Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Alaska Power Authority Unalaska Geothermal Project Final Draft 1987Alaska Energy Authority LIBRARY COPY PROJECTNO.4198 COPY NO.|DQ ISSUEDTO: 4PA THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT FINAL REPORT DRAFT NOVEMBER 6,1987 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING _ THIS DOCUMENT CONTACT: @ BILL LEWIS,P.E. @ JOHN McGREW FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO REVIEW ARID REVISION FIGURE 1-1 TOTAL UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS (1987 DOLLARS) Base Case Plant Direct Costs $16,633,041 Station Direct Costs 508,300 T-Line Direct Costs 5,654,515 SCADA Direct Costs 100,000 Subtotal $22,895,856 Engineering and Supervision @7%1,602,710 Construction Expenses @ 9%2,060,627 Contractors Fee @ 3%686,876 Subtotal $4,350,213 Mob,Demob,Mancamp 2,340,250 Production and Injection Wells 4,127,615 Roads and Docks -Total Construction 4,022,993 Permits and Geotech 224,850 Engineering 281,610 Subtotal $10,997,318 Total $38,243,387 Contingency @ 15%5,736,508 GRAND TOTAL 27CIND 1198 (11:02:87) $43,979,895 Alternate $10,300,714 470,000 $3,618,930 100,000 $14,489,644 1,014,275 1,304,068 434,689 $2,753,032 2,163,195 2,840,236 4,589,696 224,850 321,279 $10,139,256 $27,381,932 4,107,290 - $31,489,222 Utiry 02S PROJECTNO.1198 COPY NO.Be DrabISSUEDTO:APA THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT FINAL REPORT DRAFT NOVEMBER 6,1987 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT CONTACT: ®BILLLEWIS,P.E. @ JOHN McGREW TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | THE PROJECT tl PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS lil PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM IV GENERATION SYSTEM V STATION REQUIREMENTS Vi TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Vil SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS”-Vill ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/IX ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE X APPENDIX Xl 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)i |.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Alaska Power Authority (APA)contracted with POWER Engineers,Inc.(POWER) to perform an independent cost estimate of the agency's Unalaska Geothermal Project based on the design and other project data found in the Unalaska Geothermal Feasibility Study Final Report,June 22,1987,prepared by Dames & Moore.The Dames &Moore report addresses the institutional concerns,design and cost of a 7 megawatt (MW)geothermal power plant located on Unalaska Island. The report also addresses the transmission line and support facilities required to build and maintain the project and deliver the power to the Dutch Harbor/Unalaska area. In addition to carrying out the independent cost estimate,POWER--supported by Hart-Crowser,Inc.--was commissioned to review and evaluate the design suitability and feasibility of certain critical project components,in particular the transmission line.In the course of the review,POWER identified potential alternatives for the design of the plant,transmission line,and roads.Because these alternatives appeared to have potential benefits to the project,APA directed POWER to prepare an alternative design concept and cost estimate as well as a cost estimate for the original design. The report addresses two scenarios.The first,referred to as the "Base Case” throughout the report,is based on the Dames &Moore design.The second, referred to as the "Alternate,”is based on the conceptual design prepared by 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)|1 POWER.An area map illustrating the Base Case and Alternate physical location differences is included at the end ofthis section. Major differences between the Base Case and the Alternate include the following: @ The Base Case power plant is located on a plateau north of Fox Canyon. Geothermal fluid is to be piped to the plant from the proposed production well site on the plateau south of Fox Canyon.The Alternate scenario has the plant situated adjacent to the production well south of Fox Canyon. @ Major equipment for the Base Case will be delivered over the primary road from Driftwood Bay.While there would also be a service road in the Makushin Valley to Broad Bay,there would be no road to the production well site.The Alternate has no access to Driftwood Bay.All equipment would be off-loaded at Broad Bay and be transported up the valley to the plant and production well sites via a road designed to accommodate the loads. @ Production wells are the same for both scenarios.But in the Base Case,the injection well is on the north side of Fox Canyon while the Alternate proposes an injection well site on the south side of the canyon. e@ The Base Case plant is proposed to employ a hybrid single-flash/binary power conversion technology while the Alternate would employ a double-flash system. The Base Case plant location,with no road to the production well site,requires almost $1 million in helicopter support for drilling activities and is also complicated by difficulties and added costs associated with construction of the production piping system.The production system itself consists of nearly 13,000 feet of combined 24-,20-and 14-inch piping.In addition to being very expensive,this system would have potential freezing problems in the event of a plant shutdown. The Alternate would have only a very short production line,although the 14-inch injection line would run about 2,500 feet to the injection well.However,this line would be buried below the frost line and thus be protected from freezing and require no above-grade support structures. 270iNO 1198 (11/02/87)|-2 Driftwood Bay has been identified as a high energy beach with potential landing problems associated with the beach configuration and severe weather.The Alternate approach,in which all equipment would be transported up the Makushin Valley from Broad Bay,avoids this problem and negates the need for a road from Driftwood Bay.This road,which would run all the way to the production well plateau,would be initially more expensive but would result in substantial cost savings by allowing for the plant to be built on the production well plateau,thus eliminating the Base Case production gathering system and helicopter well drilling scenario. The Base Case location of the injection well on the plateau north of Fox Canyon would be appropriate because the well would be close to the plant and the injectivity appears to be good.!n the Alternate,the injection well location would be at the south end of the plateau about 2,500 feet from the production well. Resistivity data indicates this location has a suitable injection zone at the target depths.If testing indicated a severe short circuit with the production well,this well could be converted to the spare production well and another location found for the injection well. The hybrid technology,with the single-flash,two-steam turbine trains,and two binary generation modules,is complex and expensive.Due to the relatively high flash pressure and inefficient energy conversion of the binary modules,resource utilization is rather poor.The dual-flash system utilized in the Alternate design produces the same net power (7 MW)with 10 percent less geothermal fluid.The Alternate technology is simpler,cheaper--due to the fewer components--and better proven for geothermal applications. The total project capital costs may be seen in Figure 1-1.The estimated capital cost for the Base Case is $13 million more than the Alternate.The savings results from the different design approach and costs for the transmission line,plant,and wells. The transmission line savings are due to eliminating the underground cable by relocating the line to the edge of Makushin Valley and keeping it overhead.The other major component of the transmission line savings is due to elimination of the overhead ground wire,which POWER feels is unnecessary. 