HomeMy WebLinkAboutTenakee Springs Hydroelectric Feasibility 1993TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC
FEASABILITY
March 29, 1993
Prepared By
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. ENERGY CONSULTANTS
March 29, 1993
Honorable Mrs. Edna Paddock, Mayor
The City of Tenakee Springs
Tenakee, Alaska 99841
Subject: Final Report for Tenakee Springs Hydroelectric Project
entitled Tenakee Springs Hydroelectric Feasibility
Dear Mrs. Paddock:
We are sending you 17 copies of the Tenakee Springs Hydroelectric Feasibility report.
The analysis shows the project is viable, and the benefits to Tenakee Springs will
exceed one million dollars. These benefits are without the inclusion of the earnings
gained by local employmep.t during construction of the project.
We think you will like the way we have planned the recommended project so it fits into
the terrain and requires the minimum amount of excavation. The hydro system will
also reduce noise and air pollution in the community.
Polarconsult put extra effort into this project as it represents a real engineering and
environmental challenge. We believe this report shows what can be done with small
hydro if the resource is available.
We are also inclosing information all the equipment that is proposed in the report. Also
included are plots of the loads, and a chart record of past loads. We think this
information will be useful to you in your planning on this project.
Please note the specks on the paper are because it is recycled.
Should you have questions about this report, please do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely yours;
Earle Ausman, P.E.
President
1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE • SUITE 310 • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420 • TELEFAX (907) 258-2419
Attachments: Report 17 copies
Appendix Misc. Material
Ten331R
polarconsult alaska, inc.
CONTENTS
I FINDINGS 3
A. Description
B. Conclusions
C. Recommendations
II CHARACTERISTICS OF RECOMMENDED PLANT· S
III INTRODUCTION· 6
A. Authorization
B. Tenakee Electrical Requirements
1. Past
2. Future
IV V ALUE OF POWER· 9
A. Fuel Cost
B. Equipment Cost
C. Labor Cost
V HYDROLOGY AND POWER· 12
A. Distribution
B. Amount of Power Generated
C. Displaced Fuel
D. Fuel Required
VI ENVIRONMENTAL-17
A. Fish Requirements
B.FERC
VII PERMITS· 19
VIII SYSTEMS COMPARED· 20
A. Similar to Corps of Engineer's Scheme
B. Higher Head Scheme
C. Recommended Scheme
IX TYPICAL FEATURES· 22
A. Diversion
B. Intake
C. De-Sanding and Screens
D. Water Conveyance
1. Pipe
Page 1
polarconsult alaska, inc.
2. Flume
a) Wood
b) Metal
E. Powerhouse
F. Turbine
G. Generator
H. Governor
1. Switch gear
J. Transmission
I. Routes
2. Designs
X COSTS-32
A. Force Account
B. Title 36
XI ECONOMICS-38
XII CONCLUSIONS-44
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS-45
ApPENDIX A
ApPENDIXB
Page 2
polarconsult alaska, inc.
I. FINDINGS
A. Description
This report provides an .analysis of the feasibility of hydroelectric power production from
Indian River at Tenakee, Alaska.
B. Conclusions
The conclusions made from the analysis of the data and the facts are as follows:
• A hydroelectric power system can be economically constructed on Indian
river near Tenakee.
• The first cost of the plant will be $612,17l.
• Tenakee's demand for power is low and relatively stable therefore the
most feasible capacity will be approximately 125 kW.
• The plant will generate an average of 1,002,674 kWh per year.
• The community will use near 345,000 kWh per year.
• The hydro energy will need to be augmented by 13 ,332 kWh of diesel
energy during low water periods with a peak demand of 75 kW.
• The excess power generated by the hydroplant may be used to heat
buildings, green houses and et cetera.
• The value of the excess power is 61,485 gallons of diesel fuel per year.
• A FERC license will not be needed to build the recommended project.
• Cooperation with the US. Forest Service may result in building fish
passage facilities at no cost to Tenakee.
• Sources of funds may be grants and/or loans.
• A hydroelectric power plant will insulate the city from fuel cost
increases.
• Hydroelectric energy is environmentally superior to burning diesel fuel.
• Local labor can earn money during the construction of the plant.
Currently expenditures for diesel fuel result in no community benefit.
C. Recommendations
A hydroelectric power plant constructed at Indian River is techPically and economically
feasible. The recommended power plant has reduced output and head as compared to
the one recommended by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, the
recommended plant will use a low height diversion, a de-sanding section, a flume, and
a cross flow turbine. The system will be constructed mostly of local yellow cedar
meaning the materials will be low in cost, and will be a smaller percentage of the total
Page 3
polarconsult alaska, inc.
project cost than is customary. Construction with local labor using force account is
planned which will retain money in the community. The design and method of
construction will result in a plant that is constructed with minimal interference to the
natural environment. The previously proposed system required heavy road building
equipment to blast a bench into the side of the river bank along the pipeline route.
The recommended plant will cost 612,171 dollars as compared to 3,251,000 dollars as
proposed by the Corps of Engineers in October 1983.
A number of plant designs were compared to determine the least costly plant.
Different materials and construction methods were studied. The most expensive part of
these, hydroplants is the water conveyance system. Pipe, and flumes made of wood and
aluminum were analyzed. Different conveyance types were compared for the project
layout that was proposed by the Corps of Engineers. An alternative to the Corps of
Engineers' system was studied that would have higher head and use less water. This
system's power house was located just below the barrier #1 to fish on Indian River,
and the water conveyance extended up river to just above barrier #5.
TO LOC
lANDING
2X
2X ';0 60l I
SCALE'~ '::
.;:'~:~i,.~ ~"c:;,,'~ ~ '::-
The area extending between barrier #4 to below barrier #2 was traversed along the bank
during the last field trip. On the basis of constructibility, and considering the fact that the
City does not own some of the land needed for the Corps of Engineers' project, a system
whose inta..l<:e is further down stream is superior. The recommended system is composed
of a short flume from barrier #4 to a power house with the tailrace discharging just below
barrier #2. The 125 kW capacity of the plant is predicated on data that shows the
community to be stable, exhibiting little growth. The proposed plant capacity can
accommodate a community population growth of near 50%, and will prove useful and
rewarding even if Tenakee doubles or triples in population and electrical demand.
Page 4
polar consult alaska, inc.
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF RECOMMENDED PLANT
Basic characteristics of the recommended plant are provided below:
General Data:
Installed Capacity
Number of Units
Type of Turbine
Average Annual Energy
Estimated Usable Energy (Current)
Dependable Capacity
100 Year Flood
Design Flow
Gross Head
Design Head
Flume Length
Penstock Diameter
Penstock Length
Diversion Structure Height
Economic Data:
Annual Project Cost
Project Cost
Annual Fuel Displaced
O&M diesel plant
Savings per year, avg of pw
Total Savings, present worth
Excess Energy, present worth
Salvage Value 20 yr., present worth
Page 5
125 kW
1
Cross Flow
1,002,674 kWh
345,000 kWh
o
5,670 cfs
41 cfs
58 feet
50 feet
1,440 feet
30 inches
105 feet
3 feet
$43,823
$612,171
30,165 gal
2.8c/kWh
$11,600
$440,718
$509,529
$445,035
polarconsult alaska, inc.
III. Introduction
A hydroelectric plant for Tenakee Springs was studied by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The study, entitled "Small Hydropower and Related Purposes, Letter Report, Tenakee
Springs" is dated April 1984. This report is quite detailed and explores the production of
electricity from a hydroplant at Indian River and a supply of domestic water from the same
source. The conclusion of the report was that "No further Corps of Engineers studies of
Indian River hydroelectric development are planned at this time because cost of construction
and operation are not shown to be recoverable, and a project would not be competitive with
diesel generation. "
The City of Tenakee Springs in the spring of 1992 asked Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to analyze
the situation and recommend alternative means of developing a hydroelectric project. It is
evident that a community that has a total expenditure of near 40,000 dollars per year for fuel
can not expect to amortize a project costing over three million dollars. The only possible
solution is to reduce the cost of the project while retaining to a large degree, the benefits.
Polarconsult's analysis provides the data which shows how the costs can be decreased to make
the project feasible.
This report was not commissioned, or funded, to repeat the work completed by the Corps of
Engineers in their report. Descriptions of the city, terrain and information appearing in the
appendices which include "Technical Analysis, Cultural Resource Assessment, Section
404(b)(1) Summation, Indian River Flow Duration Curves, and USFWS Coordination Act
Report" are mostly or entirely true today, and will not be repeated. Relevant changes in
conditions will however be provided in this report.
The significant changes in this report are as follows:
• The project is entirely located on city and private land. As a result, a Federal
Regulatory Commission license will not be needed.
• The project size, and construction methods are different resulting in vastly decreased
environmental alterations to the land.
• The above changes have resulted in a project that is less expensive and is now
affordable.
A. Authorization
This study was authorized by the City of Tenakee Springs in March 1992. The source
of the funding is a legislative grant administered through Community and Regional
Affairs.
Page 6
polarconsult alaska, inc.
B. Tenakee Electrical Requirements
Generally the amount of electricity used in a community is a function of population,
cost of electricity, cost of alternative energy and earnings of the population. Tenakee
Springs has had a historical population as is shown below:
Year Population
1909 126
1920 174
1929 210
1939 188
1950 140
1960 109
1970 86
1980 138
1990 120
1992 123
The population data can not be used as an absolute measure to determine how
population numbers effect the consumption of electricity as some people are not
connected to the electrical system. There was a recent connection to the boat harbor
that will increase loads during the winter for lighting, dehumidification and bilge
pumps. This new load will further modify the use of electricity in the summer when
there are added transient boats. The harbor's use of electricity will be a welcome
source of revenue for a hydro facility.
Records are presented to show the changes in power production from Fiscal Year (FY)
1984 to FY 1992. After initial growth, generation has remained almost at a constant
level for the past four years. Initial growth is likely caused by the nonnal expansion
that occurred after PCE and the construction of a better distribution system.
Annual kWh Generated, Gallons of Fuel Used, and Power Production Cost
~ 0.4 ~, -----------------------
• ~~ ~ O·"k' ~. = 0 i~O.3 ~ /~ ~ J 0.1'~:x:===3: 7 ~; 0.1 ~ /p----~
Q..'ij // I I
-i~ Ol!,) .......~ ____ kWhGenerated) L-
.§ i; . I I I ~; 0.' I I -D-Pow", P,.duorion ~ i ~ I ~ Generacor FueJ I
~ 0.05 t=====~==::::====~====~=====:::::::::===:; "; +----
g o~I---r---r--~---~----~--+---+_-~ -<
FY 84 FY8~ FY86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 91
Page 7
po!arconsult alaska, inc.
It should be noted that the consumption level of electricity in Tenakee is low. This is
partially explained by the fact that incomes are low, that there is conservation ethic,
and some facilities are used on a part time basis. The number of electric meters
installed per population is much higher for Tenakee than other Southeast Communities.
Year
1. Past
The peak historical demand is based on a 15 minute reading from a meter at the
diesel power plant. The actual short term peak requirements are somewhat
above these values. A graph of uncertain origin was provide by Tenakee
Springs that shows the average kW demand for the year of 1987. It ranged
from a low of about 45 kW to a high of near 56 kW. The peak demand was
listed as a low of near 49.5 kW to a high of near 72 kW.
A recorder was installed for one month in 1990. Demand values for a week in
early October are shown in separate informational appendix to this report.
According to the graph produced by the recorder, the peak demand was 75 kW
on Monday at 7:55 p.m. and the minimum for the day was 32.5 kW at 5:55
am. This month had a total kWh generated of 32,480 as compared with a
yearly average monthly value of 30,700 kWh. The peak month for the 1991
fiscal year was in December when 32,800 kWh or an average of 44 kW of
continuous power was generated. The indication is the instantaneous peak kW
is somewhat less than two times the average kW.
Past System Statistics
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY 88 FY 89 FY90 FY 91 FY92
kWh Generated 182,703 266,560 287,520 300,000 333,440 351,160 343,840 368,000 344,956
kWh Sold 165,024 223,773 235,365 251,627 295,456 315,749 308,834 338,427 311,094
Generator Fuel, Gallons 27,728 30,417 32,256 33,344 35,404 35,290 32,294 37,273 31,042
Total Cost of Fuel $34,750 $39,060 $41,846 $32,717 $37,590 $37,170 $39,257 $49.305 $36,625
Weighted Avg, Fuel Cost/Gal. $1.25 $1.28 $1.29 $1.02 $1.06 $1,04 $1.22 $1.32 $1.18
Non-Fuel Power Plant Costs $14,654 $17,211 $26,475 $13,456 $30,937 $24,567 $24,448 $52,588 $57,547
Total Power Production Cost $49,704 $56,271 $68,321 $46,173 $68,527 $61,121 $63,705 $101,893 $93,830
Power Production Cost/kWh $0.27 $0.21 $0.24 $0.15 $0.21 $0.17 $0.19 $0.28 $0.27
2. Future
Demands may increase when the hydro unit comes on line if the price of power
is lowered. However, the price is now subsidized by PCE and lowering the
price is not probable. In fact the price may increase if PCE is cut, and thus
discourage demand. Therefore, it is not possible to predict the future and it is
likely that demand will remain the same or increase slowly with time. As of this
time there is a proposal for a Btu tax. This tax would effect diesel generation 3
or more times greater than for a hydroelectric plant.
Page 8
polarconsult alaska, inc.
IV . VALUE OF POWER
The value of hydropower is based on the alternative means of providing the same
service. The only feasible alternative to hydro at Tenakee is diesel generation.
Records derived from Power Cost Equalization (PCE) reporting have been used to
arrive at alternative costs.
A. Fuel Cost
Fuel is the single most expensive component of generating power with diesels-electric
units. Out of the total plant expenditures of approximately 107,000 dollars for FY
1992, 36,625 dollars was used to purchase the 31,042 gallons consumed. This resulted
in a fuel cost of 1.18 dollars per gallon. Fiscal year 1991 had more expensive fuel and
the plant used 6,000 additional gallons for a total cost of 49,305 dollars. The plant
produced 11.1 kWh per gallon of fuel used. This resulted in a fuel cost of 11 cents
for each kWh generated.
Because the system is small, and the equipment relatively lightly loaded, it is not likely
that the efficiency will improve. The average efficiency for all diesel plants on the
PCE program was 12.2 kWh per gallon. The list includes a number of larger systems
that are considerably more efficient than the smaller ones, such as Tenakee.
The future cost of diesel fuel is uncertain because of the current international situation,
and the possibility of special taxes introduced by the Federal Government. There is no
physical shortage of oil in the world nor will there be. for some time. A conservative
estimate of fuel costs for this analysis is that they will increase at 1 % for the next 5
years and at 2 % thereafter. Sources for such analysis include the "World Energy
Outlook", dated 1990, produced by the Chevron Corporation.
B. Equipment Cost
The power plant was purchased in 1990 by the City from Snyder Mercantile. The City
recently installed a new 3304T Caterpillar generator that is rated at 85 kW prime and
100 kW standby. This unit was purchased in 1991 and has been running since. The
plant also has a D3304 acquired in 1970 and a D330 acquired in 1974. As of 1989
these units had in excess of 60,000 hours each. All of these units are 1,800 rpm
machines.
The fact that the machines have been lightly loaded probably accounts for their
longevity. NC Machinery states that a top end overhaul should be scheduled at 8 to 10
thousand hours, and a major. at 20 to 25 thousand hours depending on loading. A
major overhaul for this machine without replacing the crankshaft will cost $8,500. A
Page 9
polarconsult alaska, inc.
top end overhaul will cost $4,000. Typical operations costs in Alaskan communities
are from 10 to 14 cents per kWh.
The City paid about $31,000 for the new generator plus the cost of installation. For
this study a replacement machine is assumed to cost $33,000 and will require an
overhaul at the times recommended by Caterpillar. The diesel-generator will be
replaced after it has operated a total of 50,000 hours. This is equivalent to about 6
years of continuous operation.
C. Labor Cost
On the basis of information prepared by the City, labor costs for the system in FY
1992 were approximately as follows:
General Maintenance Salary $16,160
Managers Salary $ 7,200
Bookkeepers Salary $ 1,688
Mayor Salary $ 900
Meter Reading Expense $ 5,253
Although a diesel electric power plant takes considerably more maintenance than a
hydroelectric plant, the hydro is not maintenance free. This is especially true during
the first year of operation when problems are most likely to occur. Examining the
salaries above, based on maintenance operations alone, only the maintenance salary
appears susceptible to reduction, and part of it is for maintenance and operation of the
distribution system. This is true because meters will still need to be read, books kept,
customers billed and there continues to be a management requirement. Even with the
hydro, the diesel plant will require some maintenance as it will run during winter cold
periods when flows are not sufficient to supply the entire demand. Over time, there
will be a reduction in labor, and certainly repair and equipment costs, as a hydroplant
is more reliable.
