.46 1 0.7 .5 1. 79 1.49 14.6 13 4.64 5.67 6.21
70-71 9.02 4.87 1.46 2.75 1. 78 2.23 3.84 11. 3 15.2 4.2 3.57 6.23
69-70 4.83 11.3 7.87 2.46 7.49 5.15 5.33 10 8.47 6.11 3.68 8.01
68-69 6.99 4.84 2.05 1.91 3.4 4.05 3.6 5.8 3.0 1.2 1.08 9.16
Mean 13.11 7.53 4.28 2.37 3.54 2.89 5.11 13.07 10.47 4.58 2.80 6.44
Mean
% R.O. 17.3 9.9 5.6 3.1 4.6 3.8 6.7 17.2 13.7 6.0 3.7 8.4
LJ IL:] LJ
TABLE D.3
HOOK CREEK MINIMUM FLOWS
(cfs)
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
78-79 21 18 9.4 4.2 2.4 3.4 9.6 48 18 8.7 3.9 4.2
77-78 7.5 7.6 4.4 2.9 3.0 4.0 12 29 6.6 4.3 2.6 3.0
76-77 10 17 14 11 25 6.9 10 20 20 5.0 2.0 1.7
75-76 11 6.4 5 5 5.5 5 6.7 38 45 14 5.5 7.1
74-75 22 14 11 6 2.5 2.9 5.6 25 46 14 6.3 8.4
0 73-74 13 3 3.5 2 2.6 4 9 4.2 33 9.2 2.6 2.3
I
~ 72-73 12 11 2.5 2 3.5 4 12 41 29 12 10 7.1
71-72 11 11 1.5 1.5 1.7 2 4 9 35 9 7.4 7
70-71 16 3.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 5 5 18 35 5.3 5 6.1
69-70 6.2 9.9 9.4 4 9.4 9.7 12 20 23 7.4 5.7 9.9
68-69 8.2 9 4.5 2.8 5 8.5 8 16 8.2 3.5 2.1 13
Mean 12.5 10.0 6.1 3.9 3.6 5.0 8.5 24.4 27.2 8.4 4.8 6.3
lu
I
I
I
W
Q
U
D
U
U
0
U APPENDIX E
I
( ) COST ESTIMATES
U
'LJ
1° :U
I
(1
~
IU
I
'1 ~
J
J
r 1
J
o
u
I W
10
J
(l ·w
I
:J
I
lJ
/ 1
l~
APPENDIX E
COST ESTIMATES
Cost Estimate
Alternati ve #1
Description of Item Uni t Quanti ty
Mobi li zati on & DemobiIi. zati on L. S.
Dam Restorati on
Vi squeen Fad ng (Upstream)
Vi squeen Ba llas ti ng
Remove Spi llway
Replace Rock in Dam
Seal Downstream Face
Set Grout Pi pes
Grout Dam
Replace Wi. ngwall
Toppi.ng Dam
Flume Restoration
New Trash Racks
Replace Flume w/60"foJ
Pi. pe through Tunnel
New 48"foJ Sluice
Seal Tunnel Portals
Upgrade Diversion Box
Reconstruct Rock Box
@ Penstock Forebay
Misc. Flume Repairs
Penstock
New 36"foJ Woodstave Penstock
Demoli tion
Flume & Penstock Substructure
Cleanup
Misc. Repairs
Powerhouse
Modify & Repair
(500 kW) New Machinery
Package
Freight & Installation
120/26
S.F.
C.Y.
L.S.
C.Y.
S.F.
EA.
C.F.
S.F.
L.S.
L.S.
L.F.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.F.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
S.F.
L.S.
L.S.
6,000
250
250
1,450
5
18,000
510
189
326
600
Subtotal
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL
E-1
Um t Price Cost
$100,000 $100,000
2
20
5,000
20
10
1,000
20
30
7,500
4,000
250
12,000
2,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
150
5,000
5,000
10,000
80
400,000
200,000
12,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
14,500
5,000
360,000
15,300
7,500
4,000
47,250
12,000
2,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
48,900
5,000
5,000
10,000
48,000
400,000
200,000
$1,346,450
336,650
$1,683,100
4/82
o
o
o
o
u
J
Descri pti on of Item
CAT 3408 FAS Seattle
CAT 3408 Installation
120/26
Cost EStimate
Alternati ve #2
Uni t Quantity Uni t Pri ce
E.A. 38,000
L.S. 10,000
Subtotal
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL
E-2
Cost
38,000
10,000
$48,000
12,000
$60,000
4/82
o
(1
~
o
u
, w
I
J
T1
J
Descri pti on of Item
Mobilization & Demobilization
Dam Restorati on
Per Alt #1
Flume Restoration
Per Alt #1
Replace Flume from Tunnel
to Surge Chamber Rock Box
Penstock
Per Alt #1
Cost ESti mat e
Alternati ve #3
Uni t Quanti t y
L.F. 511
Flume & Penstock Substructure
Per Alt #1
Powerhouse
Modi fy & Repai r
New Machi nery Package
(750 kW)
Freight & Installation
Extended Draft Tube
New Afterbay
120/26
S.F.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
600
Subtotal
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL
E-3
Uni t Pri ce
400
80
600,000
300,000
10,000
25,000
Cost
$100,000
429,300
100,250
204,400
53,900
15,000
48,000
600,000
300,000
10,000
25,000
$1,885,850
471,450
$2,357,300
4/82
o
o I "
iU' , \
U
D
: (1
I~
!
: :,"1 I~
I U
( "
\ i W
APPENDIX F
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
I'
• 1 ~
o
I (!
~.
u
o
,~
I
: 1
1--I
J
I
J
APPENDIX F
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
The economic analyses are based on the present worth of the following
combinations of three alternative projects and two load scenarios:
Description
Required kWh of Annual
Combination Alternative Power Production
(kWh)
Alt. # 1 , Scenario #1 500 MW hydro + diesel standby 2,626,000
Alt. #1, Scenario #2 500 MW hydro + diesel standby 3,516,000
Alt. #2, Scenario #1 All diesel 2,626,000
Alt. #2, Scenario #2 All diesel 3,516,000
Alt. #3, Scenario #1 750 MW hydro + diesel standby 2,626,000
Al t. #3, Scenario #2 750 MW hydro + diesel standby 3,516,000
Assumptions
Assumptions are:
1) Inflation rate is 0 percent.
2) The discount interest rate is 3 percent.
3) Except for fuel, the O&M costs are the same under all options and
therefore are not included in the analyses.
Fuel costs are $1.18/gallon in 1982, escalating at 2.6 percent for
20 years (to 1.92/gal in the year 2202) and thereafter remaining
level.
4) The economic life of hydro facilities is 50 years, except that
runners are assumed to be replaced at 20 years and wood stave pipe
at 35 years. 1982 runner costs are taken at 10 percent of in-
stalled machinery costs, i.e., $60,000 for Alt. #1 and $90,000 for
Al t. #3.
F-1
120/27
u
o
)' U
u
i 11
J
J
J
:,
'1
~
5) The economic life of diesel generators is 20 years. The data on
these costs are:
Unit
* #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Cat D333A Cat D333A Cat 343 Cat 3408 Cat 3408
Exists Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Service Prime Prime
Existing rating 100 kW 100 kW
Purchased 1964 1964
Replace 1984 1984
2004 2004
2024 2024
Life remaining at
50 years 13 13
1982 equivalent Cat 3306T Cat 3306T
New rating 130 kW 130 kW
1982 cost FOB Seattle $24,000 $24,000
Ship & install $10,000 $10,000
New constr. cont. 25%
1982 replacement cost $34,000 $34,000
* Required for Alt. #1, Scenario #2
Alt. #2, Scenario #1 & #2
Alt. #3, Scenario #2
Standby Prime Prime
285 kW 200 kW 225 kW
1974 1974 1982
1994 1994 2002
2014 2014 2022
3 3 11
Cat 3406T Cat 3408 Cat 3408
300 kW 225 kW 225 kW
$35,000 $38,000 $38,000
$10,000 $10,000 $10,000
12,000
$45,000 $48,000 $48,000
6) A 50-year study period is used, because this is the longest eco-
nomic life among the options compared.
7) Straight-line depreciation is assumed in calculating the salvage
value of diesel components at the end of the study period.
8) No growth period is assumed for the load scenarios. That is to
say that under Scenario #1 the required power production is
2,626,000 kWh per year for each year in the study period, and
under Scenario #2 is 3,516,000 kWh (refer to tables 10.1 and
10.2) •
9) Fuel costs per kWh for diesel production are taken from
a) $1.18/gal -information furnished by Pelican Cold Storage Co.
and b) 111.1 gal of diesel and .6 gal of lube oil required per MWh of
diesel production - a figure approved by APA.
F'-2
120/27
o
o
u
u
u
IU
~ 1 ..
Then, 111. 1 x $1. 1 8 = $131.10
0.6 x 3.95 =
or
2.37
$133.47/MWh
$.133/kWh
10) Waste heat recovery is only practical under Alternative #2, and
even then it is questionable. The points of use are believed to
be only at the cold storage plant and realistic capital costs for
the system that would utilize it are not now known. Accordingly,
waste heat recovery is not included in these analyses but will be
looked into in more detail in Phase II.
Peak Demands
Assume industrial peaking = 1.2 x Aug/Sep load (ref. Appendix C).
Assume domestic peaking = 2.0 x Aug/Sep load (ref. Appendix C).
Assume distribution and "non-metered" losses = 19.3% (tables 10.1 and
10.2) •
Scenario #1
....;4....;.6-i:5"""_0..,,.0_0_k....;.W_h....;. x
60 days
79,000 kWh x 60 days
Scenario #2
694,000 kWh x 60 days
84,000 kWh x 60 days
Plant Capacities
Alternative #1
Days x 1.193 x 1.2 24 hrs
Days x 1.193 x 2.0 24 hrs Total
Days x 1 .193 x 1 .2 24 hrs
Days x 1.193 x 2.0 24 hrs Total
Installed hydro 500 kW
462 kW industrial peak
= 131 kW domestic peak
= 593 kW
= 690 kW industrial peak
= 139 kW domestic peak
= 829 kW
Installed diesel 685 kW (existing)
Total = 1,185 kW
Scenario #1 • Required capacity = 593 kW <685.
Scenario #2. Required capacity = 829 kW >685, <1,185.
Since August is a peak month of industrial production and the low
month of runoff, diesel unit #5 is recommended for standby to give complete
F-3
120/27
o
o
Q
o
o
( l
W
r 1 \ I ~
reliability to the system in the event of outage at the hydro plant. In-
stalled diesel kW = 685 + 225 = 910 >829.
Alternative #2
* Installed diesel = 685 + 225 = 910 kW .( Scenario # 1 & #2) •
* NOTE: Diesel #5 added even for Scenario #1 as a required standby
under the year around load factor
Scenario #1. Required capacity = 593 kW <910.
Scenario #2. Required capacity = 829 kW <910.
Alternative #3
Installed hydro 750 kW.
Installed diesel = 685 kW (Scenario #1).
Installed diesel = 850 kW (Scenario #2).
Scenario #1. Required capacity = 593 kW <910.
Scenario #2. Required capacity = 829 kW <910.
Production
The following table is derived from Table 7.1 and page 10-1.