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)|3 The plant savings are due to:1)simplification of the design and elimination of the binary generation system,and 2)elimination of the long gathering system extending from plateau to plateau. The well savings are primarily due to the elimination of helicopter support to the production well plateau. POWER feels that both estimates are conservative and that a detailed construction estimate would result in a lower project cost.Due to the greater design simplicity with the inherent reliability improvements,and lower capital cost,POWER recommends that the APA pursue the Alternate in future actions related to the Unalaska Geothermal Project. 270IND 1198 (11/02'87)1-4 wie - road foed LEGENDSS, BASE CASE ALTERNATIVE CASE ROADWAYS --_-ROADWAYS --- H-FRAME T-LINE -oH--M-FRAME T-LINE =%#--AH---r UNDERGROUND --------SINGLE POLE TUNE %-----s SUBMARINE awn SUBMARINE ”-_- ee - A Mf,*. ;=e a * -°-=U I ee ee Oi geeon°ES °f Ve ie:cASE_|"oF .Zf SWITCHNG STATION 3 atc 2 Uf PSS NN:\3 ::Ta,:- sh OS SS==."unoercrouso Sy 3 aah Pp .itIe---wQe==4 --_ f s #? sp hhsgb fy Py)[eo 4 TERMINAL STATION BOTH CASES ye iA § RecA \_sase case UieySEVPLANT@INJECTIONWELLDAIOEEyALTERNATIVECASESSS CAreotastsM(H(PRODUCTION WELL OS |§9 ay>)Erie >\hS;2] 2 2 og <<0 /e \”eis 'ee -,oI \a .-= yee cn orn ROP ed awd tt@DoUel\z Sa *Nergrees roapacred aPro.AIHaeywand$20 am aan Il.THE PROJECT ll.THE PROJECT In 1986,the Alaska Power Authority (APA)commissioned Dames &Moore to investigate the feasibility of developing a geothermal resource to provide power to the communities of Dutch Harbor and Unalaska. These communities are located approximately 14 miles from the geothermal resource at the foot of the Makushin volcano on Unalaska Island in the Aleutian chain. Dames &Moore's report was presented to the APA in June of 1987.This report included preliminary designs for project components and cost estimates.The general engineering scenario presented in Dames &Moore's report will be referred to throughout this document as the "Base Case”scenario with its associated components and cost estimates.POWER's proposal is referred to as the "Alternate” case. Following a review of the Base Case scenario presented by Dames &Moore,the APA solicited proposals to perform an independent cost estimate and conceptual design review of the Unalaska Geothermal Project as outlined in the Base Case scenario.In August,1987,POWER Engineers,!nc.(POWER)was selected for the independent cost estimate and conceptual design review project. As a result of POWER's field investigation,review of existing studies,and a detailed analysis of the Base Case scenario,POWER concluded that an alternative to the Base Case design concept should be pursued.This conclusion resulted from the following considerations: 270IND 4198 (1102/87)i -1 1.POWER concurs that the production well site be established in the immediate vicinity of the ST-1 test well site (upper Fox Canyon Plateau).However,POWER disagrees with the Base Case proposed site of the plant and injection well located east of Fox Creek Canyon on the lower Fox Creek Plateau.Piping the steam and geothermal fluid to the proposed plant site would be costly, inefficient,and could result in severe operating problems.POWER proposes that the generation plant be located at the production well site with effluent piped to an injection well located on the extreme eastern extent of the upper Fox Creek Canyon Plateau.POWER contends that slant drilling the injection well underneath Fox Creek Canyon is feasible and the probability of short- circuiting between the production and injection well is reasonably low. Having the production well,plant and injection well on the same plateau would be advantageous for the following reasons: e Plant efficiency because there would be no need to pipe steam 7,000 feet as proposed by Dames &Moore. @ Lower construction costs because steam and geothermal fluid piping would not have to span Fox Creek Canyon. @ Lower operation and maintenance expenses due to having all the geothermal power facilities within a reasonable proximity of each other. The separation between the production well/plant site and the injection well would be approximately 2,500 feet. 2.POWER proposes that the construction and maintenance access road be one and the same road,emanating from Broad Bay and continuing generally west to the upper Fox Creek Canyon plateau.It would be feasible to construct the road along the south side of the Makushin Valley to the lower Fox Creek Canyon and up to the well/plant site.This route would be economical and technically feasible,ensuring a reasonable level of safety for operation and maintenance personnel. The road would access directly to the geothermal site for both construction and maintenance purposes,allowing all drilling equipment,construction equipment,and plant material to be trucked to the site.This would eliminate 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)lI -2 the need to transport the drill rig,separator,steam and geothermal piping by helicopter as proposed in the Base Case.Other considerations regarding POWER's proposed routing of the road are: @ The risk to the barges landing at Drift Wood Bay would be eliminated. Drift Wood Bay is exposed directly to the North Sea and is subjected to many days of stormy weather with high energy wave action.POWER's proposal would have all landings take place at Broad Bay,which is considerably more protected than Driftwood Bay. @ POWER has strong reservations regarding the construction and maintenance of the Base Case service road in the Makushin Valley.The Base Case proposes this road to be designed for light vehicular traffic.But the expense of the road for such a restrictive use is possibly prohibitive. e@e The Base Case calls for the road to be partially constructed of local aggregate encapsulated in a geotechnical matrix.This type of road construction is commonly done in marshy areas such as the Makushin Valley.The Base Case states that the lower three and a half miles of the Makushin Valley line routing would require trenching of the vegetative mat paralleling the proposed road route for the installation of the underground cable.POWER is concerned that the structural integrity of the mat--essentially the road's foundation--would be destroyed if vegetation is cut.The possibility of the road sinking or listing at an angle to the cut is very high because it is not anticipated that the cut vegetative mat would regain its original strength for a number of years,possibly decades.