Modern low cost electronic equipment can be installed to monitor the operation of a
small hydroplant. For example there is an inexpensive device that connects to the
telephone system that will call designated people if the temperature is too high or too
low, or there is too much noise. This device also has contacts where a fire detector or
other offlon devices may be connected. One can also call and listen in to the sound
level at the plant which is useful for periodic monitoring. The cost for this device is
about $300. In addition, transducers can be installed in the switch gear that will enable
the operator to determine what is happening electrically. This type of system was
installed at Larsen Bay. It may also be possible to install a pair of the new video
phones which will provide an inexpensive way of looking at the power house, intake or
other plant features. Since the operator will be living in town and the weather is not
Page 10
polarconsult alaska, inc.
always conducive to inspecting the plant, these remote devices will be able to avoid
field inspections that will save considerable time and effort. After the operator gains
experience operating the plant, less observation will be needed. For example, the
operator may find from experience that after a heavy rain the screens require cleaning,
so the operator will not bother investigating the screens on a daily basis if the rains
have been moderate. This means that the amount of time spent at the plant will
decrease with time.
Page 11
polarconsult alaska, inc.
v. HYDROLOGY AND POWER
One of the critical factors for a hydroelectric power plant is the availability of water.
Indian River is a stream with limited records. The stream was gauged from October
1975 until September 82, a period of 7 years. The average mean discharge for the
period at the gauge was 83.3 cfs. This is corrected from the 12.9 square miles above
the gauge, to the 20.7 square miles above the proposed diversion site which is
downstream from the gauge station.
These flow records show that flows varied from a low of 8 cfs on February 19 & 20,
1979 to a high of 1,900 cfs on September 15, 1976. Based on typical years it is likely
that diesel power will have to augment the hydro power generation during the months
of January, February and March. As demand grows, augmentation will likely be
required during parts of December, April, August and perhaps JUly. This is because
the system has no storage and can provide power only from available stream flows.
Daily Flow, Utility Demand, & Power Production
1~~--------~----------~---------------------------------
1 --Vli!il)' Demand
~ I ~ 120 +-J ----------j --Streamflow
~
~ ~ 100~' ----------1 -kW Produced .. -~ ~ 80 +\-------------------------,f-------------tL------------
~.§
..II: Q ;~ ~~~~~******rrr~~~HHHHHHKrn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c ..
5 ~ ~~~~--------------~~---~~-----------;!S~
g 20~~--~==::====~~=====:::~~~~---------------
~
'111111111111111111.1111111 illllll,I'I,I'I!lIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'1 1,1111:'11 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111 111111111.11111111111111111111,','1111:'''' "!':I'1I:'.
II 16 21 26 13 18 23 28
February 1979 & March 1979
There are also 11 years of climate data which includes rainfall, which overlap the 7
years of flow records. One of the problems with correlating rainfall with flows is it
turns to snow at higher altitudes where the temperatures are lower than at the rain
gauge. As a result, runoff during colder periods is not accurately reflected by readings
at the precipitation gauge. Correlation coefficients were run between rain and stream
flow for those periods of time when they were both recorded. Very good correlation's
were achieved in September and October after all the snow had melted on the
mountains. For some months, such as February, correlation's were very poor. The
average correlation was 0.618 which is not good. Changing timing of the rain versus
stream flow did not seem to have much of an effect. What this means is that extension
of the water flow records using rainfall will not yield results that help in the power
Page 12
polarconsult alaska, inc.
analysis. However, the gross precipitation per year and its distribution aids in
adjusting the model to determine if the flow records are typical.
The determination of flows by the generation of synthetic flows on a daily basis will
not yield useful results. Generally, synthetic flows are generated on a monthly basis.
Unfortunately, streams fluctuate. Flow can change during a day because of rain, and
in the spring there are changes in flow that may exceed 10 percent caused by snow
melt. As an example; the peak flows in Palmer during snow melt period in the spring
begin about 1 p.m. and decline at about 12 a.m. that evening, when the snow refreezes.
Gauges are generally not set up to record these fluctuations because there would be too
much data. As a result, values typically used in a smaller run of riverhydroplant over
report production. Variation in flows over time are shown in the Corps of Engineers
report in Figure 7. The water records show the rate of increase in flow is much greater
than is the rate of decline. That is, when there is a rain storm, the flow rises more
rapidly then it declines after the rain.
A verage Daily Flow, & Precipititation
I
I -=-Precipitation r
,----O,---------.--J
000 0 00_ _ -_ - -N N N N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~;>.....!.6.>c.:.;;:...,...!.6..>= ... .>.-.!..6.. ~ ~ ~ ,~ u 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ -~ ~ z -~ ~ ~ ~ z -~ ~ -~
Adjustment factors were computed to account for the difference in daily flow
fluctuations as compared to monthly flows of Indian River. These factors were used to
calculate the expected power production from the proposed hydro plant. The use of
this factor removes to the possibility of over reporting production from the hydro plant.
Kadashan River, which is 9 miles south of Tenakee, was gauged from October 1964
through the present time, a period of 27 years. A correlation coefficient of 0.89 was
calculated between the monthly flow gauged at Kadashan, and the monthly flow gauged
at Indian River. Based on this good correlation between the drainage basins, the 27
years of stream flow records from Kadashan were adjusted to simulate flow from
Indian River.
Page 13
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Correlation of Factored Kadashin River To Measured Indian River Flows
--i= Indian River
I --Factored Kadashin
I
-~T---------------------~----------------~-------------1 300 +-1---11+--------------/\--------+-1,
E
'" .. ...
~ 2001-~r+~-~+_--~--~--rr·-~-~-~~~~--_+~-~~~
This 27 years of data was then utilized to synthesize 50 years of monthly stream flow
data using the Department of Interior (LAST) program " Applied Stochastic
Techniques." These monthly values were again adjusted for the difference in monthly
versus daily flow rates to arrive at an expected power production from the hydro plant.
A. Amount of power generated
The amount of power generated is controlled by available water and bounded by unit
capacity, the minimum allowable flow through the turbine, and by user demand.
Using the monthly flows as a basis, a program devised by Polarconsult called HydVar
was used to correlate the overlapping data and generate synthetic daily variations.
These variations were then used to provide power, from which was subtracted a
synthetic representation of Tenakee's load shape. The sum of these kWh's is the
amount of electricity the hydro will generate.
When the demand was greater then could be provided by the hydroplant, these kWh's
that must be provided by diesel generation were summed. Where there was excess
power from the hydroplant these values were summed to arrive at a surplus that could
be used for heat. The tabular sums are also presented in the appendix. The average
yearly values are as follows:
• Energy generated by the hydro
• Energy generated by the diesel
• Surplus Energy
1,002,674 kWhlyr.
13,322 kWhlyr.
657,674 kWhlyr.
Page 14
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Factored Kadashan & Measured Indian River
Streamflow & Power Production
~ 300
e ~ ~O~+'~'-~~+--~~-TI~~-ft-rr-TItr-+ ----Power Produced
~ 200 H-:t-+++Ht+rn-tHl-tft-rH-:rli+-Htt-++rt-+tt-W-lft-H--lit-m+:t=g:::::;r=t=t=v--l
, [il1 i 50~~~~~··t-~~r7r~~~·-I~~4L~~~+---4-~~~~~ , I v ij ~
o 1111111111 'ilillm! Ibm 111111 I!III! 1111 11111111111 !I!!I1Il 1II11J11llil! Ii IflllIJllIlIlIIllH t 111111 IIIIlRl1llllllllll1 II IIIIIHlIIIIIIlIIl1!ltIllllllllllllillllllllllll IIh 1M!! " IUlIlIIUHJJli!!lIIllhl 1I11111111::1I~ IH ,,111111111111 um',IIII,IIiIIll,,,1
Illustrations of some of the considerations that are required to successfully operate a
run of river plant are provided in the discussion that follows. Currently, the peak
power requirement for Tenakee is about 80kW which is about 64 percent of 125 kW.
So the peak amount of water needed is 64 percent of 40 cfs or 26 cfs for that output.
However, if there is available only 15 cfs of water only 45 kW can be generated, and if
the load was 60 kW, a diesel-generator must be added to the system during the day and
early evening to make up this deficit.
Annual Diesel Generation Backup for 125kW Hydroelectric Plant
This addition of diesel back-up can be done manually or automatically. An advantage
of a load governor is the plant is always producing all of the power possible, up to 125
kW. Reading the gauges will tell if there is sufficient water to produce 125 kW. It
will then be obvious early in the morning, given the traditional use patterns for the time
of year, day of the week, weather conditions (rain, snow, cold, cloud cover) whether a
Page 15
polarconsult alaska, inc.
diesel generator will need to be added during the day. There will be times while the
engine is operating when a rain increases the flow rapidly, and the hydro generates
sufficient power so the diesel is no longer needed. Unless the condition is observed or
there are automatic controls to shut off the diesel, there will be an occasional waste of
diesel fuel. This condition is a more likely event than is the one where a diesel must be
added because of a reduction in flow. This is because flow reductions occur more
gradually than flow increases.
B. Displaced Fuel
Energy in excess of the community I s traditional needs will be produced by the hydro
plant. This energy can be wasted but it also can be used. An inexpensive computer
equipped module can be used which will determine by the frequency whether there is
surplus energy. If there is, a relay is closed which sends the excess to an electric
heater. Such a heater can be used to heat hot water for the school, community center,
and provide heat to the buildings as well. It can also be used for greenhouses and
adsorption refrigeration. The equivalent amount of fuel will be dependent on water
flows, and the use of electricity by Tenakee. It is estimated, based on a 30 year period,
that the equivalent of 1,831,456 gallons of oil is available if all of the energy is
usable.. A realistic assumption is that one quarter of the energy can be put to useful
purpose that represents a significant savings in fossil fllel.
C. Fuel required
There will be times when there is not sufficient water to supply the demand or when
the plant is down for maintenance reasons~ During these times generation will be done
by the diesel plant. As a result an average of 1,198 gallons of diesel fuel will need to
be purchased each year. As can be seen by the calculations some years will require no
generation and others greater amounts than this average.
Page 16
polarconsult alaska, inc.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. Fish Requirements
King Salmon fry were planted in the upper long flat area of Indian River by the USFS.
According to the Forest Service biologists this is an excellent spawning and rearing
area for salmon. The Forest Service would like to continue this program if it is
feasible. Their biologist states that King Salmon do not spawn on the islands in
Southeastern Alaska. The reason there are no salmon using the upper reaches of Indian
River is because of the barriers, in particular barrier #4 prevents their passage. Barrier
#1 blocks most of the pink salmon. If a fish ladder is constructed to overcome barrier
#4, then Kings and perhaps Silvers will be able to ascend the river. To prevent
interception of the juveniles as they migrate down stream, the intake will have to have
specialized screens. In addition the hydroplant might be restricted in output during
certain times of the year to provide water between the intake and the power house.
Such a restriction will add to the costs for the hydroplant and may impact power
production. If carried to extremes the net effect will make the plant economically
infeasible.
The Forest Service states that they would like to construct a fish ladder at barrier #4.
What they will need from the city is a grant of rights-of-way. To assure that as many
of the migrants survived the downstream journey as possible, the hydroplant intake will
require modification. The Forest Service indicates they will pay for this. In addition
to plant modifications, the Forest Service should support the community to prevent the
restriction in flows caused by the community's cooperation in enhancing the fishery.
Generally, the community indicates they support an improvement that enhances the
environment in a manner such as this. They also stated that they look forward to
establishment of a permanent run of Kings on Indian River.
B. FERC
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over most of the hydro in
the US. FERC's jurisdiction is when a hydroplant is on Federal land, is involved with
Interstate Commerce, is on a Navigable River, or uses water from a Federal dam or
Project.
The proposed project is not on Federal land, it is on Tenakee land. The project does
not send power beyond State boundaries therefore, it is not involved in interstate
commerce. Indian River is clearly not navigable where the project is located, and there
is no federal dam or project on the river. As a result the commission can be petitioned
for a waiver from FERC licensing. The petition when granted, will save money, and
Page 17
polarconsult alaska, inc.
time, and makes the project much easier to permit as the Federal agencies will not have
jurisdiction.
Page 18
polarconsult alaska, inc.
VII. PERMITS
Permits will be required as follows:
1. A water use permit will be required from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). DNR will ask for comments by the Alaska State Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in the review
of these permits. ADF&G may ask for special conditions, such as minimum stream
flows.
2. Alaska Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review Compliance.
3. DEC Clean Water Certification (401) which is done in conjunction with DNR's review.
This permit is required only if a Federal permit is needed. A typical Federal permit
which will require a (401) is a (404) permit for action involving a wet land or fill in a
stream. Without fill a (404) permit will not be needed therefore a (401) permit will not
be required either.
4. FERC confirmation of no jurisdiction.
With the possible exception of dealing with ADF&G none of these pennits will be difficult nor
expensive to acquire. DNR is behind in permit processing so their permit will take the most
time, the agency can not say how long, but perhaps 6 months.
Page 19
polarconsult alaska, inc.
VIII. SYSTEMS COMPARED
A. Similar to the selected Corps scheme
The Corps of Engineers selected a logical configuration for a small plant. See
Drawing T-2 which show a plant along the same route. Their scheme picked up the
water above barrier #5 and conveyed it to the powerhouse location at barrier # 2. The
Corps of Engineers configuration was analyzed to see how costs and impacts could be
reduced by changing the capacity and design of the project as well as who builds it.
The Corps of Engineers alignment requires modification as there is no favorable
location for a powerhouse on the right bank as they have shown. Further, steep cliffs
preclude reasonable pipe support or even their benching on that side. As a result, the
pipe will be carried across the stream on a suspension bridge. It is estimated a system
with 125 kW capacity can be constructed for about $825,399 dollars using the same
alignment, simplifying the system, eliminating the rock work and roads, and using
local materials and labor.
The gross head on the project is about 72 feet and the design flow, Q, is about 32 cfs.
Confusion was expressed over land ownership in the upper area of the project. After
much searching, it is concluded that the upper part of the Corps of Engineers scheme
would be on Federal land, and thus would require a FERC permit. This adds cost, and
uncertainty, to the project. A FERC permit will also consume considerable time.
B. Higher head scheme
Another option that was investigated was one resulting in more head thereby decreasing
the unit cost of pipe, and the cost of the turbine-generator. This scheme carried the
water from above barrier #5 to just below barrier #1. This scheme resulted in a gross
head of 116 feet and required about 20 cfs at full output.
This scheme would cost 933,000 dollars and would be constructed using all
polyethylene (PE) pipe. This scheme would have the advantage in that its reduced use
of water would make it capable of greater output during the winter when flows are low.
The scheme, as estimated was assumed to start on the right bank and cross using a
suspension bridge, hence continuing to a powerhouse just below the first barrier. On
the basis of the second field trip, it appears that it is feasible to construct the system in
the entirety on the left bank which will likely reduce the costs.
The major disadvantages are FERC will have jurisdiction on this scheme, and it will
partially de-water the area from barrier #2 to barrier #1 where a few fish are present.
Page 20
polarconsult alaska, inc.
C. Recommended scheme
The recommended project will pick up water above barrier #4 and, after passing
through the turbine, discharge it below barrier #2. The layout of this system is shown
on drawing T-l. Additional details of the proposed plant are shown on drawings H-l,
through H-S. These drawings pertain to all of the systems that were analyzed.
Page 21
polarconsult alaska, inc.
IX. TYPICAL FEATURES
A. Diversion
The water will be diverted from the river using a steel framed, wood faced diversion
structure that will only be of sufficient height to guide the water into a flume that is
constructed transverse to the river flow. See details 2 and 3 on sheet H-4. The
diversion structures will be composed of steel "A" frames that will be rock bolted to
the bed of the river. The upstream members of the "A" frames will be composed of
steel "I" beams. Cedar or other wood planks will be set into the "I" beams to raise the
height of the water so it will run into the flume. Over time the area behind the flume
and the diversion structure will fill in with rocks and gravel. Should it be desirable to
remove the rocks and gravel, the planks can be removed and the river will wash the
material downstream. The diversion structure will be located sufficiently far upstream
so that the headwarderosion of the falls will not endanger the intake. The construction
of the diversion will be completed during low flows in mid summer. These
construction methods and materials will not cause pollution of the stream and likely
will not need a Corps of Engineers (404) permit.