Produced Produced
Year kWh Produced by Diesel by Diesel
(%) (lis)
1977 2,350,000 21.3 500,550
1978 2,540,000 31.5 800,100
1979 2,650,000 20.4 540,600
1980 2,450,000 14.7 360,150
Mean (existing)
x 1.15 = hydro production (Alt. #1) =
x 1.27 = hydro production (Alt. #3) =
F-4
120/27
Produced
by Hydro
(lis)
1,849,450
1,739,900
2,109,400
2,089,850
1,947,150
2,239,200
2,472,900
rl ~
o
u
o
u
u
( 1
~
Table--Continued
Year kWh Produced
Produced
by Diesel
(%)
Accordingly (ref. tables 10.1 and 10.2)
Required annual production
Alt. #1 hydro production
Alt. #2 diesel production
Alt. #2 diesel production
Alt. #3 hydro production
Alt. #3 diesel production
Present Worth of Diesel Costs
Alternative #1, Scenario #1
Produced
by Diesel
(% )
#1
(kWh)
2,626,000
2,239,200
386,800
2,626,000
2,472,900
153, 100
Scenario
Produced
by Hydro
(%)
#2
(kWh)
3,516,000
2,239,200
1,276,800
3,516,000
2,472,900
1,043,100
Present worth of the escalating annual amount for years 1-20.
A = 386,800 kWh x $.133jkWh = $51,444
PW 1 _20 =
e = .026 escalation factor
i = .03 discount factor
n 20
PW 1 _20 = A (19.204) = $51,444(19.204) = $987,931
Present worth of fixed annual amount for years 21-50.
A = $51,444(1.026)19 = $83,779
@ 3% discount
PW 21 -50 = PW50 -PW 20 = A(25.73-14.877) = $83,779(10.853) = $909,253
Alternative #1, Scenario #2
A1 _20 = (1,276,800 kWh) ($.133/kWh) = $169,814
PW 1 _20 = ($169,814)(19.204) = $3,261,108
A21 _50 = $169,814(1.026)19 = $276,550
PW 21 -50 = ($276,550)(10.853) = $3,001,397
F-5
120/27
" rl '~
I o
~U
o
I)
W
o
u
u
u
r' U
( 1
: i ..
u
J
Alternative Scenario #1
A1 _20 = (2,626,000 kWh) ($.133/kWh) = $349,258
PW 1 -20 = $349,258(19.204) = $6,707,151
A21 -50 = $349,258(1.026)19 = $568,782
PW 21 -50 $568,782(10.853) = $6,172,991
Alternative #2, Scenario #2
A1 _20 = (3,516,000 kWh) ($.133/kWh) = $467,628
PW 1 _20 = $467,628(19.204) = $8,980,328
A21 -50 = $467,628(1.026)19 = $761,553
PW 21 _50 = $761,533(10.853) = $8,265,135
Alternative #3, Scenario #1
A
1
_
20 (153,100 kWh) ($.133/kWh) $20,362
PW 1 _20 = $20,362(19.204) = $391 ,032
A21 -50 = $20,362(1.026)19 = $33,160
PW 21-50 $33,160(10.853) = $359,885
Alternative #3, Scenario #2
A 1 _20 = (1,043,100kWh) ($.133/kWh) = $138,732
PW 1 _20 $138,732(19.204) = $2,664,209
A21 -50 = $138,732(1.026)19 = $225,931
PW 21 -50 = $225,931(10.853) = $2,452,029
Recapitulation
Al terna ti ve # 1
Al terna ti ve #2
Alternative #3
120/27
PW/Fuel Costs
Scenario #1 Scenario #2
$ 1,897,184
12,880,142
750,917
F-6
$ 6,262,505
17,245,463
5,116,238
Cl ~
Ll
o
o
u
u
r l , I
~
n
I~
I
J I "
J
I
:W
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
Present Worth, Alternative #1, Scenario #1
Capital Cost
Replacement Costs
Runners at yr. 2002 $60,000(.5537)
at yr. 2022 $60,000(.3066)
Penstock and flume
at yr. 2018 $373,550(.3553)
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1 at yr. 1984 $34,000(.0426)
at yr. 2004 $34,000(.5219)
at yr. 2024 $34,000(.2890)
#2 at yr. 1984 $34,000(.9426)
at yr. 2004 $34,000(.5219)
at yr. 2024 $34,000(.2890)
#3 at yr. 1994 $45,000(.7014)
at yr. 2014 $45,000(.3883)
#4 at yr. 1994 $48,000(.7019)
at yr. 2014 $48,000(.3883)
Salvage Value of Diesels
120/27
#1 (13/20)($34,000)(.2281)
#2 (13/20)($34,000)(.2281)
#3 (3/20)($45,000){.2281)
#4 (3/20)($48,000)(.2281)
Total
F-7
Present Worth
$1,683,100
33,222
18,396
132,760
1,897,184
32,048
17,745
9,826
32,048
17,745
9,826
31,563
17,474
33,667
18,638
(5041)
(5,041)
(1,540)
( 1 ,642)
$3,971,978
o
o
D
o
, r )
W
r 1
!jJ
I
\ 1 ~
u
Present Worth, Alternative #1, Scenario #2)
Capital Costs
Diesel #5 +
Replacement Cost
Runners, penstock and flume
per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
#5 at yr. 2002 $48,000(.5537)
2022 $48,000(.3066)
Salvage Value of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
#5 (11/20) ($48,000) ( .2281 )
Total
Present Worth, Alternative #2, Scenario #1
Capi ta I Cos t
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, per Alt.#l, Seen.
Salvage Value of Diesels
# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, per Alt. # 1 , Seen.
Total
Present Worth, Alternative #2, Scenario #2
Capi tal Cost
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, per Alt.
Salvage Value of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, per Alt.
120/27
#1 , Seen.
# 1, Seen.
Total
F-8
#2
#2
#2
#2
Present Worth
$1,683,100
60,000
184,378
6,262,505
220,580
26,578
14,717
(13,264)
(6,022)
$8,433,572
Present Worth
$ 60,000
12,880,142
261,875
(19,286 )
$13,182,731
Present Worth
$ 60,000
17,245,463
261,875
(19,286)
17,548,052
o
o
D
I fi
U
r 1
W
( )
W
u
, i
J
Present Worth, Alternative #3, Scenario #1
Capi ta I Cos t
Replacement Costs
Runners at yr. 2202 $90,000(.5537)
at yr. 2022 $90,000(.3066)
Penstock & flume per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
Salvage Value of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, per Alt. #1, Seen. #1
Total
Present Worth, Alternative #3, Scenario #2
Capi tal Cost
Diesel #5
Replacement Costs
Runners, penstock & flume
per Alt. #3, Seen. #1
Fuel Costs
Replacement Costs of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, per Alt.
Salvage Value of Diesels
#1, 2, 3, 4, & %, per Alt.
120/27
+
#1, Seen.
#1, Seen.
Total
F-9
#2
#2
Present Worth
$2,357,300
49,833
27,594
132,760
750,917
220,580
(13,264)
$2,774,803
Present Worth
$2,357,300
60,000
210,187
5,116,238
261,875
(19,286 )
7,986,314
, II
~
D
APPENDIX G
PHOTOGRAPHS
(Sul::mitted with Diary Report)
o
D
IU
10
o
o
w
U
J
1° I
r \ , I jl-J
I
I , 1
W
: ~ 1
I~
, '1
I~
~
I
'W
I 'J
I
IJ
APPENDIX H
REPORT OF BENJAMIN C. HAIGHT
PROJECT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
, r 1
\J
1
0
:l
I~
IJ
January 21,1982
USKH
2515 "All Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
ATTN: Mr. Richard Mayes, P.E.
B.C. HAIGHT
Consulting Engineer
RE: Pelican Electrical System Study
Dear Rick:
I have completed a survey of the Pelican Utility Company System as you requested
in your letter to me on January 8. Enclosed is all the information that you
requested, plus graphs of the energy usage and energy production by the two power
plants.
Due to the short length of time that I was there, I could not visually checK the
control and instrumentation connections. My single line diagrams assume some
connecti ons based upon standard 'practi ce, and are intended to primarily show the
operational relationships of the equipment.
. As you may note from my enclosed report, a certain amount of system rehabilitation
is necessary just to optimize the energy consumption by the existing facility, to
optimize the'operations time by the plant engineers, and to maintain the past
good record of reliability. This rehabilitation should include reconditioning
the hydro generator and exciters, installing a new control and switch gear panel
with a new voltage regulator for the hydro generator, adding remote controls and
supervision of the hydro plant from the diesel plant, adding protective relaying
and more metering to the diesel generators, and testing and calibrating the
existing equipment. You may also observe in the single line diagram that there
appears to be no protection of the feeders, transformers, and panel boards for the
cold storage plant. This should be corrected. Also note in the nameplate data
that diesel generator no. 3 must be derated for continuous operation.
Please call if you have questions or a need for additional information.
Enclosures
c.c. Mr. Thomas Whitmarsh
C.e.. Nt." Io-\"'~\I'~ t...l1.4-tc.k~~r;,o~
Ben Haight, P.E. • 119 Seward St. NO.2. . Juneau, Alaska 99801 • (907) 586-97 88
o
D
r-'
U
o
u
( ,
I 1
W
: 1 W
: I I~
r \
I
U
J I
. I 1
I~
:J
I
'l
I~
'J
I
'l
I~
IJ
Pelican Utility Company
Electrical Generation and Distribution System
1. Hydro Electric Generator
This generator is located in a building on Pelican
Creek near the south end of town. The generator is driven by a James
Leffel & Co. horizontal hydraulic turbine. Detailed information can be
obtained from a report written by the chief engineer, Tom Whitmarsh, January
1981. The generator field is excited by a rotating d.c. generator. In
1978 a second d.c. generator and regulator was purchased and installed as
backup excitation. This unit has never been functional. The existing
excitation equipment has operated a long time with minimal maintenance.
The controls-and switchgear are an accumulation of equipment mounted in a
single open panel.
A. Generator:
The generator is still a very functional machine. It is dirty, losing
its paint. The winding and lead insulations are questionable. A tele-
phone call was made to Lloyd Electric in Seattle, Washington, seeking
recommendations and an estimate to entirely rewind the unit. Due to
the fact that it is still a functional unit with no apparent problems,
they do not recommend a rewind. They do recommend what they call a
"basic," which is defined to be an inspection and test of the unit in
their shop for an approximate cost of $450. They expect that the most
that they would propose to do would be to clean, dip the stator and
rotor in type H insulation, bake, replace the bearings, balance, and
retest the machine. The scope of work would be best determined during
the "basic.1I A total rewind cost is approximately $22,000 in Seattle.
B. Excitation:
The original excitation system needs replacement. At the time of the
field survey, January 13 and 14, 1982, this unit was non-functional,
and attempts were being made to troubleshoot the problems. The second
excitation system utilizes a modern Basler regulator and is arcing badly
at the brushes while in operation •. The regulator is mounted on the wall
separately from the main control panel. The excitation systems can be
rebuilt and tested by Lloyd Electric when the generator is rebuilt and
tested.
C. Controls and Instrumentation:
The controls and instrumentation are very minimal and in poor condition.
, The control panel has been modified many times with no indications left
of the internal wiring and connections. Much of the equipment and
wiring is unaccessible for connection verification. The control wiring
o
o
o
o
is located with the 2400 volt conductors. The entire control panel
needs to be replaced with a standard designed panel with new controls
and instrumentation.
D. Protective Relaying:
The only protection to the generator is an undervo1tage device on the
circuit breaker and overcurrent· fusing. It is recommended that new
relaying in accordance to today's standards be installed with the above
mentioned new control panel.
E. Turbine Safety Devices:
The unit is provided with standard safety devices monitoring bearing
oil temperatures, governor oil pressure, governor belt condition, and
turbine water pressure. There is no overspeed sensor; overspeed condi-
tions have occurred. These devices need 'overhauling and reca1ibration.
They should be reconstructed to show their alarm condition at one
annunciator panel assiciated with the main control panel.