| 3.POWER proposes routing the road at the southern edge of Makushin Valley where the valley floor and mountain slopes intersect.The use of geotextile fabric and fill for the road is proposed as well as employing the side of the mountains as the foundation rather than farther out in the marsh where the road would be totally flexible and buoyant.Little or no cutting would occur for road building in the Lower Makushin Valley because of the expected slope unstability problems.This road routing and construction has the advantage of allowing heavy construction equipment and all plant materials to be Z272:ND 1198 (11/02/87)I -3 transported to the geothermal site.Also,conventional installation of an overhead line--with single poles spaced at 300-foot intervals--could take place, resulting in a significant savings over the underground construction proposed in the Base Case scenario.Also,the environmental concerns of constructing a road through the marshy area of the Makushin Valley would be largely eliminated. POWER's engineering analysis and cost estimates are included in the following sections.The Base Case and POWER's alternative are compared for technical viability and cost. 2701IND 1°98 (41 02/87)i-4 Ill.PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS - lil.PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS INTRODUCTION The Base Case scenario calls for design and construction of the Unalaska Geothermal Project to take place over three years with a commercial inservice date in 1991. POWER concurs that this is a reasonable time frame to design and construct the project,and the Alternate schedule generally parallels the Base Case schedule except for road construction.The Alternate schedule proposes to have the Makushin Valley road completed the first year.The Base Case would have the construction access road from Driftwood Bay to Sugarloaf (helicopter staging site) completed the first year.The construction road to the plant site and maintenance access road through the Makushin Valley would be completed the second year. Discussed in this section are specific assumptions made for both the Alternate and the Base Case scenario regarding barge costs,personnel and equipment mobilization and demobilization costs,material mobilization costs,and mancamp costs.The equipment mobilization costs include the costs to transport the equipment to the barge staging areas whether it be Seattle,Washington,or Homer, Alaska.This is also true for the project material that,in most instances,will be transported to Seattle,loaded on barges and then shipped to Unalaska by barge. ALTERNATE APPROACH 1.The Alternate schedule has road construction commencing in May,1989,to be completed in July,1989.Drilling of the production well site would start in July, 27CIND 1198 (11.02/87)Wh -1 1989 and be completed in August,1989.The drill rig would then be moved to the injection well site.Once the well production capacities are proven through preliminary testing,drilling of the injection well would start.Piping for the geothermal effluent would be installed between well sites.Once the injection well is completed,and it is determined that a backup production well be drilled,the rig would move to the back-up well site.The drilling of the backup production well would occur in October,1989 or early spring,1990. 2.All road and dock construction equipment and mancamp facilities would be barged (350-ton barge)from Homer,Alaska.The drill rig,support equipment, and well casings would also be barged from Homer.Off-loading would occur at the Broad Bay site.Road and drilling crews would be housed in a mancamp located at Broad Bay.The camp,construction equipment,and materials would take three trips for mobilization and two additional demobilization trips,one in 1989 and one in 1990 for the camp.The dock deck materials would arrive on one barge with other construction materials,while the rig would be mobilized separately. 3.In the spring of 1990,all power plant,transmission and substation materials would be barged (7000-ton barge)from Seattle to the Broad Bay site.The contractor(s)equipment for construction of the plant,transmission line and stations would be barged from Homer,Alaska.All personnel would be housed in amancamp located at Broad Bay.Drillrig equipment would be demobilized and transported back to Homer on the return trip of the barge that delivered the construction equipment. 4.The submarine cable would be transported from Seattle by barge during the summer of 1990.The costs for barging the cable are included in Pirelli Cable's estimate. 5.Atthe completion of the project,all construction equipment,excess materials, and mancamp facilities would be barged back to Homer,Alaska. 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)HH -2 THE BASE CASE APPROACH 1.All Driftwood Bay road construction equipment and mancamp facilities for the well site would be barged (350-ton barge)from Homer,Alaska.The drill rig, drill casings and piping would be barged from Seattle.The barges would be off-loaded at Driftwood Bay.Helicopters for transporting men and equipment to the drill site would be mobilized from Anchorage.(Helicopter costs are included in the well-drilling estimate.) 2.All plant construction equipment,transmission line and station construction equipment,and modular mancamp facilities would be barged to Driftwood Bay in the spring of 1990.Driftwood Bay road construction equipment would be used for the Broad Bay access road.Dock construction equipment and materials would be barged to Broad Bay. 3.All plant,transmission line,and station materials would be barged (7000-ton barge)from Seattle to Driftwood Bay in the spring of 1990.Submarine cables would be transported by barge from Seattle during the summer of 1990.The costs for barging the submarine cable are included in the cable estimate. 4.The costs associated with the mobilization and demobilization of the drill rig, drill casing and piping is higher for the Base Case approach because of the additional geothermal effluent and steam piping required.The quantity, weight,and volume of the additional piping necessitates shipping from Seattle on a 7000-ton barge. CAMPS For the original Base Case plan,the camp would be mobilized to the plant site or vicinity over the road from Driftwood Bay.The cost for camps under this scheme has been estimated assuming the same scenario as the original report.Under the alternative plan,the camp would be mobilized to the beach at Broad Bay and set up on a location there to be used for road and dock construction during the first year. During the second year,the camp would be left at the Broad Bay site,and workers would be transported to the plant site along the road.The camp would normally 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)il -3 contain 40 sleeping units with the capability to house up to 45.A packaged treatment plant would handle water and wastewater treatment.A well would be located in the lower valley near the camp to provide a water supply