B. Intake
The intake will be composed of a long metal box or flume, which will have a grate
with bars longitudinal to the stream flow as its cover. This box will be rock bolted to
the bed of the stream. The diversion structure described earlier, will channel the
stream flows over the grates. The water will flow through the grates into the box
hence to the de-sander! These grates are similar to those found in the bottom of a
gutter on a road. The grates will be designed so that large and small rocks along with
many leaves will be carried over the flume on down the stream. As the large bed
loads, rocks are carried only during flood stage, there will be more than sufficient
water during this time to force the material over the screens. Occasionally, the screens
will require raking to remove rocks or sticks that become stuck between the bars.
A flume similar to that proposed is a part of Alaska Light & Power's hydroplant on
Gold Creek in Juneau. This type of water intake is extensively used for small hydro in
the Tyrolean Alps. See "Water Power and Dam Construction", November 1992.
C. De-Sanding and Screens
Downstream of the grated flume, there will be a slide gate to cut off the flow. Below
this gate will be an overflow section that will dispose of excess water back to the
stream. In this section there will be a deeper settling section that will remove the
Page 22
polarconsult alaska, inc.
material that goes through the grate. This section will have a bypass gate to discharge
the sand and gravel back to the stream from whence it came. See H-4 for some typical
details of such a structure.
A decision will have to be made on whether the grate at the intake should be
sufficiently fme so screens in the de-sander can be eliminated, or if it is better to use a
courser grate that will pass more gravel, leaves and needles. A courser grate can be
built heavier and is less likely to suffer damage from trees and large boulders. A finer
grate will screen out all but sand sized particles and will not allow most leaves to enter
the system.
The ability to pass fish will influence the spacing and operations of the screens. If a
fish ladder is constructed over barrier #4 then it is logical to design the flume system so
that downstream passage of smolt is assured.
D. Water conveyance
1. Pipe
Pipe was considered as a means of carrying water. It has the advantage of fully
containing the water. This allows the full head of the water from the diversion
to the turbine to be used. It is also simpler to operate than a flume as no
overflows are needed. But a pipe is costly and is heavy. If the work is to be
done without heavy machinery, and there is no heavy machinery at Tenakee,
then a pipe of 30 plus inches in diameter will be difficult to handle. High
density polyethylene, HDPE, pipe weighs about 40 pounds per foot. A single
forty foot section weighs about 1,600 pounds. The fusion machine for such a
pipe weighs about 3,000 pounds. Working a pipe such as this along the bank
will be a considerable task. The pipe, due to its flexibility and the fact it will
be above ground, requires supports at close intervals.
Steel pipe weighs nearly the same as the HDPE, and its hydraulic characteristics
are not as good. Over time steel pipe will corrode. If a tree falls across it, it
will buckle and can be difficult to repair. Steel pipe will also have to be
constructed using supports but their spacing can be larger then for HDPE.
Fiberglass pipe can be used. It is lighter than the other materials and is very
corrosion resistant. It is also expensive and is not a ductile as steel or HDPE.
If a tree falls across it, it will break. The number of supports needed will be
between those required for HDPE and steel.
Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC, pipe also can be used. It comes in 20 foot lengths
and has a bell and spigot joint. The weight would range from 32 to 40 pounds
Page 23
polarconsult alaska, inc.
per foot depending on the wall thickness selected. PVC pipe is less expensive
and the material is stronger than HDPE. However, when cold it is brittle and if
shot with a bullet it will crack.
Exposed pipe of substantial diameter does not freeze in Southeastern Alaska.
Pelican, a community a short distance from Tenakee, has an exposed flume and
penstock and has had no problems with freezing.
With elevated support systems, the pipe will have to be moved into position on
the trestles, so a conveyance system will be needed to haul the pipe from trestle
to trestle. This will likely mean that timbers will need to be used between the
trestles so a cart can be used to haul the pipe. Normally during construction
with HDPE pipe, the heavy fusion machine is left in one place and the pipe is
pulled through it. It is possible to pull over a 1,000 feet using this method. To
pull through the trestle system requires some type of rollers or slides to keep the
pipe from pulling down the structures. This will increase construction costs.
Pipe other then HDPE will have to be hauled in sections and connected in
together in the field. Rubber "0" ringed joint pipe, if used, will need to be
restrained so the joints can not pull apart.
2. Flume
Flumes were extensively used on hydroelectric projects in the past. The reason
for this is they can be constructed of local materials with local labor. Wood
was a material well understood in earlier times and is usually available in the
Northwest. Flumes are not as readily regulated as is a pipe. As an example
when a turbine is shut off by the wicket gates or a valve in a pipe the water
pressure builds up and the flow ceases. With a flume the flow continues, and
the excess has to be spilled at the headwork's. Additionally a flume, if made of
wood, can rot over time, but so can a steel pipe corrode. If a steel pipe is
supported on wood, as will be a flume then, the question can be asked; will the
pipe supports last longer for the pipe than for the flume?
One great advantage of a flume is it can act as a conveyance for transporting its
own construction material. In the past when flumes were used to carry logs, the
construction materials were floated to the end of the flume. For Tenakee, it is
proposed to utilize several special carts with flanged wheels that will ride on the
flume as it is constructed. In the general case, the material will be brought to
the intake and wheeled down the shallow grade of the flume on a cart. The
empty cart will be pushed back to the beginning.
A disadvantage of a flume is a tree falling across it will destroy it, requiring
that it be repaired. As outlined earlier though, this is a danger for each of the
Page 24
polarconsult alaska, inc.
water conveyance systems studied. Flume material and hardware should be
kept on reserve for repair purposes.
a) Wood
A wooden flume can be constructed or Tenakee as is shown on drawing
H-2. The drawing for illustrative purposes, shows the flume some
height above the ground. Some portions of the flume will be at ground
level and some portions, where the flume crosses a gully, will be higher.
The flume shown is constructed with a deck that will keep leaves and
branches out of the water and will also provide a walkway for use during
construction and operation of the project. The flume shown is planned
to be constructed of locally mJ£l1 yellow cedar, and will use l&g or a
SJJ1in.c. system to reduce leakage from the cracks where the planks join.
Moderate leakage is not of great economic importance except that it
produces ice which can increase the load on the structure.
b) ~
A metal flume is shown in drawing H-3. This flume has a support
system of yellow cedar and uses sheet aluminum to convey the water.
This flume system supports the water in a manner similar to a hammock
supporting a person. The aluminum comes in large rolls. A roll will be
set up at the end of the flume on stands with a pipe between. Sheets of
aluminum will be cut off and carted to where they are to be used. The
aluminum is light, a 40 foot sheet of 0.05 inch thick material weighs
about 250 pounds. The aluminum sheet will be forced down and
fastened to the preceding sheet with blind rivets or small bolts. The
aluminum will be fastened to the wood with stainless steel nails or by
other means.
The advantages of the aluminum flume are it has excellent hydraulic
characteristics, and will have a long life, as aluminum is resistant to
corrosion. An aluminum flume can readily be repaired by lining inside
or by patching, and it will be less expensive as it is light.
E. Powerhouse
The powerhouse will house the turbine, generator, load governor and switch gear. A
transformer will be located outside the powerhouse. The powerhouse will be located
so the generator floor is above flood stage that is estimated at 10 feet. The base of the
powerhouse will likely be concrete although money can be saved if it is constructed of
Page 25
polarconsult alaska, inc.
rock-filled timber cribs. During final design, depending on the terrain, creative
approaches may be taken to save money.
The walls of the powerhouse will be made of 6 inch rough £.a.l£l! yellow cedar timbers
that are drift pinned together like a log cabin. The roof will be composed of beams
topped with baked enameled galvanized metal roofing. The roof will overhang the
walls to protect them from the weather. See drawing H-5 for the layout of a typical
powerhouse.
The reason for a wooden powerhouse is that timber is very resistant to fue, has good
insulating characteristics and is easy to erect. Further, all materials will have to be
hauled to the powerhouse over a trail through the trees on a small vehicle such as a
trailer drawn by a 4-wheeler. Concrete is very heavy weighting about 4,000 pounds
per cubic yard. Hauling and handling any more concrete than is necessary will
increase the costs of construction. Wood also is aesthetically pleasing and will blend in
with the surroundings.
F. Turbine
The turbine required for this project will be a low head machine that must handle a
considerable volume of water. Low head machines are quite expensive because they
must have large water passages, and are usually large and heavy.
The first consideration for Tenakee was a reaction turbine which is commonly known
as a Francis turbine after its inventor. The only reasonably priced source for such a
turbine is China. China has over 60,000 micro hydroplants in operation and is the
largest producer of small hydroelectric machinery in the world. A turbine is needed
which uses a draft tube. This is because when the river floods, the water level can rise
near 10 feet and the electrical apparatus must be located above this leveL A reaction
turbine has the advantage of using a draft tube that permits it to be mounted 10 above
the water, and it also rotates at a high enough speed that it can be directly coupled to a
generator. The direct coupling can save money, energy, and will improve reliability.
The following illustrates the effects of setting a turbine and its associated generator
above flood stage. For the recommended installation, the maximum net head is 50 feet
so if 10 feet of this were lost, there would only be 40 feet of head. To get the same
power would require 25 percent more water and the power output would be reduced
during low flows. A reaction turbine draft tube, reaches below the turbine and
recovers through suction, the head lost by siting the turbine above the water. So a
reaction turbine can acquire all of the available energy.
Page 26
polarconsult alaska,inc.
The reaction turbines made in China are heavy and require the construction of
substantial supports and will require detailed concrete work. Please see the views of
such a turbine installation in Figures 1.0 and 1.1.
Figure 1.0 Side view, Hydraulic Turbine, Francis Type
Figure 1.1 End view, Hydraulic Turbine, Francis Type
Page 27
polarconsult alaska, inc.
A cross flow turbine is another possibility. There is' one turbine manufacturer,
Ossberger, who has built these turbines for years and claims that they will function
with a draft tube. Osberger's turbine will be similar to the views shown below. This
turbine has the advantage of good efficiency over a very wide range of flows. Further,
it is quite light, and will be much easier to install than a Francis turbine. It has an
additional advantage of not being easily clogged by leaves. The Ossberger turbine is
less efficient than the Francis turbine at full output. Also it turns at a lower rpm and
requires some form of speed increaser, so a reasonably priced generator can be used.
The Francis turbine is more rugged and is less likely to require repairs, but repairs are
more complicated and costly. Further, quality control is probably better with
Ossberger.
G. Generator
The proposed generator will produce a minimum of 125 kW at 0.8 power factor.
Electrically it will be a three phase, 480 volt unit. It will have static excitation and will
use a Basler or equivalent voltage regulator.
A generator for the Francis turbine will be a directly connected unit turning at 900 or
perhaps 720 rpm. The generator will have to come from China. The voltage regulator
will be purchased from the US., as will the rest of the electrical gear.
The generator for the Ossberger turbine will come from the U.S., and will operate at
1,200 rpm. It will have ball bearings and the shaft will be designed to carry loads from
the belt drive.
Because of the low head, the Ossberger turbine turns slowly, so a belt drive will .be
required to increase the rpm to 1,200. A large pulley will be on the turbine shaft and a
smaller one on the generator. The belt will be of a special flat type and the pulleys will
be crowned. This type of belt drive is very efficient, more so than geared speed
increasers, and the belt is extremely reliable with life in excess of several years of
operation.
H. Governor
The generator rpm must be controlled to produce sixty cycles. In earlier hydroplants
the speed of the turbine was controlled with a governor that controlled the amount of
water the machine received, which in turn controlled the speed. There is another way
to control the speed of the machine, and that is to add and subtract electrical loads so
the output remains at 60 cycles. This can now be done electronically by a device called
a "load governor". There are a number of load governors operating in Alaska, one is
at Burnett Inlet on Alaska Aquaculture I s project. An electronic load governor can be
Page 28
polarconsult alaska, inc.
located anywhere on the system. It takes excess power and shunts it to resistance
heaters. For example, water heaters, hydronic heating systems, electric air heaters,
can be located where ever heat is required. Loads can be prioritized by the load
governor. As an example, the governor can be programmed to supply excess
electricity first to the school heating system, secondly to the school hot water, and then
to the green house or the city hall. If the school is sufficiently hot, then the next use of
electricity will be by the hot water heater.
For a rim of river plant that has no storage, the amount of water that can be used at
any moment can not exceed the amount in the stream. If there is added water that the
plant can generate with and it is not used, then the energy is lost. A stream fluctuates
as does the demand for electricity. A 125 kW machine will rarely be used near peak
capacity at Tenakee. Much of the time, there will be excess water that can be used to
operate the hydroplant at an output above the community's needs. The surplus
electricity can produce heat that has value as it can be used to displace fuel and its
associated costs. This provides added value to the plant and also is environmentally
superior to burning carbon based fuels.
In addition to the load governor there is an electronic head level controller that opens
or shuts the turbine gates based on the quantity of water available at the beginning of
the penstock. It does this by reading the water pressure (depth) which in turn is
converted to an electrical signal that is provided to a computer which directs the
operation of a hydraulic pump that drives a cylinder controlling the flow of water to the
turbine. If water is being used at a rate greater than its supply then the gate will close
down, if the rate is less than the supply the gates will open until they reach their set
limits.
I. Switch gear
The switch gear will consist of several elements. One item will be the circuit breaker
that will shut off the plant if there is over-current. This is a protective device that is
already used in Tenakee's current system to protect the diesel generators. The
electronic equipment can also be used to perform relaying to shut the plant off if there
is over or under voltage or frequency. In addition transducers can be provided, as was
done at Larsen Bay, so the status of the plant may be monitored from town. In a small
plant such as this, the switch gear and the electronic controls for a load governor can
be incorporated within a single enclosure thus saving space and costs.
J. Transmission
1. Routes
Page 29
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Several routes were investigated for the transmission line. One would go along
the left bank of the creek to the beach, hence by underwater cable to the boat
harbor where it would tie in to the city's existing power grid. A second route
would cross the ridge as is shown on drawing T -1. For final design the two
routes should be re-analyzed and a determination made on the best alternative.
The beach route has the advantage that the least distance is required within the
trees than the other schemes. Further, the line is in a location were a tap can be
provided at the small park at the bridge if desired, or the tap could be extended
along the coast to provide service to others to the Southeast.
There is an existing overhead single phase power line connecting the harbor to
the town. The length is about 950 feet. This line will have to be upgraded to
three phase. This can be accomplished by adding cross arms to each pole, one
single pole guy and an intermediate structure. In addition, two conductors will
need to be added. One problem with a pole line is the community has no
equipment to lift poles. Gin poles, tripods or jeers may have to be rigged to set
the poles in place.
2. Designs
Different power line designs are possible. The most desirable one, considering
aesthetics and damages, is buried cable. A second design would be bare
overhead wire as proposed by the Corps of Engineers, and currently used for
distribution in town. A third method is an overhead design using insulated
cable that is hung from trees and the occasional pole.
The problem with buried cable is cost. It is more costly than an overhead
design with the cost of just the cable near $4.50 per foot. Further, it is reported
that rock is near the surface and unprotected buried cable must be buried a
minimum of 32 inches below the ground surface. Burial will entail digging a
trench through roots and logs into the ground and rock which will be very
expensive. A second means will be to pull the cable into a heavy walled PVC
conduit and then build a wooden walkway over it to protect the cable and to
provide an easy route to the power plant. Crossing Indian River will still
require overhead lines of some type because it is not practical to cross in the
bed of the river. An added disadvantage of buried cable is locating a fault in
the cable will be difficult.
Overhead lines, such as the Corps of Engineers proposed, are practical if a
means of setting tlIe poles inexpen...sively is achieved, Overhead systems are
generally less expensive then any other type of construction. However, they are
subject to damage during wind and ice storms when the surrounding trees fall.
An additional impediment occurs when making repairs as the poles must be
climbed. On the positive side, repairs are easy and fmding the failure is simple
Page 30
r-----
polarconsult alaska, inc.
compared to a failure in an underground cable. Further, materials and system
knowledge is already available as power is distributed locally with an overhead
system.
There is a hybrid system that combines insulated cable with overhead lines.
The product is called tree cable and it uses insulated cable hung from a wire
messenger trolley. The messenger trolley is supported with special brackets
from poles or trees. Such a system is used by Homer Electric Association,
HEA , in the wooded area south of Homer across Kachamak Bay. HEA built
their own system and hung it from trees and have been quite pleased with it.
The current version of the National Electric Safety Code does not allow trees to
be used as power poles. However, for a special case such as this, a waiver can
be acquired. Trees are more reliable then poles, the reason being that a sound
tree can live for hundreds of years. Further, if a nearby tree falls across the
line, the line is out of service in any event. With a tree cable system, the
messenger trolley is hung from a breakaway support that drops the cable and
messenger to the ground. The fallen tree can be removed and the messenger re
hung. In Figure 2.0 can be found an example of a wire messenger trolley
assembly supported with a bracket hung from a tree.