2. Diesel Power Plant
The diesel power plant which contains four diesel driven generators is
10Gated on the opposite end of Pelican from the hydro plant in a building
which also contains the refrigeration equipment for the cold storage plant.
Each generator unit is a standard packaged, skid mounted unit. The controls
and safety devices are all self-contained. The engines are all cooled via
radiators mounted to their skids. The building is in good condition.
A. Controls and Instrumentation:
The generator circuit breakers and instruments are enclosed in indi-
vidual enclosures floor mounted against a wall at one end of the room.
Two additional enclosures contain the outgoing feeder and cold storage
feeder equipment. The control and instrument connections were not
verified. The meters should be tested and calibrated and the circuit
breakers should be adjusted and tested.
B. Protective Relaying:
The only protection for each generator other than the circuit breakers
are reverse power relays. It is unlikely that these have been cali-
brated since installation. It is recommended that new additional
relaying in accordance to today's standards be installed.
3. Distribution System
The distribution system consists of a 2400 volt insulated overhead line
routed the length of the town. The overhead line consists of three
conductors on pin insulators and crossarms. The poles and crossarms are
being replaced on a regular basis and appear to be in good condition.
jl w
U
U
I
U
'0
I -
w
,
IU
U
U
J
, ~ 1
I~
!
( \
:(J
I
j
U
iJ
1
!~
I J
With the exception of the crab cannery and the cold storage plant, all
secondary services are developed from pole mounted transformers. Most of
the residential transformer containers are rusted with no visible size
markings. Their sizes are estimated to be 15 KVA each. The other trans-
former sizes are shown on the drawing. The overhead line size was identi-
fied by Leonard Lowell & Associates in his report of 1977 to be No.2 AWG.
This was not verified. Loads through the various transformers were not
determined. The primary fuse sizes were not verified.
A. Controls:
The system has three control pOints: (1) The hydro generator circuit
breaker, (2) a main circuit breaker at the diesel power plant, and
(3) a remote operated sectionalizing switch which separates the cold
storage plant, the diesel power plant and cannery from the remainder
of the system. The circuit breakers are both localiy operated. The
sectionalizing switch is operated from the diesel power plant. The
controls were not verified for safety interlocks preventing connection
of the two buses with the sectionalizing switch.
4. System Controls
The main operations center is located in the diesel power plant. The only
remote instrumentation monitored is the ampere output of the hydro generator.
The only remote control is for the sectionalizing switch. The generator
loads are monitored via the demand needle on the KW/KWH meters. There are
no kilowatt, var~ or power factor meters.
It is recommended that kilowatt and var or power factor meters be permanently
installed with each generator to aid in operating the generation systems
more efficiently. It is further recommended that these indications plus the
ampere and voltage indications from the hydro plant be remoted to the diesel
plant. The remote indications and controls for the hydro plant should also
include a general alarm, and voltage and speed controls.
5. Buildings
A. Hydro Generator Plant:
This building is a wood frame structure on a concrete slab. It appears
to be structurally sound with a good exterior appearance. The interior
is unfinished and difficult to maintain. The building needs a general
upgrade.
B. Diesel Generator Plant:
This building is a metal building on a concrete slab. The overall
appearance is good. Although the generator plant space is minimal,
it is adequate.
o
I~l
U
\
U
U
U
U
U
'U
\ :u ' I
\ '
I 1 dj
1
6. References
A. Report by Leonard Lowell & Associates, dated 1977.
B. Report by Mr. Thomas Whitmarsh, Chief Engineer for Pelican Utility
Company, dated August 1980.
C. Report by Mr. Thomas Whitmarsh, dated January 1981.
O. Report by Robert W. Retherford Associates, dated 1977.
Benjamin C. Haight, P.E.
January 22, 1982
o
U
! U
I
r--
U
\u
. ; 1
\W
J
IJ
!
iJ
1
J
\
I J
I
i J
NAMEPLATE DATE
1. Hydro Generator:
General Electric
No. 607224 P.F. 1.0 .
Type ATB 10-500-760/735-
Form C 500 KW
2300 Volt 125 AMP 760/735 RPM
2. Diesel Generator No. 1
3. 0; esel
4. Diesel
5. Diesel
Caterpill a r D333A
1800 RPM 480 Volt 150 AMP
TOO1<w
Generator No. 2
Caterpillar D333A
1800 RPM 480 Volt 150 AMP
TOO1<w
Generator No. 3
Caterpillar D343
1800 RPM 460 Volt 447 AMP
~KW STANDBY
~. Frame No. 449
Generator No.
Caterpillar
1800 RPM
~KW
4
3408
480 Volt 412 AMP
1Q5°c TEMP RI-sr-
6. Hydro Generator Governor
7.
8.
Woodward
Type VR
No. 479"3
FOOT POUNDS 2,000
Hydro Voltage Regulator No. 1
General Electric
Diactor
N.P. 76964-B
Hydro Voltage Regulator No. 2
Basler
11
W
W
U
W
D
r~l
W
i W
I
IU
r 1
I U
!J
i
I
J
,J
I :J
I
IJ
iJ
iJ
9. Hydro Undervoltage Device
General Electric
Type PG-7 CAT 6300140 G38
230 VOlt
10. Diesel Generators Power Relay
General Electric
,Type 1CW Model 121CW5242A
Pick up 25/100
11. Kilowatt/Kilowatthour Meters
General Electric
Type DSMH-53
15 mi n I nterva 1
,/
ELECTRICAL
~ N E RG. Y I,OtII>
CDN'&U NlPTION
(MW~)
1500
18
YEAR5
81"
PEl-lCAN EN~R.G.'{
CONSUMPnoN
0~ft-l~el)
.. DEC. VA.LUI:: ~VE~A(.El:> F"R,OM. PRE."'OlJ~
'(EA-R'& ~OWN
E'L.:.e.C.TRICAL 2J:»
ENERG.V
eON~UMPnON
(MWI-t)
,00
J
'-'11415. (.MONTHS)
----------.------
PEUCAN ENERU'(
CONSUMPTION
1'311
e:NE~V
co NSUMPTION
(N\wJ.l)
too
J F M A M J
rlM.E (MONTHS)
PELICAN EN ERG. Y
CONSUN\PTION
1~1-e
ToT"'-L.
o
'" ,
Za>
EL..E.CTRICt\L-
ENERa'('
C.Ot-lSUMPTION
(MWH)
100
-~~~-------------------------------
TI Me ltol\ONr\-\S)
PEL\CA.N E.N ERG '(
CONSUMPTION
19t9
El.ECTRlCAL
EN e.Rc;. y
CON QUMP1'lON
(MWI-l)
100
-----------
-'"
TIME. lMONTI-I'S)
-------------------------.-------
PELICAN EN ER.,.G..'(
CONSUMPTION
l<laO
ELECTR\CA.L
S).1E.RG. Y
CON!>UMPrr ON
(tw\WI-l)
P~LICMl . EN ER.C:. Y
CONSU""PTION
(qal
I
:Q
I o
:U
I , D
I
D
W
LJ
J
U
'J
I
U
U
IU
~
U
o
W
p
~
APPENDIX I
REVIEW COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
I
D
)1 •
o
r ')
W
! 1
~
u
U
r ,
U
fl
W
APPENDIX I
REVIEW COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
The following items, 1 isted below, contain comments
which were incorporated into the final report.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
120/17
10 March 1982 letter from State of Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources
25 March 1982 letter from Calvin Philbin
24 February 1982 submittal from Tom Whitmarsh
9 March 1982 letter from Pelican Utility Company
3 March 1982 review of draft report from Alaska
Power Authority
4 March 1982 letter from U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife
16 March 1982 letter from Department of Energy,
Alaska Power Authority
16 March 1982 letter from Alaska Fish and Game
1-10
REVISED 4/21/82
Ii
W
D
Q
u
U
J
j
J
DEPART1UENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ._ LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
March 10, 1982
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
JAY .t HAMMOND, GOrCRNOR
555 C ordolll
Pouch 7·00S
An!:horage, Ali 9951))
(9071 276-2653
REvEIVi.:'J
" .... -
I have reviewed "A Report to Alaska Power Authority On Pelican Power
Alternatives, Phase 1 -Reconnaissance Assessment. II The Water Management
·Section has management responsibility for water quantity and dam safety.
I offer the following comments in those areas.
Water Quantity
The Pelican Utility Company has water right certificate 43665 for 60 cfs
associated with this facility. If more water than this ;s required after
the modification, an Application for Water Right must be filed with this
Division for the additional quantity needed.
Dam Safety
Page 6-3 of , the report indicates that total failure of the dam is
envisioned during an exceptionally high flow, but no downstream loss
of life or property would be expected. This is in partial disagreement
with the Phase I Inspection Report of the Pelican Cove Creek Dam by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Page 6 of this report states that this
dam has a downstream hazard category of 2(significant) based on the potential
loss of life downstream of the dam. Because of this hazard the Corps of
Engineers has identified, and becuase of the impending dam failure, the
dam should either be destroyed or modified as soon as possible.
As mentioned on page 13-2 of the report to the Alaska Power Authority,
and according to 11 AAC 93.160, no work on the restoration or demolition
of thi s dam may begin until fi 1 ;ng an Appl ication to Construct or Modify
. ,.: . ,.
n
W
o
Q
i D
,
'0
o
{ -,
I~
.. I
, I i-
u
, J\
Eric P. Yould -2-March 10, 1982
a Dam and recelvlng approval from this Division. Therefore, I would
like to be kept informed as plans continue.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this report.
Sincerely,
J.W. SEDWICK
Director
'Po
BY: , P.E., Civil Engineer
Water Management Section
pc: Leila Wise, DNR
u ' , '
t_"WIiifi//iIldiI;~-, a&W!l!SZll'r we RWWiNl!#. d • M
'~
u
'1
~
u
u
r I
.J
March 25, 1982
Harvey:
As we discussed Scenario No.1 will remain the same, which
is a recap of 1981 power sales. Add 5% for line loss if
you want actual power generated.
Also, please remember to take out Gross Sales and Gross Re-
venues in the Business Trends section of my original question-
naire response.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Cavin W. Philbin
CWP/ak
cc: Jim Ferguson
n
:W
u
D
o
()
I~
I
J
I
'U
I
'U
I
')
\.J
-
I..OCAT1ONS
~~, ... ~' QIf;, , ... ...,4... .. ~A9963:
~ i:'.-~~:,It..* .. ::.'''''~''~''~l:.~'
UTILITY COMPANY
GENERAL OFFICES: 653 N,E, NORTHLAKE WAY. SEATTl.E. WASHINGTON .105· PHONE (201) U2-toOO
GENERAL OFFICES UAIUNG ADORESS: P.O, BOX 5538. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON .105
March 25, 1982
Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
Engineering Science
242 S. Main street
Alpine, Utah 84003
Dear Harvey:
Re: Electric Load Forecast Revision for Phase II
of Pelican Hydro study
Enclosed are 'load rev~s~ons for Scenario No. 2 of my original questionnaire
response to you dated January 8, 1982. We have had a chance to look more
closely into the power required to store an additional 2 million pounds of
~roduct and run a secondary boxing operation at Pelican. The annual total
on Scenario No. 2's power consumption increased from 2,541,000 KWHs to
2,945,00G KV.:ls.
7he methodology for applying this increase remained the same. I have also
rewritten the paragraph on plant expansion as follows:
B. Additional plant and community expansion potential when certain
Sand Point and seattle processing activities are shifted to Pelican.