for the camp.It is important to note that a wellsite without saline intrusion must be chosen. In the alternate scheme developed for this report,a small emergency building and garage would be constructed to provide shelter for plant personnel responding to a plant emergency during severe weather.This building would have cooking and sleeping accommodations,as well as sufficient garage space to perform minor repairs on the service vehicle.This vehicle would remain onsite,securely locked in the garage during times when maintenance personnel are not at the plant.The plant boat would normally remain in Dutch Harbor or Unalaska,except when maintenance staff are at the site.In addition to these two pieces of equipment,a road grader/snow plow would remain at the Broad Bay location where there would be maintenance facilities for storing tools,oil,filters,etc.This equipment would be used for road maintenance and plowing in the winter.Also at the site would be an alpine snow machine capable of being transported by truck.This snow machine would be used for emergencies during difficult snow conditions. 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)Wh-4 BASE CASE MOB,DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN No.Unit Rate Total Roads &Dock Construction Barge Trips 5 L.S.*$32,000 $160,000 Pile Driving MOB 1 L.S.100,000 100,000 Pile Driving DEMOB 1 L.S.100,000 100,000 Air Fares 45 Ea.650 29,250 Standby Time Hrs.900 30 27,000 Trucking 20 Trip 1,000 20,000 Well Rig 1 L.S.1,000 1,000 Subtotal $437,250 Plant,Transmission,&Station Materials (Seattle) Barge Trip 2 L.S.$150,000 $300,000 Trucking 60 Trip 1,000 60,000 Subtotal $360,000 Plant,Transmission,&Station Construction Equipment (Homer) Barge Trip 2 L.S.$32,000 $64,000 Air Fares 50 Ea.650 32,500 Standby Hrs.1,000 30 30,000 Trucking 20 L.S.1,000 20,000 Subtotal $146,500 *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)III -5 BASE CASE MOB,DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN (CONT.) MOB &DEMOB TOTAL $943,750 Mancamp Costs Mancamp MOB 1 L.S.*$349,500 $349,500 Catering (1989)4050 Days 65 263,250 Catering (1990)12,100 Days 65 786,500 MANCAMP TOTAL $1,399,250 *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (11 02/87)Ut -6 ALTERNATE CASE MOB,DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN No.Unit Rate Roads &Dock Construction Barge Trips 5 L.S.*$32,000 Pile Driving MOB 1 L.S.100,000 Pile Driving DEMOB 1 L.S.100,000 Air Fares 45 Ea.650 Standby Time Hrs.900 30 Trucking . 20 Trip 1,000 Well Rig 1 L.S.1,000 Subtotal Plant,Transmission,&Station Materials (Seattle) Barge Trip 2 L.S.$150,000 Trucking 60 Trip 1,000 Subtotal Total $160,000 100,000 . 100,000 29,250 27,000 20,000 1,000 $437,250 $300,000 60,000 $360,000 Plant,Transmission,&Station Construction Equipment (Homer) Barge Trip 2 L.S.$32,000 Air Fares 40 Ea.650 Standby Hrs.800 30 Trucking 20 L.S.1,000 Subtotal *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)TT -7 $64,000 26,000 24,000 20,000 $134,000 ALTERNATE CASE MOB,DEMOB AND CAMP COST BREAKDOWN (CONT.) MOB &DEMOB TOTAL $931,250 Mancamp Costs Mancamp MOB 1 L.S.*$249,445 $249,445 Catering (1989)4050 Days.65 263,250 Catering (1990)11,100 Days 65 721,500 MANCAMP TOTAL $1,234,195 *L.S.:Lump Sum 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)Hi -8 IV.PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM IV.PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELL SYSTEM BASE CASE The Base Case scenario calls for two production wells--one on-line and another as a spare--and one injection well.Both production wells are to be located at the ST-1 test well site on the south side of Fox Canyon.According to the Base Case,the injection well is to be located on a plateau on the north side of Fox Canyon about 6,000 feet to the northeast of the production well site.All three wells are to be completed with 13-3/8 inch casing. According to the drilling program,all three wells are to be completed in 1989.The drill rig and related equipment are to be delivered to Driftwood Bay and transported by road to the Base Case injection well/plant site.This requires that the Driftwood Bay and Sugarloaf roads be constructed prior to mobilization of the drill rig.From the injection well site the rig and equipment would be transported across Fox Canyon by helicopter to the production well sites.Once the production wells are drilled and initial capacity tests performed (it is assumed that both production wells will be drilled at the same time to avoid the extra helicopter lift back and forth across the canyon),the rig will be flown to the injection well site and the injection well drilled.A mancamp will provide support for the drilling crews.A summary of the Base Case costs are illustrated in Figure 4-1. 1270IND1198(11/02/87)IV ALTERNATE The Alternate also proposes two,13-3/8 inch production wells drilled at the site of ST-1 along with one 13-3/8 inch injection well.However,the Alternate differs from the Base Case as follows: @ =The drill rig would be mobilized and demobilized out of Homer instead of Seattle. e The rig would be trucked up the Broad Bay road to the production well site south of Fox Canyon. e@ =The injection wellhead would be located on the east end of the ST-1 plateau, about 2,500 feet from the production well.The injection well would be slant drilled to the north under Fox Canyon. e =The first production well at the ST-1 site would be drilled,then the injection well,and,finally,the spare production well. Barge lines operating out of Homer serve the Aleutians.A suitable rig should be available for mobilization out of the Homer area.This will result in a savings of transportation costs.Another potential benefit of the Alternate plan is that an Alaska-based drilling company may be familiar with operating in the region and thus work with higher efficiency.Also,employment of a local driller would benefit the Alaskan economy. Because the Alternate plan calls for a road to be built to the production well site, drilling equipment could be trucked all the way.Therefore,helicopter support to move the rig back and forth over Fox Canyon would not be required.Also,the rig would be offloaded in Broad Bay,thus negating the need for landing craft,as well as the double handling and potential weather delays associated with a Driftwood Bay landing. Locating the injection well on the same plateau as the production well would reduce the quantity of piping required between the plant and the wells;allow for easier operating access between the production wells,plant and injection wells; 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IV -2 and also reduce the distance the rig would have to be moved.Also,this site is at a sufficiently lower elevation than the proposed plant site that the spent geothermal fluid should not require pumping prior to injection if a well with reasonable permeability is established. There are two important questions associated with this injection well location.First, is there a sufficiently permeable injection zone and,second,will there be a direct communication with the production zone that will result in fluid short-circuiting between the two?Figures 4and 5,Appendix E,of the