Figure 2.0 Cable Messenger Trolley Assembly
In summary all of the methods of getting the power from the power house to the
community have some problems. During the design phase the community can
best decide, based on costs and operational considerations, which route and
system is best.
Page 31
polarconsult alaska, inc.
x. Costs
Project costs are one of the most important derivatives of an analysis such as this. Their
accuracy along with the demand, estimate of future alternative power generation costs, costs of
money, and quantity of production are the important values that provide the information to
make sound economic judgments.
It is important to assign values to each of these items that will result in a conservative realistic
result. Too many contingencies have a multiplying effect and can result in unrealistically high
costs. Many construction and operations costs can be predicted in a manner that will be
conservative. These include demand, alternative power generation costs, and costs of money.
The quantity of production is dependent on water flow and is not as easily predicted.
Project costs have received extra attention in the analysis. The extra attention has included
more detail than is typical in a study of this type in the sizing of equipment. Such detail
includes engineering analysis of the sizes of beams and other items that go toward arriving at
good quantities. In addition costs were analyzed on an item by item basis instead of a unit
basis, such as dollars per square foot. This attention to detail increases the estimate's accuracy
but it takes more time and as a result is more costly for the consultant.
Costs for this project were estimated based on several different methods of providing
generation using the Corps of Engineers layout, which seemed reasonable. Spread sheets for
these schemes are presented in the appendix. The recommended site was selected as a result
of the second field trip. Its cost estimate was derived from the information generated by the
earlier estimates for the Corps of Engineers layout but fit to quantities and conditions found at
the site.
Project costs are composed of two major elements. One element is material costs. These
costs, if based on good quantities, can be fairly accurate. The second element is labor cost.
This is the variable cost, and is hard to estimate accurately. As an example, heavy rain can
reduce productivity to as low as 36% of dry conditions. Reference Table 9.4.2.1 of
Construction in Cold Regions, by Terry T. McFadden et. al. However, if the work is mostly
done during the months of June, July, and August and the weather is not unusually wet,
productivity can be good. Local labor costs are also based on local skills and motivation. If
the skill level is high but motivation is low, the productivity will be low. A considerable
portion of production efficiency depends on the quality of management and the authority
granted to the management to remove unproductive workers. Labor costs are based on an
estimate of the time to do the work, assuming a crew and supervision such as was used on the
McRobert's Creek project that we constructed for ourselves.
Wages are based on information garnered from the City of Tenakee, force account work in
other communities, and our construction of McRobert's Creek Hydro. For wages the
following assumptions are made. The wage scale used at Tenakee on recent bridge
construction is as follows:
Page 32
polarconsult alaska, inc.
". ~~~~~=-==~======~~~~======~
i 2 Skilled laborers @ $12.50 per houri
2 laborers @ $10.00 per hour :
1 Foreman @ $13.50 per hour
. Average @ $11.70 per hour
: Use @ $12.
I
Fringes estimated as follows:
Workers Compensation 8.5%
Alaska Unemployment 3.1 %
Employer Social Security 7.65%
Total 19.25%
Average rate per hour calculated is $14.31, $15.00 per houris used in the estimates.
This is more than rates paid on McRobert's Creek which averaged $10 per hour plus fringes.
The project cost estimate is arranged to present the costs of material and labor in a detailed
format so the City will be able to review costs and provide any bias or input to the figures
based on local knowledge.
Risk factors are presented. It should be noted that the higher values are for those items were
definition is not as accurate or where considerable variation in labor may occur.
Itemized material costs are not as variable as their costs are fixed by quotation. Frequently
quoted prices can be bettered when an order is placed. As a general rule these quotations are
rounded to higher values. One .of the impor,tant quotations is for lumber from a local source.
The estimate is increased substantially to $700 MBF. For the turbine, generator and other
materials either exact quotations are used or the prices were obtained from catalogs such as
McMaster-Carr. Such sources such as these are higher priced than alternative suppliers.
An extensive tool and equipment list was developed. A crew size somewhat less then 9 people
is assumed. A tent camp near the project was also planned. The camp had the advantage of
assuring that workers are at the site when work starts. Use of a camp reduces the
nonproductive transportation costs from other housing locations to the site. It provides shelter
if weather conditions are poor. It enables the community to bring in outside help if there is
insufficient local labor, and provides them with a place to stay. The disadvantages are that it
costs money, requires a cook and permitting, and represents increased compensation for non
residents. An added disadvantage is it reduces the opportunity for local business to sell to the
workers. However, iflocal housing is fully utilized by tourists during the summer, having the
non local portion of the crew out of town may be an advantage. Care should be taken not to
use borrow money to pay unnecessary costs of room and board as this can represent a burden
on the project. And it may result in a payment by the many for a gain of the few.
Page 33
polarconsult alaska, inc.
An estimate was made to meet a request by the City to base construction costs on a crew living
locally. This has been done and is presented as the base cost estimate. If outside help is
needed it is likely that added wages will be required to offset the cost of living in town.
Regardless of where the crew is based, some form of shelter will be required for tools and
other supplies, and as a place where the workers can get out of the weather. As a result a
portion of the camp is retained in the estimate for use as a shelter.
Freight costs are based on a single barge hauling in the majority of the material during one trip
from Seattle. Because of scheduling, the turbine and generator are assumed to be shipped
separately.
A brief discussion of the salient points of each of the FERC cost categories follows:
+ Land & Land Rights: For the recommended project these costs are zero as a
FERC license is not needed. A brief letter must to be written to acquire a
declaration of non jurisdiction by FERC.
+ Mobilization and Logistics: In addition to the camp mobilization, this item
includes the barge freight, a used flat bed truck, and a 4-wheeler with trailer
that will be used to haul construction material from the road to the project.
The flat bed truck will be left on site at the end of the project. There are no
hauling facilities in Tenakee and vehicles will be required to haul materials from
the log landing up the logging road to the trails leading to the site. The
equipment mix can be changed to two 4-wheelers if the community desires.
+ Structures and Improvements: The most costly structure is the powerhouse
which must be constructed to withstand floods. The most uncertain and difficult
part of the powerhouse construction is the excavation. The quantity of
excavation is very dependent on the design of the structure and the topography.
The excavation quantity assumed in this estimate is generous. Excavation will
be done with a hand air or gasoline powered rock drill, and will use explosives
to break out the rock. The rubble will be excavated by hand because a machine
can not be brought to the site in a practical manner, nor is there the proper
machinery in the community. The quantity of concrete required for the
foundation is not massive. The reason is the materials will be brought in by
barge and hauled to the site on 4-wheelers so transportation costs per cubic yard
are high. To keep power house quantities and costs down, creative engineering
and const..ruction will be needed.
+ Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways: This is the most expensive single category.
It includes the diversion, de-sanding box, flume, forebay box, and the penstock.
The· assumption is that the project will be· constructed utilizing a composite
Page 34
polarconsult alaska, inc.
yellow cedar support, aluminum lined flume system. The cost analysis is based
on an average support height of 10 feet. It is very likely it will be less as the
left bank is fairly uniform and does not curve in and out often or· deeply.
Building the diversion structure is the greatest unknown as the bottom condition
of the river has not been determined. If there are not adequate supports for the
"A" frames, extra work may be required. Final design will likely show the de-
sanding box can be reduced in size and cost. If fish passage is a requirement,
supplemental funding for finer screens will likely be provided by the Forest
Service.
• Turbines and Generators: This item includes a cross flow turbine with pulleys
and belts to increase the speed. It also includes a synchronous generator
capable of withstanding over speed. For controls, the system utilizes a load
governor and a head level control that opens the turbine gates to accommodate
the available water. These costs are quotations. A cross flow turbine is easy to
install as it will be bolted to the floor. The generator will be mounted on
adjustable skids so the belt can be readily tightened. Local labor can easily
assemble the powerhouse equipment and have it checked by a certified
electrician and the engineer. Spare parts required include bearings, governor
parts, fuses, and et cetera.
• Misc. Mechanical Equipment: A generous allowance has been made for tools.
Good functional tools are important in assuring productivity, safety, and moral.
This list is not all inclusive and will likely need alteration but it is illustrative of
the tools used to construct the McRoberts Creek project. After completion of
the construction a complete set of tools will be left at the powerhouse. The
balance can be kept by the city or sold.
• Roads, Railroads, And Bridges: This item is mostly labor to construct the
trails to get persons and materials to the work. The skidway to the powerhouse
assumed that a Francis Turbine would be used and its weight, about 7,000
pounds for the largest piece, would require special handling. An easy method
of getting materials down the banks will be important as this item can increase
costs. A two wheel trailer, if lowered and raised by winch or pulling line, is
difficult to control without some type of guidance system. A 4-wheel trailer is
more stable. One trail could be eliminated by using a helicopter to stage
materials to the power house site, or if a crossflow turbine is used, it can be
hauled down on the flume.
• Land a..~d Land Rights(Transmission): It is assumed t.hat there will be some
costs associated with obtaining rights-of-way, ROW, for the transmission line.
Some private land is located uphill between the boat harbor and the city.
Page 35
polarconsult alaska, inc.
• Substation Equipment: This includes the 150 kVA step up transformer to
raise generator voltage from 480 volts to 7,200/12,470 which is the community
voltage. This also includes a dry transformer that will step down the 480 volt
supply to 120/240 volts for use in the station. Also included in this item is a
fused 3 phase switch that will be located at the junction of the hydroplant
transmission and the connection to the community overhead system. This
switch will allow the transmission system to the power plant to be isolated.
• Poles and Fixtures: The system was priced using the tree cable system. Some
intermediate poles wi11likely be required and the assumption is based on using
local yellow cedar poles.
• Overhead Conductors and Devices: Tree cable with hardware from Hendix
was priced. Construction was assumed to be completed by pulling in 2,000 foot
sections of cable with pulling blocks. It is likely that surface cable in PVC duct
covered by a wooden walkway would be somewhat equal in cost.
• Demobilization: The camp must be removed, and the construction areas police
up. This sum is for that labor. Salvage value for leftovers is considered to be
zero.
• Other items: It will cost the city money to administrate this work. Materials
must be purchased and a fax machine will be required. The assumption is it
will take one person one half a man year to do this work. Engineering is
estimated to be about 8 % and construction management about 5 % .
Construction management is based on no more than 2 months on site. If full
time management is needed then this figure will have to be increased.
A. Force Account
Force account is the only practical and cost effective way to construct a project such as
t.his. Wage rates for Title 36, Little Davis Bacon, are high enough to make the project
uneconomical. Force account optimizes the situation for local employment and avoids
all of the added costs that contracting brings. Some of the added costs for contracting
are the cost to bid, bonding costs, tighter plans and specifications resulting in more
expensive engineering, better record keeping, greater overhead, more detailed
inspection as the contractor must be prevented from cheating. Additionally, higher
worker's compensation insurance rates and higher wages are required, since Little
Davis Bacon rules are less flexible as they require overtime pay for working more than
8 hours per day. There is also greater contractor risk and added legal fees, resuiting in
increased costs and bids.
Page 36
polarconsult alaska, inc.
The major problem with community force account is management. The manager
generally should not be from the community for the best interest of the project, as
tough personnel decisions need to be made. It is better to be stern and bring the
project in under budget and return the money to the workers with a bonus or to the rate
payer then it is to compromise during the execution of the project. A good manager
with experience in force account can strike the balance between sensitivity for local
feelings and needs, and the absolute need to complete the project on or under budget.
To build a quality plant with low cost, the philosophy of construction must be different
for small hydro plants as compared to large ones. More of the decisions on routing
and layout must be made in the field during construction. The project must be
compatible with the terrain and not be required to move more rock and earth than is
absolutely necessary, or pour added concrete to match lines drawn on paper as is done
on larger scale projects. This requires a flexible mind and the ability to innovate in
order to solve problems on the spot.
B. Title 36
Title 36 is enforced when a contractor or subcontractor performs work on public
construction in Alaska. Title 36 requires that contractors be paid the prevailing wage
in the locality. This prevailing wage is set by the Labor Department's Labor Standards
and Safety Division. For Tenakee the wage plus the fringes will average near 30
dollars per hour. Given an increase of about $15 per hour the cost increase for wages
alone would exceed $120,000. Additionally contractors have other costs that will
further raise this amount.
Page 37
polarconsult alaska, inc.
XI. Economics
The economics of the system are very favorable, and are shown in detail for the base
case, and as sensitivity variations for other conditions. A synopsis of the results is
presented in the tables and graphs that follow. The base case in the table is based on a
basic interest rate of 3 %, power growth of 0 %, fuel cost increase of 1 % for 5 years,
and 2 % thereafter. The cost of diesel equipment and maintenance remains the same in
1993 dollars. Loan period and analysis period is for 30 years. The initial cost of the
plant is $612,171. Also incorporated in the analysis are the potential amounts of
increased electricity, and a present worth value of the period from 30 years to 50 years
of the plant's life. Although the plant will last longer than 50 years this gives an
illustration of its true value.
Other assumptions are that current labor costs will remain constant. Although it is
likely these costs can be reduced, after the debugging period, this is a conservative
approach that will retain the needed skills within the community.
An explanation of some of the selected values follows:
• Interest rates: A system was selected that does not use standard interest rates which
include assumed factors for inflation. Everything is reduced to the opportunity cost
of interest which traditionally has been near 3 %. This results in costs and effects in
today's dollars throughout the analysis period. This helps in achieving a more
accurate understanding of the project costs.
• Power demand: A conservative figure is 0% growth. More growth favors the
hydro over the diesel. The effects of added growth can be seen in the graph which
shows the sensitivity to demand. The diesel alternative costs continue to rise
because of the fuel component whereas the hydro costs rises at an almost
imperceptible rate.
$2.00
:. $1.!1O
'0 $l.80
~ $1-70
~ 51.50
~ $1.50
U
~ $140
1i
i :::::
!
c.. suo
$l,Do
Cost of Hydro & Di~$f!1 ovet 30 Ye:4In "$ Demand Gro'wth
0.5" 1.0'"
Oenttnd Growth 'bta
t .S,*,
------Hydro
-w--DIesel ,
• Fuel Cost: The sensitivity to increases in fuel costs are presented graphically. Fuel
costs have not been compounded, but rather have had a simple percentage added to
Page 38
polarconsult alaska, inc.
the base price of $1.18 per gallon. It is anticipated that over the 30 year loan
period of the selected base case there will likely be an under estimate of the actual
costs of fuel.
Hydro & Diese'! over 30 Vears VI Fuel Increase Rate
$1.70
; $1.6C 'li . . ~ $Lfi{l
~ $1,.40
8 ! $1.30
~ ! S1.20
l 11.10
11.00.L---------
,.(,iIio 2,0%
Fut" increaae R.t ..
• Loan 'Period: The loan period is typical for a small hydroplant and again is
conservative as compared to 50 year periods used for governmental projects.
• Cost Sensitivity: A graph has been prepared which shows the sensitivity of the
project to the cost of construction. Even with a 33 % or so construction cost
overrun, the hydro case betters the diesel case by $150,000 or more. This is
without taking into consideration the $500,000 of excess value of electricity or
about $400,000 value for the 20 year period after the loan is over.
11.70
;;; $1.60
'li .
~ ".5.
! 11-40
5
&I $1.30 ... :: ~ SI.20
£ 1110
1i.OO
$6i'2
Hydro. & Diesel over 30 Years vs Hydro Construction Cost
$700 1150 1800 uso
Hydril Construetion COlt (Thouunds of $)
• In addition there are other economic values for the project that have not been
quantified. Some of these values are as follows:
• Retaining money within the community. When oil is purchased most of the money
leaves the community fuJ.dgoes to tIi.e transporters, refiners, producers, and
resource owners who increasingly are middle eastern foreigners. The labor will
result in employment for people in the community. Income from their wages will
add new money to the community. The savings from lower costs for electricity
will conserve dollars within the community for other uses.
Page 39
polarconsult alaska, inc.
• People will receive training in construction by doing. This training is valuable as it
makes for salable skills, and fosters independence.
• Environmental values are important in Tenakee. Given two competing methods of
providing the same service even near the same cost; the environmental choice
should be selected.
• Freedom from rate shock created by increasing oil prices is obtained. Should there
be large excursions in oil prices then the communities electric costs will not be
significantly affected
In addition to benefits there are also potential negative aspects of the project which
follow:
• The primary risk is from cost overruns during construction. If there is a $100,000
cost overrun the benefits will be reduced. Such a cost overrun can purchase over
6,000 hours of added labor. Labor cost overruns are the most likely risk.
• The second risk is that a flood or mechanical events will result in reduced revenues.
This risk can persist until the causes of the problems are corrected. Even if the
plant is not generating for the entire first year it would cost, including the payment
to the lending institution, and any repairs.