Plant Expansion. Additional storage capacity will have to be added to
the Pelican facility to store product from Sand point, Port Alexar:der
and Pelican throughout the year. Pelican is presently able to store
roughly two million pounds of product and if the Sand Point and Port
Alexander facilities utilized the Pelican location to store products,
it is estimated that Pelican would need space for over 4 million pounds
dur ing the months of August, september and October, provi~h.ng tRe three-
plants produce on a scale comparative to 1981 season poundage. This
assumes salmon roe, opilio crab and roe herring are sold FOB plant and
1981 levels of salmon are canned. This also assumes utilizing Pelican
totally for storage and secondary processing. To store two million
pounds in a new, fully insulated facility would require a 38HP com-
pressor running 70\ of the time which would use about 175,000 KWHs
per year. Fans and a condenser pump would be rated at a total of 10HP
Which, running continuously, would use another 65,000 KWHs for a total
cold storage usage of 240,000 KWHs consumed annually. Lighting and
office heat for the cold storage would amount to another SO,OOO KWHs
per year.
I
I In '~
ID
10
I
ID
D
r ) \ I ~
u
IU
i
.
. : )
.~
I
J
u
J
March 25, 1982
Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
- 2 -
It is estimated that boxing product in pelican would require increased heat,
lighting and small motor use demanding 100 ,000 KWHs per year. Bunkhouse
power demand would increase 15\, or 45,000 KWHs per year.
Pelican Cold storage Company is also planning on adopting conservation measures
as part of an on-going program to cut back power use. The cold storage could
save a large amount of power by re-insulating the facility and decreasing in-
filtration through doors and other openings.
Other energy savings realized through cutting down on electricity use would
be negated by increased dependence on electrical power instead of diesel
powered machinery as fuel prices increase faster than electric rates.
The domestic load would be expected to increase by 30,000 KWHs (two to three
homes) as a result of Pelican's expansion. There would be no effect o~ the
harbor's or commercial users' power use as a result of the expansion.
Based on th~5e :igures, Pelican could expect an additional 435,000 KWHs
to be.consumed if a boxing operation were undertaken, not taking into account
energy savings. Based on 1981 storage amounts from the three plants and
estimated product life in storage at Pelican, the 435,000 KWHs were spread
over the six bi-monthly billing periods in the following percentiles, (see
scenario No.2 power consumption estimates):
Sincerely,
Cavin W. Philbin
General Manager
cwp/ak
December/January
February/March
April/May
June/July
August/september
October/November
15\
10\
10\
15\
30\
20\
cc: Jim Ferguson, Cal Boord, Tom Whitmarsh, Jerry Larson, APA
p' .. "r,;~,; . .
'r,. J.
U · SCENARIO' 2 -AMPLIFY HYDRO SYSTEM TO FU1.LY ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL PLANT AND lr COMMUNITY EXPANSION WITH HYDRO POWER
. 1
I I ~ Month
Water Consumption (OOO's omitted)
Indu6tr1al(1)Domestic(2)Total Industrial
J 7,920 1,468
Pover Consumption -KWHs (OOO's omitted)
Marina Domestic Total
9,388 360 Dec/Jan
F 7,920 1,468
269 25 66
9,388
H 1,100 667 1,767 417 25 62 504 Feb/Mar
;. 1,100 667 1,767
M 33,000 667 33,667 333 8 61 402 Apr/May
33,0~::l 667 33,667
.,~r ,
,
.~
T ~
J
J
;.
s
33,OCD 667
33,000 667
1,10:) 667
33,667 362 6 64 432 June/July
33,667
1,767 694 14 70 778 Aug/Sept
( 1 :~ I ! ~ IT
~ ~ ~
j
I I
1
IW
o 1,100 1,468 2,568
N 7,920 1,468 9,388 369 6 94
D 7,92Cl 1,468 9,388
k~nual Total: 180,089 Annual Total:
(1) In=ustrial water use increases est. 10\ over Scenario il.
(2) Dc:-:-.estic water use increases est. 3\ over Scenario 11.
Month
J
F
A
J
J
A
s
o
II
J)
)
Boat Days @ Marina
Scenario Scenario
#1 12
) 4,500
1,830
)
) 7,360
)
)
) 3,720
)
) 3,050
Employees
Scenario Scenario
11 12
50
50
60
65
9J
110
120
120
40
40
40
50
60
60
70
75
100
120
130
140
80
80
60
60
Residents (1)
Scenario
II
175
175
175
175
200
200
200
200
175
175
175
175
Scenario
12
180
180
180
180
205
205
205
205
180
180
180
180
469 OCt/Nov
2,945
'(. Homes (1)
Scenario
II
75
•
Scenario
12
78
(1) Increases in residents and homes only reflect change in processing strategies and do not
account for an estimated 5\ increase in population over the next 5 years due to a natural
influx of people.
I '
D
["Puge 4-4
~
D
I
I
( )
W'acc
,
.~
I
U
J
( 1
I.J j ':; ,'C L,
W
Ii
, ,..
l -t;
CO!,:11EN7S ON " A HEf()H1' '1'(' J\ 1 ,J\:;Y ... \ j.'(J'!-IF;i; i, U'~'l~( FIi";' ON P:'~I.JC Iii; W':J1-J~
ALTF.nN;\TIVf.S: PHA.')!: I -R'FCCNNAISf:.t.NC1:; /\!~:~l'::) .~r[J~Tn (.T.r~:;U!<FY lSI?)?')
C] "l\l~On k~!>!'fi recnrds
for th~ 1~"lti()nl1l ',~eilther Service.
Fidelity Exci tE:r 1450 H!'I~ iIl;;tead of 145 RlH.
'!'he fourth Cat is n 3408 per D.C. iI<lieht repcrt.
11 E' C E" V'ED.
MAR 2 )982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Second parar,raph: No rocks ever found in bottom of turbi.np. CFVle ...
although steel H sections which rURt:~ff on in5ide of penstock nre
• found there. All the blAde dRm~ee is due to sticks being jammed
aeninGt thp.m. A much better trFlRh rnck syd,(?r.l i ~ rel1uircd. The
pr:.J':;~nt r;lck can pluG in l'lS lit!:l"! an three hnUrf; durin/: hi~h run-
off pp.riods.
Rerl.'.lci:1c the flunc to the rlo''fn Gtr~alr. f'llrl 01' tl;~ tunne) with r1)/'''
i:::; a [:ood idea, but it \,/ould be v~r'J di.ffi.cI1L to huild', wood .'.;tavp.
ch~c;'-, m:Hle f)f usinr; 0Juminurr. culvt1!"'t inr-.lt;;:r1 of \-lo(,d ~:t:l\'!; !\ip~'?
Durin~ thin winter, 19S1-82, ~~n; more ~n~ll le~ks have occurred in
in th~ flu!':le ju::t l..l.f :·;t!'C~;,;.r.1 fror:: the pell~;tock. 'l'h:is sC'c~i:.,n \:3:;
it up. .c;ubgtantia1 amountn of \I.:lt(?l' itre 1e:1l.i:1[;' So p:r:l repluci~c
the entire f1ur:Jc should be :,;trr:nr:1y c(;nsidcr"rl. (Rp.tter tr:l!ih r;-,ck
at d~m would th~n be required).
~':al1 thici:ne,:;:, of tt;rbine: Hole::> driller! D:lti t;'I~ped in to;" ::,f cnse
fe·,:" L:reusQ fitt:.rw ,~ICces:; r:hnVl(d ::tb~'..It WI ~J[\ll thickncc!J.
I 1.3('1 J:of believe U:crc is ten feet of 3d,:ition.,l head ~n the tl'd.l-
r:lC~. There r.liGht he ten f~:.::t;. tot:.tl he:~d inc!'e"ne if the t!l.ilr.:lcc
'f;:.!:; J.olwred and thp. r:Ur:11! wa:, rcp1,!cerj 'I'ith ! ire' 111,1 tl;{' ·,w.y to th~
F,_,:, ',drjitir:,!\';l hf'?:u.l, anot.!H:r ;!ltr:rn'It.ivp. " .. , ",: :n:,t.'lll :1;'1 cntir'''ly
I: .', ,1"1:. in t!w 'n·,tt::', 1(':\ ",.,;! ,Inl'!!: ,:tr"',Il' fr ", t:-.I" T··r,<.,,:,t d'\~',. "'hi"
= ¥..A. _, e""
/
.~
, .. ' \
'. I ••
'(I ~
w
0
W I (lee
D
D
rl
~
0
U
U
:1 ~
Paee
D
( 1
W
LJ
II .\ age
I 'j
W
Pabe
W
J
0
11-1
11-2
11-3
1)-4
dam could easily be 50 feet higher than the exist ing d:un <.:.r,d ,,-;onld
eliminate the need for lCO feet of wood stnve pipe and rcp~irine th~
pre~cnt dam includine the wine walls. The S322,550 sav~nes on rp.pair
could go toward the new dam. The higher dam would require an
er.vironmentnl imFact :::tatement hC'..fever.
Expansion requirements: I believe the cstim3tcs for KWI! for a larger
cold storage and packinE operation are too 10',1. In mid vlinter 1981
wi th no fish beinG froz.en, the elec trieal lo~<d fror.; the enGine room
and fishhcuse is averagine abo)lt 1960 KEH l~er day or over 700,000 KWH
over a year. It seems reasoncble to use this fiEure DO a bD~e)oad
for a two million pound cold storilge. If the cold stort'gc wng upped
to four million pounds it would likely double the power requirements
because moot of the load is compre~sors ond l'UMpn for rflfrigeration.
AlGa the estimate for the increase in dcmer.:tic load \vas only 15.000
KWH per year. This might be equivalont to ahuut two new hOU~CG. It
se':ml; reas~nable to me that the anciition:ll steady work Dvailablc with
a p~ckagine operation would result in considerably more town growth
than this. 75,000 to 150,000 KWH mic;ht be a more reasonable e:-:timate.
So the additionol power usa~e could easily !'\,;.n 600,000 K\m hic;her.
than the estimates in the report.
Fossil fuel: The all diesel plan indicates no capital works are
required. but this is incorrect. At the prenent time we do not
have adeq~te capacity w~teh diesel pow('r to opcr':lte the plc.nt 3t
peak load in the summer high load period. Thifi is with all engines
running:at peak ~utput and no back-up for maintenance down time.
At least one additional Cat of 3408 size or larger would be required
t . ~.
for an.~1.lldiesel operation •
. , l,. " .. ~
Heat recovery: Hight be ~o6sible from refrigeration compressors
'I
regardless. of power source. ., '
I
Alternative #2: Diesel power in called relinble; however, in my
experience with the Pelican and Sand Point plantG, numerous brenk-
downs and rebuilds require extra engines for standby and consicerable
maintenance expense.
•
I
I"
jlJ
I wge
Page I' U
0
I :1
j l.J
I u
0
r 1
~
U
,~ 1 ~
. I
, I ~age
r ,
I W
J I ' I,
I Page
" 1
U
; 1
_age
I U
J
r 1
'IJ
I
I '1 ..
12-3
12-3
?
3
5
-- 3 ..
Typo: 500 KI~ turbine not 50 KW turbine,o
Estimates based on s~me flo~s a3 used by prcRcnt turbine ~o not
come close to utilizing the available water resource. During the
last six years, during the erring, mo~t of the summer, and the fall
large amcunts of water flow over the dam tc wo~t~. This water could
be used to generate more pOHer if turbine cO:;;;lci ty vIEW ''\Vuilable.
~ven this sum~er when the turbine was finally able to run at full
capacity, 500 KVA, there was lots of exccss water. If our present
turbine is only operating at 5O'.t efficiency ann the efficiency
could be raised to 75 ,; with new turbines, than the same amount of
water would be required for a 250 KW nnd 500 K\oI ecnerator as is
required for the present inefficient 500 KW ecnerator. Thin doc~
not allow for the 10 % increase in power available due to hi~h~r
head or the fact that much more wuter i.:; avuilllblc for 13.;vcn months
of the year. Possibly a 750 KW and a 250 KI'} cene)'ator wC)uld r,c;re
fully utilite tl~ powcr availuble.