Unalaska Geothermal Project Phase lil Final Report show an overall view of the apparent resistivities in the 200- 500 meter and 500-1000 meter zones,respectively.These figures show that resistivities in the proposed injection area run from approximately 100-500 ohm- meters (as opposed to resistivities from about 70 to less than 30 ohm-meters in the production well area).The 100-500 ohm-meter range resistivity indicates a potential injection zone with suitable permeability and possibly fresh (low salinity) water.The presence of fresh water would indicate that an interconnection with higher salinity production fluids is unlikely.Any interconnection between the production and injection zones would,however,be established through testing after the wells were drilled. Upon drilling the first production well to the target depth,initial testing would be performed with the rig on the well.After verification that the production zone has been reached,the rig would be moved to the injection site and the injection well drilled.When this is done,and assuming drilling is stopped in a lost circulation or other zone of similar permeability,one of four scenarios is likely:(1)the well is completed in a permeable zone with fresh water,(2)the well is completed in a permeable zone with little or no fluid present,(3)the well is completed in the steam cap,or (4)the well is completed in the production resource.In either of the first two scenarios,it would be likely that no interconnection exists.Therefore,the rig could be moved off to the spare production well site.Testing would then be performed to confirm that there was no interconnection In the third scenario,there is an indication of interconnection with the resource but a short circuit could not be confirmed without testing.In fact,in some cases interconnection without short circuiting is actually beneficial.For example,in some areas of the Geysers KGRA in California there have been serious problems with 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IV -3 pressure declines in the field.To counteract this,some firms are even injecting cold surface water into the field to help maintain pressure. A short circuit test would be designed by the reservoir engineer.This test would probably consist of flowing the production well to the drill pit until a sufficient inventory of fluid is accumulated;setting level,pressure and temperature instruments in the production well;and flowing the fluid from the pit to the injection well while monitoring the production well instrumentation.If a severe short circuit is found,the well would probably be drilled deeper and converted to the spare production well.An alternative would be to case out the steam zone and slant drill deeper to a completion zone farther from the production area into an area of even lower resistivity. If the resource is encountered,then this well would become the spare production well.If the proposed injection well is converted to a production well,then anew site would be chosen for the injection well.As this is unlikely to occur,an alternate injection well site has not been chosen. COST The drilling costs shown for the Base Case and Alternate in Figure 4 -1 use the Dames &Moore data from Volume Il,Appendix B.Support data and assumptions may be found in that document.These costs have been modified to reflect new data and any changes in approach.Each line item shown in Figure 4-1 is discussed in the following text. Mobilization and Demobilization -The Base Case value is taken directly from the Base Case report except that the barge cost was altered to reflect a lower bid received by POWER for the Seattle to Unalaska run.In the Base Case,the drill rig would be mobilized out of Seattle,while the Alternate proposal suggests mobilization out of Homer.The Alternate results in much lower mobilization and barge transportation costs.Also,additional savings would result because the rig does not have to be modified for helicopter transport,and no landing craft are required. 270IND 3198 (11/02/87)IV -4 Helicopter and Subsistence -No helicopter and subsistence charges would be required for the Alternate,as there would be a road all the way to the well site. Drilling -The well costs taken from the Base Case report are the same for the Base and Alternate cases. Handling Charges -This is 10 percent of the other charges,as specified by the Base Case report. Professional Labor,Travel and ODC -The requirements for special professional expertise will be the same in both cases. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IV -5 FIGURE 4-1 DRILLING COSTS PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELLS Base Case Alternate Mobilization and Demobilization $427,606 $200,500 Helicopter and Subsistence 943,238 --- Drilling First 13-3/8”Production Well 866,572 ;866,572 Second 13-3/8"Production Well 701,857 701,857 13-3/8"Injection Well .409,904 409,904 Handling Charges,10%334,918 217,883 Professional Labor,Travel and ODC 443,520 443,520 TOTAL $4,127,615 $2,840,236 270iIND 1198 (11/02/87)IV -6 V.GENERATION SYSTEM V.GENERATION SYSTEM BASE CASE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION _The Base Case plant design is a 7 MW net hybrid generation facility located on the plateau northeast across Fox Canyon from the production well plateau.The hybrid design utilizes two 2,750 KW steam turbines with auxiliaries and two 1,100 KW binary modules for power generation.The production wells are to be located on the plateau near ST-1 and the plant and injection well on another plateau on the far side of Fox Canyon.The major mechanical equipment required for this design is given in the Base Case Mechanical Equipment List included at the end of this section.The primary sub-systems of the Base Case generation system are the gathering system,steam generation plant and binary generation plant.A listing of the Design Assumptions and Criteria for the Base Case as well as the Alternate case may be found in Figure 5-1 in this section. Gathering System In the Base Case,two-phase flow from the production well is piped to a separator located on the same plateau.There the steam and liquid are separated into their component phases.From this primary separator,the steam and liquid are piped down to the bottom of Fox Canyon,an elevation change of between 150 and 200 feet and then back up about 200 feet to the plant.The two-phase line from the production well to the primary separator is about 2,500 feet long,while the two lines from this separator to the plant are approximately another 5,000 feet.The 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-1 low spot through Fox Canyon is essentially a trap.Consequently,the design must include a method of draining condensate from the steam line during normal operation.Whatever equipment is used to accomplish this (normally condensate drain legs with steam traps),it must be protected against freezing and have a suitable method for disposing of the condensate as it is assumed that continuous dumping into the Makushin River would be environmentally unacceptable. For abnormal operation--resulting after an extended shutdown--provisions must be made to drain both the liquid