• Another disadvantage is that a project such as this could be conceived as increasing
stress within the community because of the requirement to complete it on time and
on budget. Further, if the community is divided on the project there is always a
possibility of increased political disagreements between the anti's and the
progressives.
Page 40
TENAKEE ECONOMIC SUMMARY
TENAKEE ECONOMICS Base Case
Interest( %) 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Power demand growth (%) 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fuel cost per kwh $0,106 $0.106 $0.106 $0.106 $0106 $0.106 $0.106 $0.106 $0.106
Fuel cost increase in 1st X years (%) 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
X years 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Fuel cost increase thereafter 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Length of study (yrs) 30 30 '~ 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Price of Fuel ($/gal) $1.180 $1.180 $1.180 $1.180 $1.180 $1.180 $1.180 $Ll80 $1.180
IllESEL
Yearly Maintenance cost $6,000 $6000 $6,000 $6000 $6,000 $6,000 $6000 $6,000 $6,000
Overhaul cost $8500 $8,500 $8500 $8,500 $8500 $8500 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500
Replacement cost $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33000 $33000 $33,000 $33000 $33000 $33,000
Diesel parts cost per kwh $0.Q28 $0.028 $0.028 $0.028 $0,028 $0.028 $0.Q28 $0.028 $0.028
Current Diesel to be replaced in 2 yrs
Initial hydro cost (loan amount) $612,171 $612,171 $612 171 $612 171 $612 171 $612 171 $750000 $850000 $800 000
Hydro loan payback time (yrs) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Hydro loan interest rate (%) 3.0% 3.0% 3,0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 4.0%
Hydro yearly payments $31 233 $31,233 $31 233 $31 233 $31 233 $31 233 $38264 $43366 ~ Hydro O&M $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
ISvstem
ISalary $16000 $16000 $16000 $16000 $16000 $16000 $16000 $16000 $16,000
ISalary Rate of Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
RESlIT,TS tin 1993 money)
Hydro + diesel cost $1,216,848 $1.222,740 $1 228632 $1 212540 $1 214360 $1 218001 $1357490 $1459530 $1 517486
Diesel only cost $1,657565 $1,804,829 $1 952092 $1 550032 $1 596 359 $1 689013 $1 657565 $1 657565 $1 657565
Difference (diesel -hydro) $440,718 $582089 $723,460 $337492 $381 999 $471 011 $300,076 $198,035 $140,080
Extra hydro power return $509,529 $475,696 $441 862 $509529 $509529 $509,529 $509,529 $509,529 $509,529
Cost difference after 30
yrs through 50 yrs
(diesel -hydro) $445,075 $625,047 $811,973 $331,061 $372.568 $455,581 $445,075 $445,075 $445,075
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATION OF COSTS BASED ON A COMBINATION OF HYDRO POWER AND BACKUP DIESEL.
PRESENT VALUE OF ALL COSTS INCURRED: $1.216,848
PRESENT VALUE OF ALL EXCESS FUEL FROM EXCESS HYDRO POWER 5509,529
n;~AKJ:;E E1:;m;QMICS lHESEL Snlm tth:in'~DaDtt HmB.Q
[nlerest (%) 3.0% Yearly Maintenance ""51 $6,000 Salary $16.000 Initial hydro cost (loan amount) $612.171
Power demand growth (%) 0.0% Overhaul COSl $8,500 Salary Rate of IncrellSe 0.0% Hydro loan payback time (Y") 30
Fuel cost per kwh $0.106 Overhaul frequency (kwh) 1,000.000 Hydro loan iD1er-est rate (%) 3.0%
Fuel cost increase in. 1st X Y 1.0% Replacement cost $33.000 Hydro yearly paymenu 531.233
X years 5 Replacemenl frequency (kwh) 2.000.000 HydroO&M $4,000
Fuel cost increase thereafter 2.0% Diesel paris "",I per kwh $0.028
Length of study (yrs) 30 Current Diesel must be replaced in 2 years
Price of Fuel (Sigal) $1.18
DATE Demand Generale Excess Excess Demci,n., Demelen.y Diestl Hydro Total
present value with demand IFuel Fuel O&M Par" Replace Total Debt O&M Total System Costlyr Present
kWh kWh kWh based on fuel kWh increase k W Price $ Cost $ 5 Cost $ Cost $ $ Payment $ $ $ Cosu $ $ Value $
1994 345000 997 378 652378 $24516 0 0 $Q.I06 $0 56000 SO $0 ~6ooo $31 233 $4000 ~35 233 $16000 S51233 $55.566
iii 586152 $21 408 41794 41794 $0.107 $4 474 56000 SI 170 $33000 $44645 531233 $4 OOQ $35 233 516000 $95.877 $90 373
690 042 $24443 0 0 SO. 108 $0 $6000 50 50 $6000 $31 233 $4000 $35233 516000 $57 233 $52 376
657641 522617 16361 16361 50.109 51786 $6000 5458 $0 $8244 $31 233 54000 $35233 516000 $59477 $52 844
604,3751 S20179 33 389 33389 $0.110 53681 $6000 $935 50 SIO 616 $31233 "~",m m $22720 0 0 $0.111 SO 56000 SO SO $6000 S31 233 $4 OOQ S35233 516000 $47931
345000 690 042 $21117 0 0 SO. 113 $0 $6000 $0 $0 56000 531 233 $4 000 535 233 $16 000 $46 535
345 000 I 037 243 692 243 m,~ ~ .. '" $0 56000 SO SO 56000 531 233 "M.r~ SO". 2002 345000 1037244 692244 $20536 0 $0.118 $0 56000 $0 $0 $6000 $31 233 54000 516000 $57
2003 345000 927885 582 885 $16788 49 $0.120 55879 $6000 51374 $0 $13 254 $31 233 $4 000 516000 $64
2004 345000 980 942 635942 m= 16. 16361 $0.122 $1994 56000 5458 "tI""" $4 000 516000 559 c85 $43 118
2005 34S 000 1 048 195 703 195 $ 0 $0.124 50 $6000 $0 SO $4000 S16000 $57 233 S40 142
2006 345000 1009666 664 666 $ 16361 16361 $0.126 52064 56000 $458 $0 $31 233 $4 000 $16 000 559 754 $40 690
2007 345000 1048 195 703 195 $17995 0 0 SO. 128 SO 56000 $0 SO $31 233 $4 000 $16000 $51 233 $37 831
2008 345000 959386 614 386 SIS 264 2S 082 25082 50.130 $3 270 56000 $102 $0 531 233 $4000 $35 233 $16000 $61 205 S39285
2009 345000 1048 195 703 195 516962 0 0 $0.133 SO $6000 SO $0 531 233 $4000 $35233 $16000 $57233 $35 665
2010 345000 I 048 195 703 195 SI6468 0 0 $0.135 $0 S6.OOO 50 $0 $6 000 $31 233 54000 $35 233 $16000 mS34627 2011 345000 962763 617763 514046 16361 16361 SO.137 $2 237 $6000 $458 SO $8 695 $31 233 $4000 $35233 $16000 $35201
2012 345000 966541 621541 $13720 32722 32722 SO. 139 $4544 $6000 $916 50 $11 460 $31 233 54000 $35.233 516000 $35753
2013 345000 I 048 195 703 195 $15070 0 0 SO. 141 SO $6000 50 $0 $6000 $31 233 $4000 $35233 $16000 S57233 531 688
2014 345000 1048dl: 703 195 514631 0 0 50.143 $0 $6000 $0 $0 $6000 $31 233 $4000 $35 233 $16000 $57233 $30765
2015 345000 1026 681483 S13 767 0 0 $0.145 $0 $6000 SO SO $6000 531233 $4000 $35233 $16000 557233 S29869
2016 345000 996 378 651 378 $12775 16361 16361 $0.147 $2411 56000 $458 $0 $8869 $31 233 $4000 $35233 Sl6000 160.101 $30453
2017 345000 1048 195 703 195 S13390 0 0 $0.149 $0 56000 $0 $0 56000 531 233 $4000 535233 $16000 $57 233 $28 155
2018 345000 879500 534500 $9881 57572 57572 SO. 152 $8727 S6000 SI612 $31 233 $4000 $35233 516000 S67571 532 272
2019 345000 I 048 195 703 195 $12621 0 0 $0.154 50 S6000 $0 ~ $31 233 $4000 $35233 516000 $57 233 526538
2020 345000 99'1378 652 378 SlI 368 0 0 SO. 156 $0 56000 $0 56000 S31.233 $4000 $35233 $16000 $57233 S25765
2011 345000 931 752 586752 59927 41794 41 794 SO. 158 ·$6601 56000 SI 170 $0 513771 I S31233 $4000 $35233 SI6000 565004 S28412
2022 345.000 1035042 690 042 $11 334 0 0 SO. 160 $0 S6000 SO $0 56000 $31 m $4000 $35233 516000 S57233 $24286
2023 345000 I 002641 657641 $10481 16361 16,361 SO. 162 $2653 56000 $458 SO 59112 $31 233 $4000 $35233 516000 $60 344 524861
2024 345000 949375 604 375 $9357 33389 33389 SO. 164 55486 $6000 5935 $0 $12421 $31 233 $4000 $35233 $16000 $63653 $25460
2025 345000 I 048 195 703 195 $10570 0 0 50.166 SO 56000 SO $0 S6000 SO $4000 S4000 $16.000 $26000 $10 091
2026 345000 1009666 664 666 $9700 16361 16361 $0.169 $2758 $6000 $458 $0 59216 SO $4000 ~s"". $11 015
2027 345000 I 048 195 703 195 $9963 0 0 $0.171 SO $6000 $0 $0 $6000 $0 $4000 SI6 $26.000 $9517
2028 345000 959 386 614386 S8451 2S 082 25082 $0.173 $4 334 $6000 $102 $0 $11036 $0 $4000 $16000 $31 036 $11 030
2029 345000 1048 195 703 195 S9391 0 0 $0.175 $0 S6000 SO SO 56000 $0 $4000 4 000 $16iHS; 6000 $8971
2030 34S 000 I 048 195 703 195 S9 118 0 0 SO. 177 SO 56000 $0 SO $6000 $0 S4000 $4 000 $16 $26 OOQ $8710
2031 345000 962763 617763 57777 16361 16361 $0.179 $2931 $6000 $458 $0 $9389 $0 S4000 $4000 $16000 529389 S9.558
2032 ~I 621541 $7596 32722 32 722 $0.181 55931 $6000 $916 $0 $12 847 $0 54000 $4000 SI6000 $32847 $10 372
2033 5 703.195 $8344 0 0 SO.183 $0 $6000 SO $0 56000 =it 54000 $4000 $16000 526000 $7970
2034 931 752 586752 S6760 41 794 41 794 SO.186 $7753 $6000 $1 170 $0 $14923 $4000 $4000 $16000 $34923 SIO 394
2035 .,"" 'U $7 718 0 0 $0.188 $0 S6000 SO $0 56000 $4000 $4000 $16000 $26000 $7513
2036 345000 I 57 141 16361 16361 $0.190 S3104 $6000 $458 SO 59562 $4000 $4000 $16000 $29562 S8294
2037 345000 949 $6372 33 389 33389 $0.192 $6406 S6000 $935 $0 SI~~ SO $4000 54000 $16000 533341 $9081
2038 345 000 I 048 195 703 195 $7198 0 0 $0.194 SO $6000 SO SO S6 $0 $4000 $4 000 $16000 S26000 56875
2039 345 000 1 009 666 664 666 $6605 16361 16361 SO.196 53208 $6 {IOO $458 SO S9667 SO S4000 $4 000 SI6000 $29667 57616
2040 345000 I 048 195 703 195 56784 0 0 $0.198 $0 $6000 $0 $0 56000 SO $4000 $4000 $16000 $26000 $6481
2041 345000 959386 614386 $5755 25082 25082 SO.2OO $5025 $6000 $702 =it 511 727 $0 $4 OOQ $4000 $16000 531 727 $7678
2042 345000 1048 195 703 195 $6395 0 0 $0.202 SO S6000 $0 56000 50 $4000 $4 000 $16000 526000 S6109
2043 345000 I 048 195 703 195 S6209 0 0 SO.205 $0 S6000 SO $6 OOQ $0 54000 54000 $16000 $26000 $5931
2044 345000 962763 617 763 55296 16.361 16361 $0.207 S3382 $6000 $458 SO 1 S9840 SO S4000 $4000 S16000 $29840 $6608
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATION OF cosrs BASED ON DIESEL POWER
PRESENT VALUE OF ALL COSTS INCURRED'
TENAKEE ECOOOMES.
Interest (%)
Power demand growth ($)
Fuel COSt per kwh
Fuel COSt increase in 1st X years (%)
X years
Fucl COSt increase thereafter
Lenglh of 'tudy (yr.)
Fuel COSt
ATE Dem ... d
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037.
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044: $0.207
SI,657,565
I:!ImL
3.0$ Yearly a &M coS(
0.0$ Overhaul cost
SO.I06 Overhaul frequency (yes)
1.0$ Replacement cost
5 Replacement frequency (yes)
2.0$ Diesel pans cost per kwh
30 Current Diesel must be repla<:e<l in 2 yev!
Sl.!8
Page 41
56,000
58,500
53
S33,000
6
SO.028
Total
S
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Systl:!!! MiWltc!!anpo
Salary
Salary !We of Ina ....
Total
Sy,,,,,,,
eo. .. S
eo.tlyr
$
516000
SI6.000
516000
$16000
516000
516.000
516000
$16.000
516.000
516.000
S98.583
599.315
5108.546
SI00.m
SI01509
5135,240
SI02.972
516.000
0.0$
polarconsult alaska, inc.
XII. Conclusions
Based on the analyses in this report, the conclusion is that a hydro plant is superior to the
current diesel generation under almost all reasonable scenarios.
Hydro is superior to diesel generation in a conventional economic sense as the base project
yields a present value of $440,718 for the difference between hydro and the diesel alternative.
In addition, generation for the next 20 years adds $445,075 to the present worth, and the
potential oil equivalent value of excess power is valued at $509,529. This yields a potential
benefit of $1,395,322. From a practical aspect, however: the potential oil benefit is probably
only 25 % or so achievable; so the total value is nearer $1,000,000. This is without assigning
further value to the plant beyond 50 years.
In addition to being superior economically, the plant will be superior in an environmental
sense as it will not discharge carbon dioxide nor nitrous oxides into the atmosphere. The new
design of the plant in addition to reducing costs, fits into the terrain and requires the very
minimum of earthwork. The generation facility is outside the community and will considerably
reduce air and noise pollution in Tenakee, or anywhere for that matter.
There is likely to be a carbon tax on diesel fuel. There are a number of indications that the US
in an attempt to reduce payments to foreigners will create an increase in the costs of diesel
fuel. With the hydro the use of diesel generation is reduced to about 10% of its current use so
changes in the cost of diesel fuel will have no appreciable impact on the cost of power.
The plant will provide employment for the community for much of one year. The community
instead of sending money out to pay for oil will capture the labor portion of the project. This
will have multiplier effects throughout the community, and increase prosperity. The diesel
plant will not provide these benefits.
Page 44
polarconsult alaska, inc.
XIII. Recommendations
There are a number of advantages that can accrue to the people of Tenakee if a hydroplant is
constructed. If these advantages are to be acquired it is recommended that the following steps
be undertaken.
• Ascertain whether the people believe it is in their best interest to build the plant.
If pursuing the project is favorable, then the following additional steps be taken.
• Get a grant from the Legislature to design and construct a portion of the plant.
King Cove has a grant which funds a large amount of their hydro plant's cost.
The Railbelt has been granted money for Bradley Lake. The 4 dam pool has
received great amounts of largess from the state. It would seem that equity
should result in equal consideration for Tenakee. Governor Hickel likes to keep
money within Alaska and philosophically supports the concept of the plant.
• Money can be borrowed from Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority, Farmers Home Administration, Municipal Bond Bank and other
sources to make up the balance.
• The project can be accomplished without a grant as it is still viable. There is
sufficient money to pay for it, especially if as projected, power cost equalization
continues for the next 20 years. A grant however is more certain, definable, and
can not be arbitrarily tenninated as can power cost equalization.
• Only consider doing the work with force account, i.e. City employees. Be very
careful with management of the project. Non innovative construction people
who are accustomed to high cost state government projects can ruin a small
project like this. Paraphrasing Shumaker think small. Give the project manager
absolute authority to fire people who are not perfonning. There is no money for
feather bedding.
• Plan to and execute methods of taking advantage of the excess energy that is
available to reduce costs, decrease pollution, and improve the quality of life in
the community.