USKH letter to Alnska Power Authority, Dece~ber 23, 1981 •
Third paragri:l.ph: Low water in summer during last six yean:. h .. s
only been in last two weeks of August and sometimes nnt even then.
However, we often need diesel suppliment power from late Nover.lber
to mid April.
'tto. • ', . .iI!:" ;'~'i I ~'" ~'-: 1[;~i~ ~
rhird ~'f~~faph: 0n::(~one man checks flume and dam daily 1 and it
takes abo~t 15 minutes.' : The safety problem with ice in winter is
very .~;~~ 'a~d getting' worse.
~ I :" .
: " ~; r.;;~ ~ ,
Fifth p~~gr~ph: Only one cave in in tunnel noted in last four years.
• :~ >
The tunnel 18 larger inside than the flume so some blockage does not
make that much difference.
WM 'e 'iI¥ fOJ?"'1'4
.~
.. -' ..
0
0
r--;
W
0
n
W
'l U
r~'l
W
-
Pelican Cold Storage Suestionn~ire
Assumption of the same amount of diesel burned in 1982 as in 1981 is
already incorrect as the 1981 .... inter .... as very m~.ld and the hydro l-/as
used extensively. 1980 \"as /.J.lso a mild .... inter nnd production .... as
do,,'na as .... ell, requiring les~; rower. So I the last hw yeurs have
seen lo .... er thor. normal diesel usaee.
Ass~~ptions on additional po .... er required for n secondary processing
operation are probably way too low. The rlomectic lo~d increase is
also too lovl.
'11 ' -r :
I
USKH letter from B.C. Haight, January 21, 1982
1. H:;dro EJ ectric Generator ;l ~ A. Generator: The Babbit bearing wos new two yeurs ago. The down
; )
W
, 1
l.J
r )
W
time cost for sending the gener,ltor out for rebuild could easily
exceed tho cost of a rewind. If the job could he done iri Pclic~n
it probably should be.
B. Excitation: G. E. Guarranteed tIle new exciter when they worked
on it last summer. It still has the same arcine problem, 50 they
will be co~inG to Pelican to trouble-shoot it when there is enoueh
water to run the turbine again. Thin .... ill probably not be before
April.
'l
.;. Distribution System While polcs and cross arms are being replaced when time
there are at least ten questionable poles and we are only changing
one or two a year.
Host of the distribution transformers nre 25 't~VA. A peaking AI-lP
probe has been installedpn mont of them to check for ovp.rloads.
only the one by the bunkhouse is ~arginnlly overloaded nnd that
load will be split this spring.
A. Controls: There is no snfety interlcck preventing conncction of
the t .... o buses with the sectionnlizing switch.
Tom \~hitr.:arsh
Feb!,IIFlry 24, 19.'32
"UII.Dip , ,
.~
o
u
! 1
1..-
r '
U
u
~:"l~': ~. :~· • .!~L·l"."w.:.·.;
I :: "~"'.;~.;:' .. '.'j...~~"./..~'-J*
UTILITY COMPANY
GENERAL OFFICES: 6!>3 N.E. NORTHLAKE WAY. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 18105· PHONE (206) &32-111000
GENERAL OFFICES MAILING ADDRESS,: P.O. 80X !>5.3e. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 18105
March 9, 1982
Mr. Jerry Larson
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99500
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed for your information are recommendations from our company for the
second phase of the study involving Pelican's power alternatives.
Of prime importance to the company is to have a survey done of the entire
water system. One particular area that needs surveying is the dam. The
survey drawings should includedeteImining the dimensions, amount of voids
in the rock, abutment conditions and information needed for a grouting en-
gineer to step in and grout the dam. Included in the dam survey should be
cost figures, drawings and additional power gained as a result of in-
creasing the height of the dam. In addition, it is important that the IIL~~
survey team document their investigation and analysis of building a new
dam downstream adjacent to the notch where the tunnel is located. The
documentation should be supported with engineering feasibility and costs,
comparing them to the costs associated with grouting the dam.
Replacing the wood stave pipe in the tunnel should be looked at more closely
to determine if it wouldn't be more practical and less costly to install a
metal pipe instead of a wood stave pipe.
A detailed feasibility and cost analysis of replacing the flume upstream
from the penstock should be done, particularly to determine if installing a
metal pipe is a better solution than wood.
The penstock will have to be replaced in the near future. When this is done,
the collection box will have to be upgraded also. What would be a sound means
of handing the trash collection upstream from the collection box at the time
of this upgrading? It would be beneficial for the survey team to analyze the
trash removal, collection box and penstock replacement, remembering that ~~=r~~
some time in the future there will be two turbines instead of one. R£CdVED
Finally, the survey investigation should look at whether 10 feet of ditional
MP\R 1 1, 10;,)')
\
j
I
'.\. E~gi~gerjng'Scjence j,'
,""~d
I' w
0
D
iD
I
U
I
r 1
I
U
J
I
I
:1
I~
~
OJm~DOC&~
March 9, 1982
Mr. Jerry Larson
- 2 -
head would be derived from lowering the tailrace. Tides should be taken
into account with measurements and costs associated with lowering the tail-
race.
The final economic analysis should offer Pelican Utility Company an idea of
1.o;ha:: 0. ::::':-.al cost per installed. Ki': would be after the proposed upgrading
and as a result, the cost per KWH generated by the hydro system. Please
include savings from not relying on diesel power which, except for standby
power, ~ill eliminate diesel fuel and maintenance costs.
In addition, we are aware that there are discrepancies in the additional
power figures required for plant expansion included in phase 1 of the study_
We plan on rectifying these discrepancies before the end of the second
phase of this study.
Sincerely,
Cavin W. Philbin
General Manager
CWP/ak
cc: Jim Ferguson
Cal Boord
Tom Whitmarsh
~at creegan, USKH-Engineering Science, 600 Bancroff Way, Berkeley, CA 94710
Harvey Hutchi~son, USKH-Engineering Science, 242 S. Main Street, Alpine,
Utah 84003
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 West 5th Avenue,
2nd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(901) 216-0001
(901) 2n-1641
l;I"/(;~/"'C£It(,/~ Go St:::j}p!._C-t:;:
11"1 E!Prr ?~t"f,o. '1:11 ~ ~~ ..
A1-p/~ R (tI.1AJ...... ~oo3. __ . ,-------
WGENTLEMEN l ___ . ___ .. .
a--2-.J~~,beLi t:.Pr{
~ "---~----~~-.,
~ HUnhl~'.Jo-
, ----.~~ .-. -~
--------
-.-.
-
WE ARE SENDING YOU .. Attached 0 Under separate cover via _______ the following items:
o Shop drawings o Prints -::; Plans ~ .. i Samples 0 Specifications
I
o Copy of letter rJ Change order ~ ---L.C'-I-M1'A!:\,j"''V-i~C.J::.t.''''\--+'.cN~~e,""O.u.U.t.}Ju:A~f[.ao!~'Lte:llr.!A:....!..L~_~f-_____ _
rl~, __ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~ ______________________________________________ ~
':OPI[S DAl[ NO ·:~~~-.~--,"-~2-1-~---+-P-J2..-,J-'JIc..-·-:L:I·--_ --Hrj;~fJ~--m/!~~--pA-e;.(l~ ~(J"n'\
~:---+-___ t--_-+-+R~o' c..t""'-=L-'t'---t.-~--ID,,",,-,! R ........ J4.-E!L. __ 7J:J_ .. _'£_R.. ... _.~C()~M~'':! .eii...!od~.t2t._~'-!.." ____ ---1
, ) I '.,t .4 I .' f I ( ,r~
, 1 ~:--~----4---4---------
... -.--. ---------------1
-----_._-----------1
Jl~~---~-~----------__ -----------------~ U
I~. ~ _____ ~ __ ~ _______________________________________ ~
WTHESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
r i 0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted C Resubmit copies for approval
){ For your use n Approved as noted n Submit copies for distribution
0 As requested [I Returned for corrections lJ Return corrected prints
~ For review and comment :. I ---'-----"--'
o FOR BIDS DUE 19 __ '! PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
W REMARKS tfAlfUey - . L tv I. (. L Ruf4?!..UJ91fJD d-n" t9n cI ,4-«-~ 1€R.Ue.Hf auf Ur»tYrl-42J rA s ~~=~
r-1 Atf&u.e. G;rtr< m..e A cpu. IF_y~~~
~ c.lMiFt'~ ~ &1'7 ~.
_. __ .. ---_ ... _._._._---------------------
w ---------------------.--.... ,.~. -----------------',,'---
-------------------.-~------.. ------....
U --------------------------_ .... _._._ ...... _---... _-_ ... _-_. __ ... _------------------
.--.-.-.. ------------
---------------------------------
COpy TO _________________ _
J
u
j 1
W
( ,
I
IJ
: : ] .~
I
~
u
u
I~
storag __ --... __
electricity to the community and
The community is small, but ~
"'113 r Oil8Ftl:1I13 ili60L eerved about 1,500 fishing vessel s in
1980 and is critical to the fishing industry in that area.
\
Pelican Potentiul for the Future
With storage and a small diversion on Phonogaph Creek
there is a potential of about 1.1 MW of additional hydro-
electr ic capabil i ty. The feasibil i ty of that additional
power is dependent of whether the cold storage and secondary
processing is expanded. The expansion of the fish process-
ing plant, which is presently being investigated (Scenario
# 2, Section 8) by the Pe 1 ican Cold Storage Company, call s
for only about .66 MW in total production.
THE PROBLEM
The APA has employed the services of USKH-ES to perform
a reconnaissance-level study, as outlined in Section 3, on
the power facilities at Pelican, Alaska for the purpose of
leading to a feasibility study of a suitable alternative to
meet the power needs presently and in the future. The re-
quirements are outlined in the APA register 1981 3AAC
94.055, Sec. 4 as amended.
2-2
~ 7 .. : :,2()/G
1/R2
/
r 1
U
J
r '
W
J
r,
: 1 ~
( 1
U
U
,W
o
I !u
U
W
U a_
The penstock is a 36" ~ nominal circular wood stave
pipe with steel reinforcing hoops. It is
running on a straight al ignment and about
grade.
326 feet long I
a 19 percent
The only way the dam can pass design flood is by over-
ng the wing wall. 'I'hi s would· take out the fl ume in
section. In addition, the tunnel has experienced roof
from time to time and rocks have actually passed
the rock box and entered the turbine causing serious blade
damage to the impeller. To eliminate these problems, under
Alternative #1, it is recommended that the flume be replaced
from the dam to the downstream end of the tunnel with a 5' ¢
wood-stave pipe, properly anchored and with a timber roof
protecting it from being carried away in flood. Under Al-
ternative #3 it is recommended to replace the flume all the
way from the dam to the penstock forebay in order to take
advantage of full head in the reservoir and elimnate the
need for the bar screen and overflow structure.
Under Alternative #1 both the bar screen and overflow
structure and the rock box surge chamber (penstock forebay)
are called to be redetailed and reconstructed. The latter
is also recommended under Alternative #3, so as to effi-
ciently prevent rocks from passing down the penstock.
The penstock is worn to an estimated 1/2" wall thick-
ness in places and is called to be replaced. Because of
construction logistics, redwood wood-stave pipe is selected
over steel. It has a life of 35-40 years.
The area under the flume and penstock is in need of
housekeeping to reduce rot potential. Threatening trees
should be guyed back so as to preclude windfalls such as
took out the penstock last November.