and steam line in the Fox Canyon area.This is necessary to prevent these lines from freezing and possibly rupturing.The Base Case report does not address this concern but does state that flow from the _production well will be maintained to the plant.This will be accomplished by venting steam to the atmosphere through a back pressure control valve upstream of the steam turbine in the event the steam turbine is off-line.If this valve were to fail, stick in place,lose its air supply,have its line plug,or otherwise become inoperative, flow to the plant could be lost.Due to the potential severity of the damage if the production lines were to freeze,the design should provide for draining lines and disposing of the fluid.As it is unknown whether dumping geothermal fluids to the river would be acceptable in this emergency situation,it was assumed that this would be permissable.Therefore,no provisions were made in the cost estimate for collecting the drained effluent for pumping back to the injection well or otherwise disposing of it. In the Base Case report,the primary separator has a liquid level control system with a level controller at the vessel to control a valve in the liquid line to maintain the level in the vessel.Although it did not appear to be noted in the Base Case report, this means air and/or power must be available at the remote location to operate this equipment.Also,it would be preferred to have this control signal brought to the plant control room to allow for remote operation from this point. The liquid line from the primary to the secondary separator is shown as a 14-inch line in the Base Case report.As is stated in the text of that report,"the pressure drop in the water pipeline between the first steam water separator and the power plant will result in the flashing to steam of additional geothermal water in the pipe.”At the secondary separator inlet conditions,the two-phase flow pressure drop for this flow is over 1.5 psi per 100 feet of pipe.Where this stream goes two- 270iND 1198 (11/02/87)V -2 phase will depend on the location and pressure drop through the primary separator level control valve and relative elevation of the various components in the system. It will probably occur somewhere in the run of pipe gaining elevation as it comes up out of Fox Canyon,about 1,500 feet from the plant site.Assuming this is the case, the pressure drop between this point and the plant is,very roughly,equal to 1.5 psi times 1,500/100,or 22.5 psi.This is greater than the pressure drop available between the two separators even if the pressure drop in the liquid portion of the line is neglected.Therefore,a larger diameter line would be required.Another problem which will occur,especially during startup or unstable operations,is the development of slug flow and consequent hammering of the lines.Unfortunately, increasing the line size makes this problem even worse. This problem,as well as the pressure drop problem,could be avoided,however,by an appropriate design change.By putting the primary separator at a high enough elevation on the ST-1 plateau so that it is at least 35 feet higher than the secondary separator elevation and also placing the primary separator level control valve near the secondary separator,the elevation head will be greater than the frictional pressure drop in the pipe.Therefore,fluid will stay in the liquid state upstream of the level control valve and then flash to two-phase due to the valve pressure drop and subsequently be fed to the secondary separator.Of course,power to the primary separator would still be required for the level instrumentation.In addition to the potential pipe freezing problems,it should be noted that both the primary and secondary separators,with their instrumentation,drains,etc.,are located outdoors and thus also subject to freezing. These potential operating problems,as well as the cost of installing and maintaining several thousand feet of large diameter pipe would be eliminated if the plant was located on the same plateau as the injection well. Steam Generation Plant At the plant site,steam from the primary and secondary separators is combined and fed to two 2,750 KW steam turbine generator unit power production trains.Liquid from the secondary separator is fed to the binary power plant.The steam generation plant is relatively standard and straightforward with skid-mounted 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -3 turbine generator sets,air-cooled condensers,condensate and non-condensable gas ejection system.The choice of two trains provides for system redundancy and should help the overall reliability.However,this has the effect of substantially increasing the plant cost as all components have to be duplicated--piping is more complicated--and the economies of scale are lost.For example,a major supplier of steam turbine generator units for geothermal service quoted two 2,700 KW units for a slightly higher price than one 7,300 KW turbine generator unit,even though the larger unit would produce 35 percent more power.Given the fact that steam turbine-generator units,even in geothermal service,have proven their reliability over many years,the reliability gained by going to two trains is probably not worthwhile.The pressure of the steam fed to the turbine is 60 psia in the Base Case report.It is not entirely clear why this pressure was chosen as the optimum thermodynamic flash point pressure for a single-flash system utilizing this resource is about 28 psia.In fact,using this flash pressure,even without the binary units,7 MW of power could be produced from a single-flash unit with only about 5 percent more flow than with the Base Case design. The Base Case report states that efficient steam water separators precluded the need for demisters in the steam line going to the turbine.Although good separators would normally provide good quality steam,installation of demisters upstream of the turbine is almost universal in flash plants.This is done to protect against occasional excursions and to improve the steam quality even more,thus reducing the potential for "salting”the turbine (any moisture carried over from separators has the same dissolved solids composition as the liquid in the separator, thus solids are left behind to plate out on the turbine when the liquid evaporates). An additional consideration is that the steam line from the primary separator will be carrying some condensate formed due to heat losses in the 5,000 feet of pipe between that separator and the turbine.This condensate should be removed prior to entering the turbine to prevent erosion of the blades.Some of this can be removed by a well designed steam trap system,but a demister is required to provide truly turbine quality steam. In the Base Case design,there are two vents to the atmosphere on each steam train. One is for the non-condensable gases from the condenser.It discharges these gases as well as the steam from the second stage ejectors (as there is no condenser on this stream to remove water vapor prior to discharge to the atmosphere).This is 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-4 undesirable because water vapor in this stream