• Begin the application for water use permits from the Department of Natural
Resources, and hold discussions with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Continue working with the fisheries people from the US. Forest Service,
particularly Mr. Greg Killinger. Consider granting the U.S.F.S. rights-of-way
for a fish passage over barrier #4, but make sure the result of fish spawning
above the barrier does not create a problem with regard to water releases and
screening.
• And fmally, remember before the time of cheap diesel fuel , and the ubiquitous
diesel generator, hydro was the generation method of choice throughout much
of Alaska. If it could be successfully constructed and used in the past with
limited logistics, and resources it most certainly can be done today by the
people of Tenakee.
Page 45
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Appendix A
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
IShort Aluminum Flume Option (with Man Camp)
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -steel pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Contingency Allowance (*)
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
* Contingencies included in line item totals
I
Amount ($)
$2,000
$101,317
$49,277
$149,624
$109,357
$20,944
$10,628
$0
$10,098
$6,200
$38,312
$4,032
$501,788
$65,369
$501,788
$16,000
$65,232
$583,020
$612,171
**Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 1 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
IShort Aluminum Flume Option (without Man Camp)
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -steel pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
.. Contingencies included in line item totals
I
Amount ($)
$2,000
$54,503
$49,277
$149,624
$109,357
$20,944
$10,628
$0
$10,098
$6,200
$38,312
$4,032
$454,974
$65,369
$454,974
$16,000
$59,147
$530,120
$556,626
**Covering design and speCification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 2 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
IShort Wood Flume Option (with Man Camp)
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -steel pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 SUbstation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
* Contingencies included in line item totals
I
Amount ($)
$2,000
$101,317
$49,277
$159,334
$109,357
$20,944
$10,628
$0
$10,098
$6,200
$38,312
$4,032
$511,497
$63,684
$511,497
$16,000
$66,495
$593,992
$623,691
.... Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 3 of8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
Short Aluminum Flume Option (without Man Camp)
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -steel pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST
City Admir.1istration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
" Contingencies included in line item totals
Amount ($)
$2,000
$54,503
$49,277
$159,334
$109,357
$20,944
$10,628
$0
$10,098
$6,200
$38,312
$4,032
$464,683
$63,684
$464,683
$16,000
$60,409
$541,092
$568,147
"Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.XLS Page 4 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PRO.JECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
ILong Wood Flume Option
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -wood flu
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob ..
ESTIMATED COSTS SUBTOTAL
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST (rounded)
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PRO.JECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
I
Amount ($)
$19,500
$92,902
$41,321
$255,967
$71,113
$21,180
$50,450
$2,000
$2,000
$5,018
$30,772
$2,688
$594,910
$72,019
$666,930
$16,000
$86,701
$769,630
$808,112
**Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 5 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
ILong Aluminum Flume Option
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -Alum. flu
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
ESTIMATED COSTS SUBTOTAL
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST (rounded)
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
I
Amount ($)
$19,500
$92,902
$41,321
$232,399
$71,113
$21,180
$50,450
$2,000
$2,000
$5,018
$30,772
$2,688
$571,342
$71,158
$642,500
$134,925
$777,425
$816,296
**Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 6 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
IPE Pipe Penstock Option
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -PE pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
ESTIMATED COSTS SUBTOTAL
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST (rounded)
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
I
Amount ($)
$19,500
$92,902
$41,321
$278,309
$71,113
$21,180
$50,450
$2,000
$2,000
$5,018
$30,772
$2,688
$617,253
$69,492
$686,746
$16,000
$89,277
$792,023
$831,624
**Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.XLS Page 7 of 8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -TENAKEE SPRINGS
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
IPE Pipe Penstock Option
FERC
AlC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics
331 Structures and Improvements
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways -steel pipe
333 Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
353 Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
359 Line Clearing, Mob., Demob.
ESTIMATED COSTS SUBTOTAL
Contingency Allowance
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COST (rounded)
City Administration
Engineering and Administration (**13%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST SEP 1992 (rounded)
TOTAL PROJECT COST MAR 1993 (rounded)
Escalation at 5% to Mar 1993
I
Amount ($)
$19,500
$92,902
$41,321
$356,309
$71,113
$21,180
$50,450
$2,000
$2,000
$5,018
$30,772
$2,688
$695,253
$69,492
$764,746
$16,000
$99,417
$880,163
$924,171
**Covering design and specification (8%), and construction management (5%)
TSPESUM.xLS Page 8 of 8
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
.01 Land Rights -Legal and Administrative Costs
FERC permit & licensing
engineering
fees
misc. expenses
Subtotal -Acc no. 330
330 .50 Mobilization and Logistics
.51 Start-up (air transportation)
.52 Construction Buildings
Camp
frames and floors
tents 14'x16'
cots, matresses
chairs
tables
shelves/lockers
racks
gas dryer
washing machine
sheets
pillows
wood stove
kerosene stove
blankets
sink
tank -elevated
stove
pots/ pans
dishes, utensils
freezer
referigerator
.53 Construction Power
generator -5 Kw gas
.54 Temporary Water System
latrine
shower
water pump -electric
water tank -85 gal
filter
hot water heater -propane
.55 Construction Surveys
TSPE04SF-XLS Page 1 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
0
0
0
0
2
36 3
3
10
10
2
10
1
1
1
20
10
3
3
20
3
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $2,000
$2,000
$2,000 $4,000
ea $500 30% $2,652
ea $500 10% $1,650
ea $43 10% $473
ea $15 10% $165
ea $150 10% $330
ea $122 15% $1,403
ea $500 10% $550
ea $300 10% $330
ea $300 10% $330
set $8 10% $176
ea $5 10% $55
ea $800 10% $2,640
ea $600 10% $1,980
ea $13 10% $286
ea $70 10% $231
ea $150 10% $165
ea $300 10% $330
set $250 10% $275
set $15 10% $165
ea $600 10% $660
ea $500 10% $550
ea $600 10% $660
ea $500 10% $1,100
ea $200 10% $220
ea $400 10% $440
ea $220 10% $242
ea $200 10% $220
ea $300 10% $330
$6,000 10% $6,600
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
330 .59 Barge Transport
offload
.60 Vehicles
used truck
4-wheeler wI trailer
.61 Crew Camp Costs
cook (80 days)
material (food)
misc. freight
Subtotal-Materials
Subtotal· Labor
(with Construction Camp) Subtotal-Acc no. 330.5
(without Construction Camp) Subtotal· Acc no. 330.5
331 Structures and Improvements
.10 Powerhouse
roofing material
.12 Excavation (hand)
blasting
.13 Concrete (including reinforcing)
rebar
forms
transportation to site
.16 Electrical
lights
3/4" conduit
2" conduit
3" conduit
electrical devices (receptacles, etc.)
fan
#12 AWG wire
250 MCMwire
panels
Labor
.18 HVAC and Plumbing
22" valve
125# flange
increaser -22" to 30"
45 deg elbow
22" pipe
expansion coupling
TSPE04SF.xLS Page 2 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
1
106
1
1
1000
800
1
1142
480 9,000
20 320
600
80 16
40 2
40 500
50
20 300
5 20
5 20
6
2 1
1000
250
3
80
1
2
1
1
20
1
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
$27,000 10% $29,700
10% $1,749
ea $5,000 10% $5,500
ea $6,000 10% $6,600
10% $16,500
md $12 10% $10,560
Is $1,500 $1,500
$84,187
$15 $17,130
$101,317
$54,503
bd-ft $0.50 10% $12,870
sf $2 20% $1,128
40% $12,600
40% $0
cy $65 20% $2,688
T $560 30% $2,236
sf $2 30% $2,080
30% $975
15% $0
ft $1.50 15% $863
ft $4 15% $178
ft $8 15% $270
15% $104
ea $200 15% $265
ft $0.10 15% $115
ft $2.10 15% $604
ea $700 15% $2,415
15% $1,380
ea $4,000 15% $4,600
ea $350 15% $805
ea $600 15% $690
ea $300 15% $345
ft $22 30% $572
ea $300 15% $345
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
331 misc bolts & fittings
Labor (welding)
Subtotal-Material
Subtotal-Labor
Subtotal-acc. no. 331
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways
Clearing (in Trails Section)
Intake System
Trough
1/4" steel plate -9 sq. ft. 1ft
fabricate
haul & place
drill & bolt
grout bolts
Screen
fabricate
Trough transition
misc. material
Diversion Dam
material per 1 0' section -150'
fabricate & install
planks
grout bolts
misc. material
Gate
32-inch Diameter Steel Pipe
haul, place, & level
straps
I paint
blocks
bolts
connect to flume
Forebay
lumber
slide gate
slide gate bypass
hardware
1/2" x 12" galv. bolts
1/2" galv. nuts
5/8" x 2' galv. bolts
5/8" galv. nuts
TSPE04SF.XLS Page 3 of 9
Labor
(mh) . Quantity
1
40
1468
34
16
8
6 90
10
1
15
180
1000
10 30
8 1
75
80
30 15
10 1
20 15
15 1
8
3000
1
1
700
100
240
20
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor
ea $400 15% $460
15% $690
$27,257
$15 $22,020
$49,277
ea $36 15% $1.408
15% $0
15% $276
15% $138
15% $0
sf $10 15% $1,139
15% $0
15% $173
Is $500 15% $575
$60 20% $1,080
20% $3,240
bd-ft $0.50 10% $550
ea $5 20% $360
10% $0
ea $1,000 15% $1,288
ft $72 30% $7,020
30% $1,560
ea $15 10% $743
Is $150 10% $330
ea $6 10% $429
Is $200 10% $468
30% $156
bd-ft $0.50 10% $1,650
ea $1,150 10% $1,265
ea $600 10% $660
$0
Ib $1.67 15% $1,344
Ib $1.67 15% $192
Ib $1.67 15% $461
Ib $1.67 15% $38
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLAR CONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
332 Forebay, continued
clamps, couplers
24" pipe
trash rack
metal
misc
Labor
Short Flume (aluminum) per 10 ft Section
10"x12"x10' beam
5"x10"x10'
side brace
base blocks (w/rancher)
cross brace, 2"x4"x12'
rails
4"x4"x8'
2"x4"x10'
saddle
rolled aluminum
joints
supports
misc. hardware. screws, etc
erection
Subtotal -aluminum flume per 10' section
Subtotal -labor per 10' section
Subtotal -aluminum flume
Subtotal -labor
Subto~al extra labor per 10 deg bend
Short Flume (wood) per 10 ft Section
6"x1 0"x1 0' beam
3"x10"x10'
side brace
base blocks (w/rancher)
cross brace
rails
5x5 -20'
2x4 -40'
sides, bottom
misc. corners
bottom support. 4x8x6x6
TSPE04SFXLS Page 4 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
1
150
35
1
184
2 200
1.5 110
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
1 21
1 27
1.25 12
1 10
3.25
0.5 60
1
1.3
16.48
145
145
8 19
2 100
1.5 60
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
2 42
1 27
4 200
1 20
2 96
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
Is $3 15% $3
ft $24 15% $4,140
sf $7 15% $282
Is $500 15% $575
$15 20% $3,312
bd-ft $0.50 15% $150
bd-ft $0.50 15% $89
bd-ft $0.50 15% $32
bd-ft $0.50 15% $30
bd-ft $0.50 15% $22
bd-ft $0.50 15% $29
bd-ft $0.50 15% $33
bd-ft $0.50 15% $28
ft $10.75 25% $153
25% $61
bd-ft $0.50 25% $47
25% $19
20% $23
$469
$15 $247
sections $67.959
sections $35,844
$15 30% $527
bd-ft $0.50 15% $92
bd-ft $0.50 15% $60
bd-ft $0.50 15% $32
bd-ft $0.50 15% $30
bd-ft $0.50 15% $22
15%
bd-ft $0.50 15% $59
bd-ft $0.50 15% $33
bd-ft $0.50 15% $184
bd-ft $0.50 15% $29
bd-ft $0.50 15% $90
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
side braces, 4x2x2x6x6
misc hardware, nails, & plates
erection
Subtotal-wood flume per 10' section
Subtotal -labor per 10' section
Subtotal -wood flume
Subtotal -labor
Subtotal extra labor per 10 deg bend
Supported Penstock
Clearing
Excavation (including drilling and blasting)
Backfill
Common
Bedding
30" Diameter PE Penstock
1 0"x1 0"x10' beam
5"x10"x10'
side brace
base blocks (w/rancher)
cross brace, 2"x4"x12'
rails
4"x4"x8' -20'
2"x4"x10' 40'
saddle
joints
supports
misc. hardware, screws, etc
erection
Subtotal-supported PE penstock per 10' section
Subtotal-labor per 10' section
Subtotal opE penstock
Subtotal -labor
Reservoirs, Dams, and WatelWays
Subtotal -Acc. No. 332 -with Aluminum Flume
Subtotal -Acc. No. 332 -with Wood Flume
TSPE04SF.xLS Page 5 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
4 48
2
1.3
23.48
145
145
4 19
0
1 10
2 167
1.5 110
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
1 21
1 27
1.25 12
3.25
0.5 60
1
1.3
16.48
i
11
11
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
bd-ft $0.50 15% $97
15% $35
15% $22
$431
$15 $352
sections $62,521
sections $51,069
$15 30% $449
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ft $36.00 10% $413
bd-ft $0.50 10% $125
bd-ft $0.50 10% $85
bd-ft $0.50 20% $33
bd-ft $0.50 20% $31
bd-ft $0.50 20% $23
bd-ft $0.50 20% $31
bd-ft $0.50 20% $34
bd-ft $0.50 20% $30
20% $59
bd-ft $0.50 20% $45
20% $18
20% $23
$702
$15 $247
sections $7,722
sections $2,719
I I
$149,624
$159.334
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
333 Turbines and Generators
Turbine, Cross Flow
Generator
Switch Gear
spare bearings, etc
Labor
Subtotal -Materials
tariff (10%)
shipping
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal-Acc. No. 333 -Turbines and Generators
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
8asictools
shovel
hammer
claws
1/2" drive socket set
5/8" drive socket set
elec impact wrench
3Kw light plant
wrench sets
chainsaws
chain sharpener
files, extra chain
Cobra rock drill
bits, spades
gasoline cans
chain binders
double bit axes
mattox
3/8" galv. cable
3/8" nylon rope
5/8" nylon rope
blocks
4 wheel cart
portable lights
heater
sledge hammer
Homelite gas eirc. saw
Homelite winches
electric drills
TSPE04SF.XLS Page 6 of 9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
1
1
1
1
418
1
418
10
10
5
3
1
2
2
4
4
2
1
1
5
5
1000
600
600
4
3
2
4
2
2
3
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
ea $50,000 10% $55,000
ea $12,000 10% $13,200
ea $17,220 10% $18,942
ea $3,700 10% $4,070
$6,270
$91,212
10% $9,121
Is $1,500 $1,500
$15 20% $7,524
$109,357
ea $15 10% $165
ea $15 10% $165
ea $10 10% $55
ea $100 10% $330
ea $150 10% $165
ea $150 10% ·$330
ea $400 10% $880
ea $60 10% $264
ea $350 10% $1,540
ea $40 10% $88
Is $60 10% $66
ea $6,000 10% $6,600
ea 10% $0
ea 10% $0
ea 10% $0
ea $20 10% $110
ea $20 10% $110
ft $0.38 10% $418
ft $0.32 10% $211
ft $0.73 10% $482
10% $0
ea $300 10% $1,320
ea $100 10% $330
ea $175 10% $385
ea $15 10% $66
ea $300 10% $660
ea $650 10% $1,430
ea $150 10% $495
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
335 Basic Tools, Continued
hole saw
saws all
homesteaders jack
hydralic jack
radio
volt / ammeter
power cords
pumpw! hose
rebar cutter
bender
mixer gasoline
pry bar
screen (sifting)
bags -pack sacks, etc
shipping
Subtotal -Acc. No. 335 -Misc. Mechanical Equipment
336 Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
.01 Clearing
.02 Trail to Intake -820'
.03 Pipeline Trail-1500'
pull out usable logs
.04 Skidway to Powerhouse -1400'
planks 2"x12"
path logs
.05 Transmission Line Trail-3300'
.06 Bridge
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Material
Subtotal Acc. No. 336 -Roads, Railroads, and Bridges
350 Land and Land Rights (Transmission)
.01 Land Rights Transmission Line
Subtotal -Acc. No. 350 -Land and Land Rights
TSPE04SF-XLS Page 7 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
1
1
4
3
4
1
10
1
1
1
1
5
1
68
150
70
24 1170
24
170
0
506
i
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
ea $100 10% $110
ea $160 10% $176
ea $45 10% $198
ea $50 10% $165
ea $200 10% $880
ea $200 10% $220
ea $30 10% $330
ea $250 10% $275
ea $200 10% $220
ea $150 10% $165
ea $1,000 10% $1,100
ea $20 10% $110
ea $300 10% $330
10% $0
$0
$20,944
30% $0
30% $1.326
30% $2,925
30% $0
30% $1,365
bd-ft $0.50 30% $1,229
30% $468
30% $3,315
0% $0
$15 $7,590
$3,038
$10,628
$0
$0
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
353 .10 Substation Equipment
.11 Transformer -3 phase, 150 t<:VA
.12 Transformer -10 t<:VA
.13 Switches, Breakers, and Misc. Equipment
Fused 3 phase switch
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Material
Subtotal Acc. No. 353 -Substation Equipment
355 Poles and Fixtures
.10 Powerhouse to Tenakee Springs, Imile
.11 Poles
.12 Guys, Anchors, and other material
.13 Installation
River Crossing
Subtotal -Material
Subtotal-Labor
Subtotal -Acc. No. 355 -Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
.10 Conductors
tree cable (incl. all hardware)
1 phase upgrade
Insulators
Hardware and Miscellaneous
connector brackets (in conductor)
clamps (in conductor)
splice
stringing blocks (rent)
Installation -layout, pulling, etc
layout pulling line
pull in line
pull in messenger
pull in cable 2000'
pull cable
winch cable to end
clip in
Subtotal -Materials
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Acc. No. 356 -O.H. Conductors and Devices
TSPE04SFXLS Page 8 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
0 1
0 1
30 1
30
160 10
30
100
24
314
1
60 1
60 30
30 30
36 9
20
24
20
10
16
16
70
362 I I
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
ea $5,000 15% $5,750
ea $600 10% $660
ea $2,500 25% $3,6a8
!