The braced timber bent support structure is in fair
condition. Certain members, on a selected basis, should be
replaced to give the system a new life.
"
This relates to
n-fl
120/11 1/82
J.J..
: i
i
i I i
perhaps 10 percent of the members. The pile members are
founded directly on natural ground and can be expected to
have a longer life if supported up about l' off the ground
with concrete footings.
POWERHOUSE AND GENERATING FACILITIES
The 42-inch Ludlow Valve is old and has failed. The
water hammer which cracked the bonnet was only one in a
series of problems in the last three years. In 1980, this
valve caused a two-month down time of the hydro-system, at a
great loss of revenue.
The Le ffel Turbine has an impeller that is produc ing
perhaps 20 percent less energy than a new one with less down
time, and more flexibility to operate efficiently.,....(a~!'I=:::s .......
The water quality change causeJ by
rication prevents the company from using tn't:l"'-'W'Cr'1:,
eir proposed fish hatchery. The wall thickness of
casing is questionable. Certainly, erosion
during the 75 years of use has cut into its designed safety
factor. A major overhaul of this turbine would be necessary
but may not extend its useful life significantly. The tur-
bine was purchased because it was available, not because it
was the best suited for the flow of the creek. To continue
this equipment's life may not be the best decision in lieu
of the spiraling cost of energy.
The generator needs to be at least rewound.
The switch gear needs to be replaced with new equipment
because most of the components are old and not reI iable
during times of stress.
The powerhouse needs major repairs to the foundation,
especially in the afterbay and tail race sections of the ~
facility. These, as a minimum, would require repair of the
walls and installation of new steel liner. For optimum
improvements, it is recommended that the draft tubes be
6-7
120/11 1/82
. -_._ .. _-------
I
P
~ I
r ,
W
J
n I~
0
r )
:U
I
'1 1.J
W
U
U
i , . I U
( ,
J
:...
'I
~
0
c,
I
w
, -
J
f--i
~ 7
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 7
HISTORY OF PELICAN UTILITY
COMPANY LOADS AND REVENUES
Table 7.1 is drawn from informution contained in .l1.ppen-
dic.;e~; C und Il.
'1'l\I~Lr': 7. 1
LOAD AND HEVENUE 'l'EEl\DS
riscal (il)
Year
Gros:; llevenues
Gross Sales P~lic3n C.S. KWH From Water Sold
$eafood Pelican Store Produced Pelican U.
1977 L,08,OOO S~B3,OOO :l,)~n,OU() S 6,000
1978 ;,234,000 6 7 9,000 2,540,000 6,000
'),866,UOO 92),000 2,(,50,000 6,000
1980 14,661,OOU 964,OUO 2,·1~O,OOll ~,UUO «:)
1.:,6!>I!.OOO 712,OOU 2,6:.!!:>,OOO 11,000
(3) Peliciln':; fY 1:, APlll to M.1l'cll )1.
(Ill P"lic.:srl Utility pow"r rate!; incTu3st:d 2~ .. '!Ll11!I<1 !'Y 1980.
(c) Pelican Utdity water rilte,; in::r"J~,;,d .)lJout 40\ durillg FY 19~1.
7-]
•
Gross Revenues
From Power Sold
Pelican U.
S 75,000
125,OOU
140,UOO
144.000 (b)
210,OOU
/
• ) I \
t''''' \ /1" .
I
J I
IW
( I
.~
o
, f I
!~
I
i~
SECTION 8
PLANNING SCENARIOS
There are two planning scenarios:
#1 -The industrial and urban power requirements of Pelican
will remain more or less at present levels. ';Jtl:1aIt .. t:"'e
"PQI'IU' lJ'lppl~{ to caRle .;oem & refglt:ilifleil aY8:l"eelle l lic
.l'c;!; am (p:5'liIiI!Ient: scheme) ead\ed up bj t#i •• ;:&Plee~f 8i e
#2 -The industrial and urban power requirements of Pelican
will increasJ~i thin the next few years to ... :i'l:ft tofte pe'w .. IH·
8-1
120/<) ----------------------.... ------.. ~--.~.~.~,~=-----~--........................ ~ ..
r
n :..
(,
W
U
J
U
D
r~:
J
0
: ':
..J
U
(
/
\
\.
,
1, \ t~. '.
. I L (
I -
{ 1 --.
, ?
•
( '.'
, , j::Z t: C /,
.. .",' I I ,I ' I.
I
I
I r -(-1
;': I" ~
.,.r"
._------
("os T rOlf' Sf':) Plc.(2 t--I~ (I "rJ ~ -----
.-------~--.---------
')
---
eM I._J p.-I fa 6 IN 7' I 1>..( 7/ J;",,< tv 0 J ( jJ Til (' J
/7'G :;r ({ fI.p./, () r:~tNf 'j!.A J..J o-.~ p. ep. ..e S~ ;:;,
,/
. .;5 '-Dv,J;vJ ()(?l1ril r:r~k IJ I
• I i i i
n I I~
i
-~ 1 .
Questionnaire
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
TABLE 9.1 -Continued
Utility Costs for 1981
Water
60.00
134.40
67.20
72
Electric
$
540
458
372
480
577
Fuel
$
1950
950
1006
1380
1200
Even though only six questionn~ires were received, they
do contain some very valuable information. Out of the six
questionnaires received, all said that they now use oil for
heating and five use it for cooking. All said that if hy-------dropower were cheaper than oil they would change to electri-------------------
cal heating. One user reported his costs over the last six -------
years for electricity and fuel. That information is as
fOllows. I
, cr.-. 1· _~ rJ. t.. ,.:J t:W
1977
Electrical
1978 1979
Bill
1980 1981 Increase
,/
Year 1976
Cost ($) 300 300 360 360 420 480 60% G
Fuel Bill
Cost ($) 700 700 750 1320 1825 195 ~ 1_ "7 () I.,: I
~--
This points to be beneficial effect
generation has had on the price of The hydropower -----costs stayed the
diesel costs increased al
One questionnaire
have destroyed many radios, freezers, clocKs and other major
electrical items. This is borne out in other parts of the
study and is caused by obsolete and worn equipment that
needs replacing.
9-2
120/15 1/82
J
\ ;,
. r II.;
I :fl
AdM
SECTION 10
WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
INTRODUCTION
The water and power demands shown in Tables 10.1 and
10.2 are derived from data presented in Appendix C. This is
the response of Cavin Philbin, General Manager of the Peli-
can Cold Storage Company, to a questionnaire sent to the
company. There is only about a 15 percent growth in power
demand anticipated for Scenario #2 over Scenario #1.
---~. _--..:. e
1974
1975
1977
1978
1979
1980
Mean
120/13
estimate that on an average year, 25 percent of
at the diesel plant. This
with Lowell's report of 1977 and Haight's report
taken from the annual reports of the Pel ican
% Diesel Generation
23.0
24.9
19.2
36.9
30.6
21.3
31.5
20.4
14.7
24.7
10-1
!
..
I ,J
I
D
11 U
(l
W
11
/U
'u
U
SECTION 11
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES DISCARDED
Phonograph
The alternative of diverting water from Phonograph
Creek by a dam at Phonograph Lake was studied in detail.
The system would consist of a 10-foot dam at Phonograph
Creek with about 1,700 acre-feet of storage which would be
diverted into the head waters of Pelican Creek during low
flow periods and piped to a new 1.2 MW powerhouse (Power-
house # 2) that would discharge into Pelican Lake. A pipe-
line would also collect the Pelican Creek water at the 750-
foot elevi)tion and convey it to Powerhouse #2. The hydro
capacity of the Pelican Utility Company would be increased
from .50 MW or .75 MW to 1.75 or 1.95 MW, respectively.
After receivin3 the questionnaire response from the Pelican
Cold Storage Company, it was determined that their expansion
requirements were smaller than first anticipated. -It was
determined that this alternative is viable, but there is no
present market for the power. When the town grows, this
alternative is a good one to expand its present power sup-
ply, and is compatible with the continued operation of the
proposed program.
but dis-
11-1 11L", ___ ,1
20
/12 .. _-----------
I
u
o
D
u
o
( 1
W
o
c, : . I
Solar
'fhe solar alternative was considered and judged not
feasible due to the generally prevailing cloud cover.
€ \. P .,Pry>.C' -::2.. <> [--' I' ~ /'1'/ ,<:: ,c; ~\. I; .
Geothermal
The alternative of geothermal was considered. The only
sites that provided were on Chichagof
I s 1 and n ear e::.r=-,,;t:.:o~H:.:.;:o~'!s:A.,.o:'-:;""'-+H:H;
. whether th~y
cally
r{ ... : .. <t.'/l.'~ , .• .: ( r····'· . .''''':'r-'', .. 1/= r;~'If"-"""'"
d veloped I.or not. Even Ya-o-; the
lines require 1S alternative makes it infe
Fossil Fuel
Of all the fossil fuel options, it is obvious that
diesel generation would be the most competitive, since a
plant exists at Pelican and there would be no capital works
to construct. Diesel is presented as Alternative #2, under
~/
.
the options studied. I NUU D.J(? l.() A~I-< ~ rtJ Il S..)h ~
$ Ct:lS r c.!1 Tl-ru.... R.JL.q)~o, I IV 7II;.s f'r/f .t:J,ttCJ.
ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Three alternatives were studied, each under load condi-
tions of Scenar io # 1 and Scenario # 2. The cost estimates
for each alternative are included in Appendix E, and each is
~nalyzed on the basis of the present worth of life cycle
costs in Appendix F.
Alternatives #1 and #3 relate to upgrading the existing
1-u.o~""""5"4-""""'~+-ric generating facilities, and have a zero envi-
mpact because they represent a continuation
#2 features abandonment
of
of quo. Alternative
hydroelectric power in Lavor of an all diesel supply. This
has the negative environmental impact of mining a nonreplen-
ishable reource. In addition to the adverse economics of
Alternative #2, it would require the continuous annual con-
sumption of 6,700 barrels and 7,700 barrels of diesel, re-
spectively, under Scenarios #1 and #2.
11-2 I~
i ~: ........ 1_2_0./.1.2 ........ ______________________ ~ 1/fL2
f 1
W
~
o
D
o I
u
o
'~
O&M cos
economic ana.
Cold Storage
the hydro aT
large compon.
was judged t
alternatives.
Duwe I\,ove A /jP 0
I m tJ 5 I"" t. 5 e:.N\ e.. 11--< ,,..J • c... d1 Am
011::-.6&-
l:~I(~~ -.3
-SAir.it w 4-1-9) .
-" ::I ....J.J.I::!,LCII<.:es
between alternatives, the O&M costs were deleted.
Heat recovery in this situation is only practical under
Alternative #2, the all diesel option, because under Alter-
natives #1 and #3, hydro will be on line for such a high
percentage of the time , with the diesel s being idle. Ac-
cordingly, the capital cost~ for a heat recove~~system were
not estimated. The allowance was made fgrpt~ computing
differences in fuel costs bet~eD.~Jternatives, however, by ~r / .... (>
varying the assumed e_tfic.ienc ,"of th'e diesel plant from .5 .(. ~ ~."
under the hydro options to .~under the all-diesel option .
• , ? 7O'D4<..-SiN~f7
Alternative #1 (Base Case)
This alternative calls for:
1. Repairing Pelican Dam and reconstructing the wing
wall, as recommended in Section 6.
2. Replacing first 189 feet of flume and tunnel con-
veyance from the dam with a 60" • wood stave pipe
threaded through the tunnel.
3. Replacing the diversion valve at Pelican Dam with a
48" ¢ remotely operated sluice gate.
4. Reconstructing both the screen diversion box and ,
the rock box on the lower flume.