could create ice fog in the plant in certain weather conditions.POWER's Alternate design will utilize a condenser to minimize this problem.The other vent is from the back pressure control valve that controls the pressure in the steam header supplying the turbine.In the Base Case report,this vent is to be used to control the turbine generator power output by diverting flow from the turbine in periods of low power demand.The stated goal is to maintain a constant flow from the well while simultaneously controlling the turbine-generator to match load.This is a method of accomplishing this goal. However,the large quantity of steam vented (this will occur mostly at night in periods of low demand)will result in a serious potential for ice fog problems.In addition,this method of control results in a waste of the resource.Most wells, especially those producing from a fracture zone and flashing in the well bore such as is expected for this resource,can have their flow slowly modulated over a fairly wide range.In some hydrothermal fields this is done intentionally to move the flash point up and down the well bore to equalize scale formation in the well,thus maximizing the length of time between well cleaning. Binary Generation Plant Each of the two 1,100 KW binary modules receive fluid from the secondary separator,remove sensible heat from it and convert it to power via a Rankine cycle, and discharge the spent fluid to the injection well. Binary units are usually selected when the resource is relatively low temperature and this unsuited for flash technology plants.The other case when binary units are preferable is when the resource has an extreme carbonate scaling problem.In this case,the production wells are pumped to a pressure sufficient to maintain the fluid in a liquid state and prevent the dissolution of carbon dioxide and subsequent scale formation. Binary units have the advantage of being relatively simple,readily available from Ormat in a modular design,and easy to install.The disadvantages are a relatively low power conversion efficiency,high fire danger due to the organic working fluid, and relatively unproven design in the large power output modules and consequent potential for poor availability. 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)V -5 ALTERNATE GENERATION SYSTEM The Alternate design has the plant located at the same site as the production well on the plateau south of Fox Canyon.The plant will use one dual-flash turbine generator set capable of producing 7,300 KW gross power.The injection well will be on the other end of the same plateau.The major equipment for this scenario is listed in the equipment list at the end of this section.Two drawings,a Process Flow Diagram and a conceptual Piping and Instrumentation Drawing illustrating the Alternate design,are also included at the end of this section. Gathering System As the plantis located at the wellhead,the gathering system for the Alternate case is simply a short interconnection line between the wellhead and the high-pressure flash separator.There must,however,be sufficient distance between the wellhead and the separator,about 100 feet,to allow a work-over rig access to the well in case it needs maintenance at some point in the future.The wellhead would be protected by a small,removable building.The pond used when drilling the well would be maintained and used to hold fluid for startup.The high-pressure separator would be located within the building as would be the low-pressure separator and all other generation equipment.Only one building would be required in the Alternate as opposed to the Base Case which calls for separate buildings for the steam system and binary plant. The above-ground,insulated,two-phase pipe between the well and the plant is the only portion of the system exposed to the elements.The injection line will be buried below the frost line in the 2,400-foot run between the plant and the injection well. This design results in a simpler,more reliable system that is much less sensitive to abnormal operating conditions.!n addition,as it has only about 150 feet of 16-inch production piping and 2,500 feet of 14-inch injection piping,it is much less expensive than the Base Case. 2701ND $198 (11/02/87)V -6 Generation System Dual-flash technology is the basis for the Alternate generation system.This technology is simple,reliable,and well-proven in many installations.A dual-flash unit is slightly more expensive than a single-flash unit but results in much more efficient utilization of the resource.The dual-flash system is also more efficient than the Base Case hybrid system.In the dual-flash Alternate,approximately 983,000 pph of well flow is required to produce 7,000 KW of net power as opposed to the 1,093,000 pph required in the Base Case to produce the same amount of power.Depending on the royalties contract,this may result in a significant cost savings to the project.Even if the contract is based on power sold,efficient fluid utilization still has the benefit of extending the life of the well and the resource.In addition,if well performance declines with time there is more leeway before the problem becomes critical if the system requires less flow. In the dual-flash system,steam from the high-pressure separator is fed to a demister,then to the high-pressure inlet ofa dual pressure turbine.Liquid from the separator is flashed across the level control valve and fed to the low-pressure separator.Steam from the low-pressure separator is fed to a low-pressure demister, then to the low-pressure inlet on the turbine.An air-cooled condenser located adjacent to the building condenses the turbine exhaust.This condenser will be self draining and have an air recirculation package to prevent freezing (a condenser with similar features is being used successfully at the University of Alaska (Fairbanks)generation plant).This is the only portion of the generation system exposed to the elements. Non-condensable gases from the condenser go to the non-condensable gas removal system.Although both use steam jet ejectors to compress the non-condensables, there are two fundamental differences between the Base Case and the Alternate. The Base Case uses an air-cooled,inner-condenser to condense the flow from the first stage ejector and vents a water vapor laden steam from the second stage ejector to the atmosphere.The Alternate utilizes the condensate from the main condenser in a water-cooled surface condenser to condense the steam from the first stage ejectors.Another water-cooled condenser is used to condense the discharge from the second stage ejectors so the non-condensable gases vented to the atmosphere contain only residual water vapor.Using water-cooled ejector 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -7 condensers allows the entire system to be indoors and minimizes ice fog due to the much smaller quantity of water vapor vented. The system condensate is combined with the flow from the low-pressure separator 'and sent to the injection well.The fluid in the injection line is kept in the liquid state by a back pressure control valve located at the injection well.This valve utilizes upstream fluid