$15 $450
$9,648
$10,098
$0
ea $25 25% $3,313
25% $563
25% $1,875
25% $450
$1,490
$15 $4,710
$6,200
mi $25,000 15% $28,750
ea $2,000 15% $3,335
$0
ea 15% $1,035
ea 15% $518
ea $60 15% $1,242
30% $0
30% $390
30% $468
30% $390
30% $195
30% $312
30% $312
30% $1,365
$31,253
$15 30% $7,059
$38,312
SHORT ALUMINUM AND WOOD FLUME ESTIMATE
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
359 Demobilization
Subtotal -Acc. No. 359 -Demob.
Subtotal Aluminum Flume With Camp
Subtotal Aluminum Flume Without Camp
Subtotal Wood Flume With Camp
Subtotal Wood Flume Without Camp
TSPE04SF.xLS Page 9 of 9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
224 ..
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
$15 20% $4,032
$4,032
$501,788
$454,974
$511,497
$464,683
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
330 Land and Land Rights
.01 Land Rights -Legal and Administrative Costs
FERC permit & licensing
engineering
fees
misc. expenses
Subtotal -Acc no. 330
330 .50 Mobilization and Logistics
.51 Start-up (air transportation)
.52 Construction Buildings
Camp
frames and floors
tents 14'x 16'
cots, matresses
chairs
tables
shelves! lockers
racks
gas dryer
washing machine
sheets
pillows
wood stove
kerosene stove
blankets
sink
tank -elevated
stove
potsl pans
dishes, utensils
freezer
referigerator
.53 Construction Power
generator -5 Kw gas
.54 Temporary Water System
latrine
shower
water pump -electric
water tank -85 gal
filter
hot water heater -propane
.55 Construction Surveys
TSPE03.xLS Page 1 of9
Labor
(mh) Qualltity
400
150
2
36 3
3
10
10
2
10
1
1
1
20
10
3
3
20
3
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
$15 $6,000
$70 $10,500
$2,000
$1,000
$19.500
$2,000 $4,000
ea $500 30% $1,500
ea $500 10% $1,500
ea $43 10% $430
ea $15 10% $150
ea $150 10% $300
ea $122 15% $1,220
ea $500 10% $500
ea $300 10% $300
ea $300 10% $300
set $8 10% $160
ea $5 10% $50
ea $800 10% $2,400
ea $600 10% $1,800
ea $13 10% $260
ea $70 10% $210
ea $150 10% $150
ea $300 10% $300
set $250 10% $250
set $15 10% $150
ea $600 10% $600
ea $500 10% $500
ea $600 10% $600
ea $500 10% $1,000
ea $200 10% $200
sa $400 10% $400
ea $220 10% $220
ea $200 10% $200
ea $300 10% $300
$6,000 15% $6,000
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
.59 Barge Transport
off load
.60 Vehicles
used truck
4-wheeler wI trailer
.61 Crew Camp Costs
cook (80 days)
material (food)
misc. freight
Subtotal c Materials
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Acc no. 330.5
331 Structures and Improvements
.10 Powerhouse (##' X ##')
roofing mat'l
.12 Excavation (hand)
blasting
.13 Concrete (including reinforcing)
rebar
forms
transportation to site
.16 Electrical
lights
3/4" conduit
2" conduit
3" conduit
electrical devices (receptacles, etc.)
fan
#12AWG wire
250 MCMwire
panels
Labor
.18 HVAC and Plumbing
22" valve
125# flange
increaser -22" to 30"
45 deg elbow
22" pipe
expansion coupling
misc bolts & fittings
TSPE03.XLS Page 20f9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
1
160
1
1
1000
800
1196
480 10,000
20 320
600
80 16
40 2
40 500
50
20 300
5 20
5 20
6
2 1
1000
250
3
80
1
2
1
1
20
1
1
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
$27,000 10% $27,000
10%
ea $5,000 10% $5,000
ea $6,000 10% $6,000
10%
md $12 10% $9,600
$5,000
$78,550
$12 $14,352
$92,902
bd-ft $0.50 10% $5,000
sf $2 20% $640
40%
40% $2,500
cy $65 20% $1,040
T $560 30% $1,120
sf $2 30% $1,000
30%
15% $150
ft $1.50 15% $450
ft $4 15% $80
ft $8 15% $160
15% $100
ea $200 15% $200
ft $1.00 15% $1,000
ft $2.10 15% $525
ea $1,000 15% $3,000
15%
ea $4,000 15% $4,000
ea $350 15% $700
ea $600 15% $600
ea I $300 15% $300
ft $22 30% $440
ea $300 15% $300
ea $400 15% $400
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA. INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
331 Labor (welding)
Subtotal-Material
Subtotal-Labor
Subtotal-acc. no. 331
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways
Clearing (in Trails Section)
Intake System
Trough
1/4" steel plate -9 sq. ft.
fabricate
haul & place
drill & bolt
grout bolts
Screen
fabricate
Trough transition
misc. material
Diversion Dam
material per 10' section -150'
fabricate & install
planks
grout bolts
misc. material
Gate
32-inch Diameter Steel Pipe
haul. place. & level
straps
paint
blocks
bolts
connect to flume
Forebay
lumber
slide gate
slide gate bypass
hardware
1/2" x 12" galv. bolts
1/2" galv. nuts
5/8" x 2' galv. bolts
5/8" galv. nuts
TSPE03.xLS Page 3 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
40
1468
34
16
8
6 90
10
15
90
1000
8 1
280
104
45 15
30 15
20
8
3000
1
1
700
1000
240
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
15%
$23,705
$12 $17.616
$41.321
15%
ea $36 15% $1.224
15% $500
15%
15%
15% $50
sf $10 15% $900
15% $700
15% $600
15% $200
$60 20% $900
20% $200
bd-ft $0.50 10% $500
10% $200
10% $300
ea $1.000 15% $1.000
ft $72 30% $20,160
30% $300
ea $15 10% $225
10% $150
ea $6 10% $90
10% $250
30% $300
bd-ft $0.50 10% $1,500
ea $1.150 10% $1,150
ea $600 10% $600
Ib $1.67 15% $1,169
Ib $1.67 15% $1.670
Ib $1.67 15% $401
Ib $1.67 15% $100
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
332 Forebay
clamps, couplers
24" pipe
trash rack
metal
misc
Labor
Flume, wood (per 10' section)
6"x10"x10' beam
3"x10"X##'
side brace
base blocks (w/rancher)
cross brace
rails
5x5 -20'
2x4 -40'
sides, bottom
misc. corners
bottom support, 4x8x6x6
side braces, 4x2x2x6x6
misc hardware, nails, & plates
erection
Subtotal-wood flume per 10' section
Subtotal-labor per 10' section
Subtotal -wood flume
Subtotal -labor
Subtotal -extra labor per 10 deg bend
TSPE03'xLS Page 4 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
150
35
184
2 100
1.5 60
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
2 42
1 27
4 200
1 20
2 96
4 48
2
1.3
23.48
260
260
4 29
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
15% $1,500
ft $24 15% $3,600
15%
sf $7 15% $245
15% $200
15%
bd-ft $0.50 15% $50
bd-ft $0.50 15% $30
bd-ft $0.50 15% $19
bd-ft $0.50 15% $6
bd-ft $0.50 15% $8
15%
bd-ft $0.50 15% $21
bd-ft $0.50 15% $14
bd-ft $0.50 15% $100
bd-ft $0.50 15% $10
bd-ft $0.50 15% $48
bd-ft $0.50 15% $24
15% $100
15%
$429
$12 $282
sections $111,540
sections $73,258
$12 30% $1,392
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSULT ALASKA,INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACe No. Description
332 Flume (aluminum)
1 0"x1 0"x1 0' beam
5"x10"X##'
side brace
base blocks (w/rancher)
cross brace, 2"x4"x12'
rails
4"x4"x8' -20'
2"x4"x10' -40'
saddle
rolled aluminum
joints
supports
misc. hardware, screws, etc
erection
Subtotal -aluminum flume per 10' section
Subtotal -labor per 10' section
Subtotal -aluminum flume
Subtotal -labor
Subtotal -extra labor per 10 deg bend
332 Supported Penstock
Clearing
Excavation (including drilling and blasting)
Backfill
Common
Bedding
30" Diameter Steel Penstock
30" Diameter PE Penstock
10"x10"x10' beam
5"x10"X##'
side brace
base blocks (wi rancher)
cross brace, 2"x4"x12'
rails
4"x4"x8' 20'
2"x4"x10' -40'
saddle
joints
TSPE03XlS Page 5 of9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
2 167
1.5 110
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
1 21
1 27
1.25 12
1 10
3.25
0.5 60
1
1.3
16.48
260
260
8 29
0
1 10
1 10
2 167
1.5 110
0.6 37
1.33 12
0.75 16
1 21
1 27
1.25 12
3.25
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
bd-ft $0.50 15% $84
bd-ft $0.50 15% $55
bd-ft $0.50 15% $19
bd-ft $0.50 15% $6
bd-ft $0.50 15% $8
bd-ft $0.50 15% $11
bd-ft $0.50 15% $14
bd-ft $0.50 15% $6
ft $8.60 25% $86
25%
bd-ft $0.50 25% $30
25% $100
20%
$417
$12 $198
sections $108,420
sections $51,418
$12 30% $2,784
ft $66.00 10% $660
ft $36.00 10% $360
bd-ft $0.50 10% $84
bd-ft $0.50 10% $55
bd-ft $0.50 20% $19
bd-ft $0.50 20% $6
bd-ft $0.50 20% $8
bd-ft $0.50 20% $11
bd-ft $0.50 20% $14
bd-ft $0.50 20% I $6
20%
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
332 supports
misc. hardware, screws, etc
erection
Subtotal-supported PE penstock per 10' section
Subtotal-labor per 10' section
Subtotal -PE penstock
Subtotal -labor
Subtotal-supported Steel penstock per 10' section
Subtotal-labor per 10' section
Subtotal -Steel penstock
Subtotal -labor
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal acc. no 332 wI wood flume
Subtotal -acc. no 332 wI aluminum flume
Subtotal -acc. no 332 wI PE penstock
Subtotal-acc. no 332 wI Steel penstock
333 Turbines and Generators
Turbine
Generator
Switch Gear
spare bearings, etc
Labor
Subtotal -Materials
tariff (10%)
shipping
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Acc. No. 333 -Turbines and Generators
,
: Labor
(mh)
i 0.5
1
1.3
16.48
16.48
529
418
418
TSPE03.xLS Page 6 of9
Quantity
60
260
260
260
260
1
1
1
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
bd-ft $0.50 20% $30
20% $100
20%
$691
$12 $198
sections $179,660
sections $51.418
$991
$12 $198
sections $257,660
sections $51,418
$12 $6,348
$255,967
$232,399
$278,309
$356,309
ea $27,036 10% $27.036
ea $10,832 10% $10,832
ea $17.220 10% $17,220
10% $3,000
$58.088
$5,809
$2,200
$12 20% $5,016
$71,113
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
335 Misc. Mechanical Equipment
Basic tools
shovel
hammer
claws
1/2" drive socket set
5/8" drive socket set
elec impact wrench
3Kw light plant
wrench sets
chainsaws
chain sharpener
files, extra chain
Cobra rock drill
bits, spades
gasoline cans
chain binders
double bit axes
mattox
3/8" galv. cable
3/8" nylon rope
5/8" nylon rope
blocks
4 wheel cart
portable lights
heater
sledge hammer
Homelite gas circ. saw
Homelite winches
electric drills
hole saw
saws all
homesteaders jack
hydralic jack
radio
volt I ammeter
power cords
pump wI hose
rebar cutter
bender
mixer -gasoline
TSPE03.xLS
Labor
(mh) Quantity
10
10
5
3
1
2
2
4
4
2
1
5
5
1000
600
600
4
3
2
4
2
2
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
Page 70f9
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
ea $15 10% $150
ea $15 10% $150
ea $10 10% $50
ea $100 10% $300
ea $150 10% $150
ea $150 10% $300
ea $400 10% $800
ea $60 10% $240
ea $250 10% $1,000
ea $40 10% $80
ea 10% $200
ea $6,000 10% $6,000
ea 10% $1,000
ea 10% $200
ea 10% $300
ea $20 10% $100
ea $20 10% $100
ft $0.38 10% $380
ft $0.32 10% $192
ft $0.73 10% $438
10% $300
ea $300 10% $1,200
ea $100 10% $300
ea $175 10% $350
ea $15 10% $60
ea $300 10% $600
ea $650 10% $1,300
ea $150 10% $450
ea 10% $250
ea $160 10% $160
ea $45 10% $180
ea $50 10% $150
ea $200 10% $aOO
ea $200 10% $200
ea 10% $300
10% $200
ea $200 10% $200
ea $150 10% $150
ea $1,000 10% $1,000
LONG FLUME AND PENSTOCK ESTIMATE
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC:r
INDIAN RIVER
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (September 1992 Dollars)
FERC
ACC No. Description
355 Poles and Fixtures
.10 Powerhouse to Tenakee Springs, 1 mile
.11 Poles
.12 Guys, Anchors, and other material
.13 Installation
River Crossing
Subtotal -Material
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal -Acc. No. 355 Poles and Fixtures
356 Overhead Conductors and Devices
.10
Conductors
tree cable
1 phase upgrade
Insulators
Hardware and Miscellaneous
connector brackets (in conductor)
clamps (in conductor)
splice
stringing blocks (rent)
Installation -layout, pulling, etc
layout pulling line
pull in line
pull in messenger
pull in cable 2000'
pull cable
winch cable to end
clip in
Subtotal -Materials
Subtotal -Labor
Subtotal-Acc. No. 356 -O.H. Conductors and Devices
359 Demobilization
Subtotal -Acc. No. 359 -Demob.
TSPE03.xLS Page 9 of 9
Labor
(mh) Quantity
160 10
30
100
24
314
I
1
60 1
60 30
30 30
36 9
20
24
20
10
16
16
70
186
224
Unit Risk Amount
Unit Price Factor ($)
ea $25 25% $250
25% $1,000
25%
25%
$1,250
$12 $3,768
$5,018
mi $25,000 15% $25,000
ea $2,000 15% $2,000
ea 15% $0
ea 15% $0
ea $60 15% $540
30% $1,000
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
$28,540
$12 30% $2,232
$30,772
$12 20% $2,688
$2,688
polarconsult alaska, inc.
Appendix B
I l!_,
O[SIG~ED'
,~ [)r:;",~!: I CH£::KcD:
, SCALE:
UWG:
DESCRIP110N
___ t~ _. -----
A, NOTE: ----
.",T1 _ _ .. _ .. ___ • ____ ,_.,
:i1~ [~_~~~ ..
'-----/------,-,-----------'
i ( \I
BUILDINGS-~ .. ~
CONNECT 10\ ( ii..J ~TENAKEE SPRINGS
EXISTING TOI'IIN i"
POWER GRID --~-.?~
TRAIL ,k;(j -
UPGRADE EXISTING ~/I'
SINGLE-PHASED UNE_____ " " .' II:!
-----Il':
PUBUC
DOCK
: , S !}
\
\
I
\
\
o
."~~ ~ D~~EAU
./ ~ . ?ROJECT LOCATION V.