5. Replacing the penstock with a new 36" ~ wood stave
pipe.
6. Housekeeping under the total flume and penstock
support system.
11-3
120/12 1 fA? -
/A~ AJJt1l.A.>--, oft W:?tS (Zf ~~(
((~~'1 Op~ WLG,L MO~{Fy -:.,~~
7 . Mal
sUF
the
~ 'T1vt tI (=-tfd~e ~ roll 1), ~ ,
Il--'-r.t{en,o..--tl ~ •
CAN 7J...tc. ~ f.(~ e. ~ 1..J)4!--r..e ~?
8. COtT
mac
I-{ J....,4~1 Co. au; 1&"...(<.., I"" cJoS ~
P 120')1 ~ h\ /ti {u po ~ e.~ 'it...(. -:
kW
butterfly control valve: francis type turbine:
Woodward governor: new generator and switch gear.
9. Refurbishing the afterbay.
The capital costs for Alternative #1 are estimated at
$1.37 million; and the present worth of life cycle costs,
including the standby diesel operation, are ~_~~ million
under load Scenario #1 and $5.11 million under load Scenario
#2. The essential objectives of Alternative #1 are:
1. Restoration of the entire system to a new economic
life.
and 2. Replacement of the worn out and obsolete machinery
with a system that will operate an estimated 15 to
20 percent more efficiently.
Alternative #2 (All Diesel)
This al ternati ve assumes abandonment of the Pel ican
Creek hydroelectric system in favor of relying 100 percent
on the use of the existing diesel plant to furnish ~ndustri
al and domestic power for Pelican. 'l'he scheme would be
reliable and would involve no capital expenditure. The
present worth of the life cycle co.s~tAllli;,.....,alternative
is very high, however, being $lo.~~oad Scenario #1 and ..-.-..
$11.86 million for,load Scenario #2.
Alternative #3 (Improved Hydro)
This alternative is essentially the same in concept and ~
has the same objectives as· Alternative #1 (restored life to
the existing plant, plus increased efficiency), but in addi-
tion, provides the following advantages:
'.
11-4
1~()/12 1 'A 2
o
u
I 1
\ ' ~
u
n
I ! \~
1
0
n W
1.
2.
~ 3.
Takes full advantage of the head in the reservoir
by replacing the flume in its entirety with a 60" ¢
wood stave pipe.
Further increases plant efficiency and makes better
use of both high and low flows by installing two
turbines (500 kW and 250 kW).
Further increases power yields (by 10 percent)
through increased use of available head. This is
accomplished by extending the draft tube and con-
structing a new afterbay providing for tailwater at
mean high water level.
The capital costs for this Alternative are
lion and the present worth of its life cycle costs, includ-
ing fuel costs for the standby diesel operation, are $2.4
million under load Scenario #1 and $4.41 million under load
Scenario #2.
~~7~.
Under either Alternatives #1 or #3, the only shortcom-
ing of the hydro system is the fact that it is essentially
run-of-the-river and must rely to a degree on standby diesel
power during low flow periods. The diesel power plant ex-
ists, however, and the investigation has indicated that the
costs for storage, either a t Pelican or through a trans-
watershed diversion from Upper Phonograph Creek, simply can
not be justified at this time. This is because the escala-
tion of power requirements for Scenario #2 over Scenario #1
are really quite modest. The solution is to make optimum
)
use of the naturally abundant watershed by increasing plant
efficiency and taking full advantage of available head.
11-5
120/12 I/A2
SECTION 12
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
INTRODUCTION
Alternatives #1, #2, and #3 (reference Section 11) were
compared under Scenar ios # 1 and # 2 (reference Section 8).
The alternatives are engineering opt.ions which are the re-
sponsibility of the planners: while the scenarios are opera-
wi thin the prerogative of the tions options, exclusively
Pelican Cold Storage Company. Th e cos t est ima t e~s~:'f:::o~r".-JA:b!...:t..e~-------..,
natives #1 and #3 are presented in Appendi
costs are associated with Alternative #2 .
{no capi tal_ gx' tp7/l:Jt\
__ -------'--,. .'" w ,q~,.t f'f-'h
The present ,:>~,
worth economic analyses for the six combin ions are
sen ted in Appendix F.
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
The economic analyses were made on the basis of the
following criteria, dictated by the APA guidelines:
1. 1982 fuel costs at Pelican (from information fur-
nished by the Pel ican Cold Storage Company) are
$l.18!gallon. These are escalated for 20 years at
the rate of 2.6 percent per year, and then continue
at a const~nt level ($0.218/kWh) for the balance of
the study period.
2. Diesel generators have a 20-year life.
3. Hydroelectric facilities have a 50-year life; ex-
cept that the runners are assumed to be replaced
after 20 yec-'Ls and the wood-stave pipe after 35
years.
1> I
"0(10
u
o · ·
U
i •
I
I i U · ·
I~
U
I •
I ,
I \ i
I!'
:U
I I
I ( 1
~ •
n .~-.
Alt.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4. Replacement
rat~_of 0>£=
5. The discour
6. O&M costs
under all ·
the analys
tJ./:)
7. A ~-year
Table 12.1 re(
SUMMARY OF
# Description
Base plan
All diesel
Upgraded
base plan
Base plan
All diesel
Upgraded
base plan
Capital Present
Cost Worth
million million
$ $
Scenario #1
1. 37 3.19
0 10.32
Z. I
~. 2.49
Scenario #2
1. 37 5.11
0 11.86
.~ 4.41
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
ate at the
~d the same
included in
~ALYSES
during 35-
Year Study
Period P.W./kWh
$
86.905 .037
86.905 .119
86.905 .029
100.319 .051
100.319 .118
100.319 .044
I. i terni:t ti ve # 2 is presented to show the economic im-
porta!l.~'e of preserving the hydroelectric plant . Neither
12-2
12U/J
,.
o
o
D
o
o
r l
;\.J
\
r 1 !W I
f )
W
: I
IW
I
u
, { 1-
'U I
, I
I
~
( I
I I
I..i
1. A plan of the system from Pelican diversion darn to
the end of the tailr.ace.
2. Topography, axis profile and cross sections through
the darn.
3. Profile and cross section through the flume.
4. Cross section of the tunnel.
5. Plan and cross sections of rock box at head of the
penstock.
6. Structural sections through penstock support fram-
ing, including member sizes.
7. Floor plans, elevations and cross sections through
powerhouse.
Alternative #3
In addition to the surveys specified for Alternative
#1, Alternative #3 will require detailed topography of the
tailrace channel from the existing afterbay to mean sea
level.
FERC APPLICATION
If there is an increase of hydropower capacity (Alter-
native #3), it would be necessary to submit a request to the
FERC for an Exemption from a Permit or License. The request
for Exemption is not as detailed or complex as one for a
Permit or License. The Phase II feasibility study agr
should satisfy the requirements for this exemption
is anticipated, since neither Alternative #1 or #3
existing environmental 'impacts.
DAM RESTORATION APPLICATION
-----~
Application should be filed with the Stage Forest Land
and Water Division Office (Darn Safety) for the restoration
of Pelican Darn. The technical information required in that
Application will ue contained in the Phase II report.
120/14 1 1)1'.) .J
I)
U
o
O·
, \
I
r "
U
TABLE '\
COMPARISON OF .<-
(cf
Month Black River Hook Cr To te Creek
(24.7 sq mi) (4.48 sq (14.S sq mi)
Oct 2S.2 31. 3 26.6 34.1
Nov 6.1S 13.7 15.0 12.3
Dec 3.15 8.1 5.41 7.83
Jan 5.14 1. 21 .75 1. 30
Feb 7.41 .75 .44 .70
Mar 5.06 4.22 2.83 2.48
Apr 10.2 8.35 5.(,5 6.97
May 15.1 ]7.5 10.9 13.2
Jun 10.5 8.86 6.26 7.17
Jul 6.92 5.] 3 3.49 4.54
.Z\ug 4.49 2.66 1. 70 2.79
Sep 7.65 5.09 2.76 4.4
Total 106.97 106.87 81.79 97.88
Mean 8.91 8.91 6.81 8.16
Upon analysis of Table D.1, Hook Creek (4.48 sq mil was
selected for correlation to Pelican Cove Creek. The statis-
tics used are:
HOOK CREEK
Area: 4.48 sq mi total
3.82 sq mi above EL 7S0
0.66 sq mi below EL 750
Period of record:
Historical peak:
since August 1967
1290 cfs max.
1.5 cfs min.
12 year average runoff: 20,8l0AF/yr
or 85.5 in/yr
or 28.2 cfs
D-1
120/16 ~ I U.:
11
~.L'/.PPCMJ t:V' /~
.lJ/9d1 ~~t:JAJ
;f~~<ilJ ,c:;4c/,(/< tt,/hJ'le~)
~~1I'6fFIt.J "kcA:11'7«-
.e ':::AYlOW" S"~ ~c t1IfJ"..."
If"~'k~ kCK /~.t'/I~
~ ~n&'A,!H~
~ Q~r ~/l:-.s
G~T P."rf4?
~~..P~a¥~~
R SIII/FOI? (l!() tPMt-!)~ (,11'
R~,;?f6" ~T?~
<!<!."T
.::;:.r.
<::y
~ . .s.
Cor.
:::r.r:
F.tP-
C-t.
::>r
~-
~ T.R4:s# IIf?ACe> ~ . .r.
Rc~C"'E ra""'E' u( dxJ;t
~If/lr/~
r~~ ~F
,t/6:c) 4b "C/ ~Ut'cr ~.s.
5~ 7dAMJCi; /bt2nfc>' t.S.
uP6~ ~/t.JCil'5/od h L·S::
R~"~dcr A?oc.e &:w-
@ ~.QS'~ ~d~ L.::S:
~~ ~v",€ ,€b>A<,4s {-5.
)?~~~~C~ .
...dG-U..76;£ ~ ff~
P~Ot:.lno,J
HU/lfc c( kAJf~ J'v~~//C11l~
C~t!S9~(,/p
/7//k'. ~P/h,e>-
CF'
t.. '5.
L·'>.
t. -5.
QU JlllWl7l"f' Q.(Jlr &rtCE
~
2''50
?~O
/¢1f""o
.5
/~
5/0
¢,ooa
/S? ~tt!'~o ¢7z:s-o ~ctXJO /2'000
lIEa::o .a::t:lo
#/oe(:)o /00<:)0
iZooco 2ocao
"~tX:O rc::>oo
3z~ 1/-5'"0 489co -#='~ ='001I:I
l-sooo ~ooo
~/ooao IOOce:>
\
':/ 1 :1
1
I~
:~ In
1
Ii
.~
~
i~
I~ (l
Ii
~
• III rl
! I
.£)/1;11 ~477o.tJ
P6'2· t'1r:r * /
h~~~RA77~
'p~,e,4r' /
Rt#'~*"~ F~u,4'IC ~",,{
n"A.J~ ro ~qI2Cc-'"
CH~ -tt:cc &x
?~~~k:.
p~ tIcT."/ ~ u;l!: "Pt£AJ:S~ -G(JSJ"JI'K7CIA!tF
p~ ~r.JI/
~SiF
//;bP/~q ~~,~ .