UKODIAK SEE ARt:A MAP
'" AT RIGHT~ "\IVa o~ ---.... 2~
AREA MAP
~,TS,
o
pola reo ns u It
EN GiNEi:RS -SUf~VEYORS
1503 WEST 33RD ,! vf., SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE, AI.AS'A 99503
o <1.
KEY MAP
M.T,S.
alaska, in c.
ENE~GY CONSULTANTS
PHONE (907) 258-2420
FAX (907) 258-2419
DRAWING
TOPOGRAPHIC
TO lOG
LANDING
PLAN
('
200
H H
200
H
600
HI
SCALE IN FrET
CONTOUR INTtRVAl 5 fEET
LEGEND
TRAIL
PROJECT
TSNAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHEET
T-1
OF 4
PiPruHE
-32-~ PIPE
/
/
---
TO EXISTING ROAD
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\~:;(ID lRAlL
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
))
LEGEND
O\9HEAD ---------lRANSMlSSION CA8lE
PENSTOCK
CONTOURS \500-..r-
cm!K/RI\f:R ~
lR.A.lL ~,--::::=:::::::::;::::::::::-~
NOTES:
1. "11# DENOTES WATERFALL NUIMlERS.
100 200
5C.lLE I N FEET
CtNTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
EXlSTlNG ROAD ~ )-.) ./ .
/' h
FlU~E
OI\1::RSlOO SlRUClURE
L. __
(DATE:_j.j£JL~
i D"SlGNED: ~ ____ 1:'"
I
\
DRAi\f,I: _____ Q,l:!
CHeCKED: ~ ___ f.A
i SCALE: ____ .!:s NQl1'J)
~W(L_-.--3}~
polo rcon su It
ENG!NE~,~RS SURVEYORS
1503 WEST 33>1D AVE, SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE. ALA::KA 99503
1++00
alaska, inc.
ENERGY CONSULTANTS
PHONE (907) 258-~ 2420
FAX (907) 258-,,4·19
/
LEGEND
0'6HEAD ---------'TRANSMISSION C.&.Bl.E
PENSTOC!(
CONTOURS \..5IJO~
CREEl</RIVER ~
'TRAIL ,-::::=-~, ,~ ~. ,.::::::;,'
TO EXIS11NG ROAD
18+00
DRAWING
TOPOGRAPHIC
SHOWING FLUME
\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
-\\
\,~SI(IO TRAIL
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
(
'TRANSWISSIOO UNE --'\
(TO TENAKEE SPRINGS) \
\\
\\
\\
\\
))
PROJECT
SCALf IN FEFT
CONlUUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
. SHEET
PLAN
DESIGN
TENAKEE SPRI NGS
HYDEOELECTRIC PROJECT T-3
'-----------------~---,-
-'-'-'--~'-~'--.... ,-,. .-~-
DESCRIPTION
.. ----.. ~ ... --~--------I
----------.-------~
polar-consult alaska, inc.
ENGINEERS -SURVEYORS ENERGY CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 33RD ,WE, SUiTE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420
ANCHORAGE, AI.AS>':;' 99503 FAX (907) 258-2·~19
/
DRAWING
TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN
SHOWING SHORT
FLUME DESiGN
.---------
PROJECT
LEGEND
OVERHEAD ---------TRAHSWISSION CABl.£
PfNSl'OCl(
CONTOURS '"\500 ______
CRELK/RIVER ,.". ~ ~~
TRAIL ~:'~":::::::::,::::::,,::::,-
NOTES;
1. WI DENOTES WATERFALL NUIMlERS.
\00 100 200
H E3 1 i .==:J
SC..I!.E IN FEET
CONTOLR INTERVAL 5 fEU
SHEET
TENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT T-4
OF 4
C 2 X 4 \\000 RAILING
4 X 4 \IOOD POST---_.....I
2 X 4 \\ooD
\\ooD PIPE SADDLE AT EACH SUP
4 X 4-\\ooD JOIST
\\000 SPACER
BETWEEN CROSS
3RAC I NG ----op..J~
2 X 4 \\000
CROSS BRAC I NG
PRESSURE TREATED
WOOD BLOCK BEYOND
.ru:lAI.l.Qf
x
30' , PIPE
u...U--t--=_ 2 X 10 \\ooD
CROSS BRAC I NO
__ -4 X 4 \\COO SUPPORT
PRESSURE TREATED
\ooco BLOCK
4 X 4 \\000 SUPPORTS
GRADE
__ 2 X 6 \\000 RAILING
_ 4 X 4 \\000 POST
AT 10'-<l" O.C.
_WALI\iIAY (\\000 PLANKING)
-4 X 4 \\000 STR INGER
--WJOO SADDLE
,-'-..,......--.> 2 X 4 WOOD CROSS BRAG I NG EACH S I DE
PRESSURE TREATED
\\000 BLOCK
6" \\000 SAOIlLE-
4 X 6 \\COO SUPPORT
30· _ PIPE x
ELEVATION 4 X 6 \\COO SUPPORT
(DOVER-HEAD PIPE SUppORT ______________________________________________________________________ ~Q0PIPE SUPPORT ON .~R~A~D~E~ ____________ ------------~
l' oJ l' 2' J'
tlll:._'"'=---::::t __ .~l
SHEET SCALf
GALVANIZED CABLE (TY?)
STEEL BAND (TY
30· _ POLYETHYLENE P
TO CENTER
Of RADIUS (DE~t:t __ -=-EQJ>rrT.tIY_=L=E.o...;:N=E__'_P . ..:..I..!_P..=.E'___=B=Ec:...:N=D ________________ ----------_____________________________________ _
DA IE '--__ M24/!?
DESIGNfD.:...._~
DRAWN'--.. _~R
CHECKEIJ '-___ Y:
SCALE~~T~
DWG: ___ .TSH.1
_~.~A~ __ ._ ... _ REVJ~IONS ______ __l
........ -.-------.------------1
--------------------1
polarconsult alaska, inc.
ENGiNEERS SJRVEYORS -ENER~Y CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 33RD AVE, SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE, ALr'SKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420
F.AX (907) 258-241 9
DRAWING
PIPE SUPPORT DETAILS
PROJECT
TENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHEET
H-1
OF 6
~I'i " il I "-
I
,I
,I Ii
II :1 •
~ K' SE:NEEN CROSS
8RACING
, ; i "'---., , , """ '"'"' ,"', ~
II ~
I
i
r~ h ....,4 '
i I '-PRESSURE T~EA Tm I, 'oI\YJi) St.OCK BE':OND
I ,
I
I
I
.El.EYAUQti
-2 X 4 'IIOOD RAILINC
._---5 X 5 'IIOOD POST
__ <----ir--FLUME
J..--+--r-~ -5 X 5 'IIOOJ BRACE
6 X 6 'IIOOD STR INGER
"""'1'"-__ 2 X 4 'IIOOD CROSS BRAC I NG
4 X 4 'Il000 SUPPORTS
l'ITt--+---==--2 X 4 'IIOOD CROSS BRAC I NG
U--!----4 X 4 WOOD SUPPORT
~RESSURE TREATED
'If:)OO BLOCK
GRADE
~_--z X 5 WOOD RAILING
~--5 X 5 \\\JOD POST
___ WALKWAY
~--2" S:'LiCED \\000 PLANKING
5" SQUARE 'MX)O BRACE
AT EACH POST
6 X ;; WOOD STRINGER
6 X ~ 0 \\\JOD BEAM
-4 X 4 \\000 SUPPORT
PRESSURE TREA TD
WOOO BLOCK
GALVAN I ZED
STEEL CABLE
ANCHOR (riP J
STEEL BAND (TYPJ
30" ,. STEEL PIPE
GALVANIZED STEEL GABLE-*"'=-~
STEEL BAND (TYP)
(DSTEEL PIPE SUPPORT AT CORNERS
(i)WQ9Q __ tTUM~" S~U~P-!.P-=O=:.!R...!.T~ _____________________________________ -----: ___ -I
~~!-':G-~"",,~:---,:-I~:;~,,: '~==~~=========;R~~~IS~IO;N~S~==========~~=:~:=C)~I~Cl~:r~c:=o~n:=S~LJ~1~t~~Cl~I=Cl:=S~~==Cl==,===:i=n==c==.~~;:~~~~:~;;================~D~R~A~W~17N~G==~==============~~=======:========~P;R;07.JE~C~T~================~~~S~H~E~E~T~
CHEClCrD .. ,,_:q ______________ 1 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS ENERGY CONSULTANTS FLUME AND PIPE TENAKEE SPRINGS H-2
~~'.E ....:~':;~~~I '503 WEST 33RD WE, SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420 DETAILS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
-'=_.=:::) , ___ . ________________ -" ANCHORAGE, ALAS':A 99503 F,,",X (907) 258-2419 OF 6
30' _ PIPE --......-
G)-E-!.~~ SUPPORT AT SUSPENS ION 8R lOGE
::;L:Y WiRE--
" Q
SHEET SCAI E
'iKXXJ WAL~AY
STRAP M<D
SUPPORT WIRE
30" ¢ PIPE--
2 X 4 IIOOD C;;OSS 8RAC I NG
PRESSURE 1'REATED
w:xx; BLOCK BEYOND
2 X 4 Il000 RAILING
10--1----2 X 4 'MJOD POST
2 X 'Il000 DECK I NG
6 X 9 'MJOD BEMI
0,005 GAGE ALUMI NLM FLUME
-l-l--+l--+-=~ 2 X 4 'MJOD
CROSS BRACING 4-X 4 WOOD SUPPORTS
...... _-4-X 4 'MJOD SUPPORT
PRESSURE TREATED
'Il000 alOCK
®ALUM I NUM FLUME SU~P....!.P.....!O~R..!...T!.....-_______________ _
PIPE SUPPORT
GRADE
_--2 X <\ WOOD RAILING
2 X 4 WOOD POST
4'-10"
2 X 'MJOD DECK I NG
6 X 9 'MJOD SEAM
)Hc:::IM---LAG BOL T
4-X 4-'Il000 SUPPORT
"
0~J:JSF.:~NS IQ~_8R_H2GlL. _______________________________________ --;-____________ ~ ________ ~ ____ ~
------~ ;:,~E--:::.::::::-=· ~R;E.V~15~I~ON~S~=====~-;===;========:==:===:;===:=====:====,:;:=::;;=:=::::::::-::::::=========:::~==========,-;:=====================:::::--::====~ pol arc 0 n sui t a I ask a , inc. )RAW I NG PROJEG: SHEET
ENG I NEERS --SURVEYORS -ENERGY CONSULTANTS
'503 WlST 33RD 'VF, SUITE 310
ANCHOR~,GE, ALAS':t. 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2~20
FAX (907) 258-2419
FLUME AND PIPE
DETAILS
TENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT H-3
OF 6
FLIJ.IE OR PIPE
AS APPLi CABG
i
I
I
b!
~i
I
'cOW
0
CD TRASH RACK
i-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I I ,
i-
l
---------_.
I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
ADJUSTABLE OVERFLOW WE I R
TRASH RACK -ME SH SPAC I NG
PER TRUB I NE W>NUf ACTURER
II ! ! I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I / I
I
I
' I I I I
I I I I
OESANOER
I I I
~ AUTC!.4ATIC GATE
24' -c"
Z X 4 TIG \\000
~LANKI NG
FLOW
L __ .---6 X 6 WOOD STUDS (TYP ARooN )
'""-"----6 X 6 \\ooD SUPPORTS
-DESANDER
I r I I I I
-
FLO:
!-
I I rc I I I
DIVERS ION STRUCTURE
GALVAN I ZED STEEL
GRATING -GRATING
SPACES 3/4" a.c.
pqOTECTIVE WALL
VALVE ENCL OSURE
FLUhlE-__ "
GATE VALVE
32· ~ PIPE
JD'..!)" I--------------~~--~q~--------~
F==n============~
~--ll!l--~.---------
CENTERL I NE OF
DIVERS I ON STR:;OTURE
Z x • TIG \\'ooD
PLAt« I NG
,
1\
~~-~~I-~
VALVE ENCLOSURE) L~ANCHOR BOLT (TYP)
STEEL 'i' SfAM-..-/' . X I~IVE~~N~RU~C=T~U~R~E~ ____ -_U_~_L_E _____________________________ ~(3DIVERSIOOSTRUCTURE
~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r'DATE:-~~~ BY DATE I It
DESIGNED: .. _._~ pO arconsu alaska, inc.
I [)RAVtN: __ .__ DJR
CHECKED: __ ~
I :;CALE : __ AS NOT!Q
DWG:. ____ lSli4
------.-------------l
ENGINEE:'<S SURVEYORS -ENERGY CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 3YD AVE. SU I TE 310
ANCHORAGE. AcASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420
FAX (907) 258-2419
DRAWl NG
FLUME AND PIPE
DETAILS
PROJECT.
. TENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SHEET
H-4
OF 6
-----------_._-
~I
I
I
'" I
LOUVERED A I R EXHAUST
WI TH FAN
H'roRAULI C TURB i NE
GENERATOR
LOUVERED AiR iNTAKE
3D" ~ PiPE
1.-----STEEL REDUCER -,
:.--CCNCRETE THRUST BLOCK
1
1----1'-_1
STEEL pi PE
SWI TCH GEAR CONTROLS
i 1"--. -----------!.~'------------_.i
I \~[B~~-=::r: 2 "
I SHEET S:~LE
~D-f~Fi-.t!P!-l;?-~
8Y DATE (oATE-__ JflY~
i)E~jGNEDc ___ .fA
I, (IRA¥ltL -.' DJ"
CH£CKEl: : ___ ~~
REVISIONS -------------.----1
--.------. -----------
ENG,NEERS -SURVEYORS ENERGY CONSUL7ANTS
polarconsult alaska, inc.
SCALe: __ AS ~l~ 1503 W~ST 33RD 'VE. SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420
------"---~ .OWG: _____ I.?'.:5.
..... --~-_/
ANCHORAGE, AL.ASC<A 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 -----_._--,--------'"
6 X 6 CEDAR ==liii~lil~!!!!!!!!!!!~! LOG CONSTRUCT ION --_-lC.'-----I
,.
LOUVERED AIR INTAKE
GRADE
CONCRETE fOUNDAT I ON
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE: f«lNE
HYDRAUL Ie TURB I NE
FLOOD ELEVATION 75.00' ---v-:
r 1
1
WATER
DISCHARGE
I 42"' i . '-"""">. [r=~--~---''-~-<J~J-L_---;----:::.::l----.J
DRAWING
POWER HOUSE
PLAN AND DETAILS
PROJECT
I'ENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GRADE
SHEET
H-5
OF 6
TURBINE -EXPLODED VIEW
N.T,S. -:"CR ILLUSi'?Ai!Vt: P:JRFOSES CNlY
lClNERED AIR EXHAUST
WITH FAN
';r-~'~'---------.---
DRAFT TUBE SELCIl'I TRANS I T I aN P :EeE
---------~_T~~~~ __
/
I
{
1. CASING.
2. GUIDE VANES.
3. ROTOR.
4. IAAIN BEARING.
5. CORNER CAS I NG •
6. AIR INLET VALVE.
7. DRAFT TUBE.
B. TRANSITION PIECE. 6 X 6 CEDAR :~i~~~III~~~~~~~~~~~ LOG CONSTRUCTION --_.--J..::>L.-_j
I'""
LOLVERED AIR INTAKE--
'X
CONCRETE FOUNDATION __
~
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE, OONE
LOUVERED EXHAUST FAN
TRANS I T I ON Pi ECE
_WATER FROM PIPELiNE OR "LUME I
I
\
\
'\
"
1 251(\/ ,-OAD G.:lVERNOR
LCUVE~EJ AI.'i INTME
S~EET seAL:'
~"\ POWER HOU::~ t. ;------~-~--. _."._-, ._-_ .. -------
,,_/
E~---~-----~~~":%=~=--PE~~ ::: ~ ~:~~:RS ~ ~~E:G~ ~D:SU~ :~~
._1 _____ .,." t: ~~~~;:~:~_~-~--.-~ .. ---.. ------1 ,, __ ::_;~_'~_.o_;_~_~~_' _. ]_~_:_~_S_:~_!F_·_9_~_~_~_;t._' _3_1_0 ____ pu_' /J_~"_AE_X_\_99_00_77_~_~_~5S_~_-=-_~_:2_1 8...;9 I DRAWING
POWER HOUSE
PLAN AND DETAILS
A III I NlET VALVE ........... ,
CORNER CASING ----"""f/
I
::.=:::=' -
----DRAFT TUBE
PROJECT
'----=~---' '-.------------------.----------------~
TENAKEE SPRINGS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT J
'-'-----
, SHEET
H-6
Of 6