N~~~u~ fik-c;ArC
F~(ll'H-q /~S"I?f'Cc.AtVo#u
(!!!'K~~P k/lrr N44'
~~dAl-r
?"I/
~. S. -
fBo
f SOo 000
t ;:."00000
tlDOOo
I t~c:2'O
/00 c:$'O
~<3JClYi'<
~.or7~"" @ i"s •
-~
fTt'"'6-t tltf: f>t~8 (,15 7" '7 A l-1/5"8 r.;; £;s 0
I L 1 tJ I:> { /J,f. 1-1013 , I {} tJ; t)" () \
~'J:~e"~ B 5-()
L ti ttl 11 AI (;../i IV t Y' 2S;2) 4 2./, Cf {, 2-
!C 2. /{)7 3/ 2.-/ (t
~/5 IE. $i I tJ~ tJ() 0
I /"
i I)lui~-~-~-:~-:~-:~-~G-,s-c'-EN-c-E------P-R-O-JE-C-T~.~~n-.4-~--.-._-_-.-_-_--J-OB~~~.~. ~--------~-~-M-T-... -I(--..
....... , c. 114710 c _"' . . Mot;r"""",-, -_~.?::...JJ#.:;t __ _ .
•
~:S7 tPF ~~ ~ ~
_-.. /1'8? ~c~~,.c O/~ Gl ::.k,cA<V ~ ~/./8 ft-?~«>-<)
I"· .
' •. /' 1-'. ',. {pNeJda ~n,.~,;<JK oF~6('~O
.. ~ , ... ~ ,:~;:.(-/~O ~~ Ore: CG$r;: (tlft;-RT:. )(7.()~ tt4lk«N:J~ en,)
Q"" .' "'~? /000 ."0 ~ ~Q~,ucr
D ;; ~ 0 181[7.09) '" ':/67 {.,,tI, A'<'t:
o
Q
o
o
w
W
to
I o
I o
I o
I
W
J
,,-5"o~ ,/tr. ~
-If ~QA'?'A.JC .(b ~r
~y'~ ~ 4J/t:L ~~09'TiF ALr ;?~ ~/~/
?Gi'< /JP~ C;-U"e?~~t:4 / ,c-O~ 2a ~~ .
,,4-~ ~ C?!rc~~77cW ~p~
~/~ 6~~H'7?;(.k;-~vl'R~"u?S
~o #/ /"''''-''H I~ /~
? ca/~ klOnY x: /.128:-Z ¢8300o ~441~
/YR
t)~C; ~ /t¥v;ee; F'Abliae/7o,(; :: . 75 CJtIIr,n,~
Al&..J " " (,:= ~ 1(.7-$ = • 87Q r ~
,. .,~s
~~,o~~ ./
~ c I'(!ZA.Jc .,
2~I33do(j (1-.87) = 3 Z ?/9o K4JK/r/2
oP /)~~e=c:
P4~dC"d.c..~
?A:J. ~r ~,c:I'977pC A2-<..W~~ Adltf)QotIr ~...c.
y~s:-I-Zo
, A r-'/~7 (32~7ro):: ~"3?()t&,
/t!?:" ~ /?I(),=-A (IPzo4):: -:5:1'10' (1?·ZOft)
/lU" Z = I P3~ Zt:>o
" ,P. Jc.J. cC)1" Fi K ~t) NAJ~ (.( /fC. t9~(/,I()r ~ YcAtI!S ll-'Sr'
r-u~c. ~Sr ~<.J 2o-rf rR~ /'·7 (/'O?6)";. ~?<~w""
Ii :-. 27 'Z (322 tro ) ~ 8 71 F r
J
I .. ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
'pJt) = P1()3r' -PIVz., ~ (8 17fJ1 )(Z /.¢i 7-IQ.,87)
~ f57~5QO
PROJECTAq·~J~§.6'1 JOB t~~ I SHTe
I U :~'.~~ .. C~· ~·::'O DETAIL 8Cb.._.: =___ "''' .. ~
('l
. I ~
J
I ('l
'W
I
J
United States Departlnent of the Interior
IN REPL Y REFER TO:
FISH AND WII.I)I.II·E SL:RYJCI
P. O. Box 1287
Juneau, Alaska 99802
N<l ('C h 4, 1982
RECI::IVC:O
'.! '\ f") I .... :.
ALAS'(f~ P'1"'r:n t'IPI:' I r\..~ \. \ ••.. il ,-" " .. l. IV
Mr. Eric P. Yould. Execut i ve Di rec tor
Alaska Power AuthorI ty
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Pelican Hydro Project
Dear Mr. Yould:
This responds to your letter of FebruLlry 16, 1982, requesting our
comments on the Pelic:an Power Al ternat i ve PIt;'lse I--Reconna.i ssance
Assessment.
Pelican currently receives most of .i.ts pO\ver from an old
hydroelectric facility at Pelican Cove Creek. 1111s is supplementec1
by diesel generators which provide the community with 25 percent of
its power. The recommended alternaUve \vould restore and upgrade
the eXisting hydroelectric facility.
There are limited existing data on fish ilnd Ivildlife resollrces for
the project area. However, int('rt:id;ll sp.lwning of a small run of
pink and possibly chum salmon Iws het'll j'l'pnrted at the mouth of
Pelican Creek Cove. The project prohahly ~v(l\lld have minor impacts
on the fishery provided that pollutants such as sediment and
petrochemical discharges are controlled during construction.
However, we would 6uegest that you surv\~y tlw fish and wildlife
resources in the area so specific ~rote(:llve measures can he
incorporated in the project pLlllS.
. ~: "~:';~ .,~ ..
We appreciai'e the opportuni ty 1.0 comml'nt. Please keep us informed
of any nev~d.~elopments on the project.
," ;1. \,;,
Sincerely yours,
!! rt~
Field Supervisor
··.·7 '
. · .. -·-~. ____ -'-'7···'" .---..:..-..------__ _
( ,
J
o
D
J
I
( l
~
J
I
I l
J
J
~-
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administratiorl
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. Alaska 99802
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
~la )'ch 16, 1982
We have reviewed the USKH-Engineering Science report on Pelican Power
Alternatives sent by your February 16 letter. The investigation seems
to have been thorough for the reconnaissance level scope of effort and
the recommenddtions accordingly well founded. We agree with those
recommendations. Floyd Summers discussed our observations with Jerry
La rsen by telephone t1a rc h 5.
We suggest that the report could provide a little more narrative explana-
tion about the cold storage plant and water system operation. Specifically,
it appears there are high water requirements in November-February to
prevent the water system from freez'ing, high power requirements in
February and March for ice production for the beginning of halibut
fishing, and high power requirements in August and September for ice
production and flash freezing.
Vie donlt have specific comments about the st)'ucturlll llIeasures proposed.
However, we note that corrective measures for the tunnel are not addressed.
Information on estimated flow capacities for the flume, tunnel, and
penstock would be helpful.
A feasibility study might include an(1lysis of electric heat, and waste
heat recovery frol:! the freezing units. t~e acknowledge that electric
heat is secondary to other electric needs, but would affect design of
the generation system. Electric heat could include direct resistance
and/or air or water source heat pumps. We have had an informal suggestion
from a heat pump suppl ier famil iar with Pel ican that conditions may be
favorable for those units.
Sincerely,
/?<,/ ~'("
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
-_ .. _ ......... ". __ ...
I
I f,
I~
J
I
J
I
~ l ~
J
I I
W
IJ
I
{l
IW
I .J
I
J
I
J
J
J
J
J
•
State Office Building
P. O. Bo~ 499
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Habitat Division . PHONE: 747 -5828
Ma rc h 16, 1982
Mr. Perrick T. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear r~r. Yould:
n[CEIV~O
~ r u:\) 1 ') 1Se2 .,,' ..
n.t.:J'l\ PO\\'~B t.lJTH'jf1ITY
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as requested in your letter of
February 16, 1982, has rl::vieY/ed the draft Pelican Power Alternatives
Phase I Reconnaissance Assessment. Our concerns relate primarily to the
maintenance of anadrolnous fisheries values in Pelican Creek, anadromous
stream #113-95-03. This systeills supports primarily pink salmon and a
few chum salmon which utilize that portion of the stream from about 50
feet to the east of the boardwalk through the intertidal area to salt
water. ~Je believe that the primary impacts of the project will be as-
sociated with const~uction activity Jnd also with the alteration of flow
1 evel s for the 1 QVler portion of the s trealil. Speci fi c comments preceded
by page and puragraph number fo 110\'/;
Page 3-J,_.,_~umbel~:
apparently not going
deadlines noted will
thi s proposed.
Tile deadlines required of the consultant are
to be met for tlli s document. We hope that the
not i ntcl'fere with tile careful eva 1 ua ti 011 of
p'.a..ge 4-4, edl"dJjrapll 1: the :;tateillent is made that climatic conditions
at Sitka are representative of those at Pelican. We do not believe
this is an accurate statcillent. The rainfall, the winds, solar
reception all vary tremendously in Southeast depending on slope
aspect, altitude, and other factors.
!-hate-
Pa e 4.5, Para ra h 2: Similarly it does not seem reasonable to
assume that Creek would be "ideal to use for correlation
. studies" to determine runoff for Pelican Creek. The U.S. Geological
Survey should be contacted and their methods used to correlate
stream flows discussed prior to making such a broad brush statement.
~5-5, Paragraph 2: The statement is made that several pieces
of electrical equipment are o~~olete and do not perform well. It
would be appropriate to state which pieces are obsolete and why
IJ
I
~
I~
J I
,w
I
J
I
J
J
I
IJ
I
J
I
I J
J
I
! 1
[oJ
I J
'''> :J
I
J
J
J
~
• ,
Mr. Perrick T. Yould
they do not perform v!e 11.
- 2 -
Ma rc 11 16, 1982
Page 9-2, Paragraph J: The statement is made that if electricity
becomes cheaper the number of peop 1 e in Pe 1 i can wi 11 change from
oil for heating and cooking to electricity. It should be pointed
out that thi s woul d increase the cOlillTIuni ty dependency on e 1 ectri city
and would increase the cOilllllunity costs should the electricity not
be reliable.
Page 9-2. Second Table: The percentage increase calculated for the /
fuel bill from 1976 to 1981 is listed as 7m". The change from 700
to 1 ,950 represents considerably more than a 78~ increase.
Pa~ 9-2, Paragraph 3: A statement is made that power fluctuations
have destroyed many electrical items in Pelican. We hope that the
improvements under this study will reduce those impacts. as well
as, reduce fluctuations in stream flow.
~e 11-2. ya)~dyraQh 5: The statement is made that alternatives 1
and 3 will hClve a zero environmental impact because they represent a
continuation of the status quo. If the construction aspects of the
project and the long tenn results of the project are that the flow
regime down Pelican Creek is altered then this statement is inaccurate.
Page 11-3, Para9c.~: A statement is lIlade that the operation and
management costs would be com~ilrable for all alternatives. The
evidence does not support this conclusion.
Page 11-5, Number' 3: Apparently tile construction of a new after'
bay under this option would ;rovide for tail water release at the
mean high water level. Obviously this option would remove anadromous
fisheries habitat that currently exist. IlHplimenting tllis option
would run counter to the statement t'lilt no environmental illlpacts
would occur.
In summary because the project vli11 result in the upgrading or
modification of an existillg facility, the impacts on anadromous
fisheries habitat are less than would be the case otherwise.
However, some impacts are expected to result from the project. If
the project results in the augumentation of downstream flow at
times of natural low flm'i, through waters that have been held up by
the dan1, then the net consequence of the project may be to improve
anadromous fisheries habitat. Hovlever, if the flow regimes are
altered in any matter which l1Iight negatively effect fish spawning,
incubation, and rearing then tIle project may ,'1ell have negative
environmental impacts.
----------.. --.---.--~-.-.'---------
Mr. Perrick T. You1d - 3 -March 16,1982
Also, the construction phase may be expected to result in altered
flows and perhaps turbidity and sedimentation in the downstream
areas.
Thank you for the opportuni ty to comment.
Sincerely,
1h~H~
Dave Ha rdy
Area Habitat Biologist
Si tka 'K ~
cc: Ri ck Reed
DH:kk