pressure to operate its actuator and thus requires no power or air at the injection wellhead. In the Base Case,load control is accomplished by venting steam to the atmosphere upstream of the turbine.In the Alternate,there are three ways to control the system to follow load.Before discussing them,however,it should be pointed out that,according to a major manufacturer of geothermal steam turbines,a 7,300 KW unit can be successfully "turned-down”to the 1,000 KW range and operated for an indefinite period of time without damage to the machine.To follow load,one control method would be to reduce flow to the low-pressure side of the turbine by closing the pressure control valve on the outlet of the low-pressure separator.In the extreme,this valve would be closed,the low-pressure separator would be acting only as a surge tank between the high-pressure separator and the injection well, and the production well flow would be maintained at a constant level.This control action would have the capability of controlling the generator output between 2,500 and 7,300 kilowatts (most of this is due to the lower flow through the machine,a portion is due to the lower turbine efficiency at the lower rate). Another control action is to decrease the well flow by either closing the control valve in the two-phase flow line to the high-pressure separator or closing the pressure contro!valve in the steam line between the high-pressure separator and the turbine (this decreases well flow by raising the pressure in all of the system upstream of it). The other control action which can be taken is venting steam.Although this is not the preferred alternative,it would be used in the event of sudden load changes such as a turbine trip. In actual operation,a combination of these three contro!methods would be used. The specific control philosophy,and which would be used in what situations over 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -8 what range of conditions,would be developed during design of the plant and modified as required during startup and operations.The Alternate case has, however,included provisions for all three so the design has sufficient flexibility to satisfy any scenario. A crane has been included in the design to facilitate maintenance activities.An emergency generator with a seven-day fuel supply located in the base has also been included in the design. COST The capital cost for the plant proper for the Base Case and Alternate were developed using a combined method of material take-offs and factors.The Base Case and Alternate gathering and injection systems have been done differently, however,due to the fact that the plants are located on different sides of Fox Canyon and thus the gathering and injection systems are much different and cannot be compared directly. For the Alternate,the production well to plant piping is only approximately 100 feet and was thus included with the plant cost estimate.The Alternate case injection piping,however,consists of approximately 2,500 feet of 14 inch direct buried pipe. Conversely,the Base Case injection piping is minimal and is included in the plant estimate while the production piping has a total of 12,900 feet of above-grade piping ondrilled pier supports. Due to these extreme dissimiliarities,factoring is not an appropriate method for determining these costs.In consideration of this fact,a detailed take-off was performed for both these systems.As an example,the Base Case take-off included quantities such as straight pipe,elbows,insulation,number of welds,number of expansion loops,number of supports,pipe support attachments,pipe support stanchions,concrete for drilled piers,etc.The cost of these materials and the installation time was taken from The Richardson Rapid System Estimating Standards,1987.Cost of transporting the materials to the site and contractor mobilization and demobilization are covered in other sections of this report.The manhour rate applied to the installation,$33.10 (including benefits)was the top 270IND 3198 (11/02/87)V -9 rate quoted by the Anchorage union hall.The summary of the Base Case and Alternate take-off and associated costs may be seen in Figure 5-2.The supporting material for this summary may be found in the appendices. The mechanical equipment estimate is the basis of the total plant estimate. Therefore,care had to be taken to ensure that it was as accurate as possible.The first step in this process was performing a take-off of the mechanical equipment utilizing the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs).A copy of the Alternate design P&ID may be referred to at the end of this section.The Base Case report contains all drawings relating to the Base Case design.In conjunction with this take-off,those components not appearing on the P&lD but which,based on experience,are known to be necessary,such as the emergency generator,crane, and instrument air compressors,were sized and added to the Mechanical Equipment List.This list,which addresses both the Base Case and Alternate, provides information as to the equipment size,design criteria,cost and cost source and may be found at the end of this section.Of the mechanical equipment,94.3 percent of the cost was from vendor budget quotations for the Alternate,and 97.7 percent from vendor budget quotations for the Base Case.The mechanical equipment cost summary may be seen in Figure 5-3. Once the mechanical equipment costs were developed,the other plant costs were derived by factoring.To accomplish this,standard textbook tables providing ranges of costs for the various plant components as a percentage of the mechanical equipment cost were used.These tables were generated based on historical data for the construction costs of existing plants.As these factors are presented as a range of values,specific design criteria,project knowledge,and engineering judgment and experience are applied to select the factor which most nearly fits the facility in question.To present as fair a comparison as possible,the factors chosen were the same for both the Base Case and the Alternate. Determining the direct costs in this manner should result in a conservative estimate. There are two major equipment cost items,the turbine generator and the non- condensable gas/condensate system,which are supplied complete with piping and control systems and require only erection and interconnection.Therefore,applying standard factors,which assumes a number of small,discrete equipment items requiring purchase of interconnection piping,complete supply,and installation of 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -10 control system,etc.,to these two cost items results in a very conservative estimate. The direct costs developed for both cases may be found in Figure 5-4.Supporting material may be found in the appendices. 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)V -1 1 FIGURE 5-1 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA 1.Resource conditions as follows: Bottom Hole Temperature -382°F Resource Non-Condensable Gas -186.8 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids -5,800 ppm 2.Plantsite elevation -1,100 feet. 3. Plantsite weather design data: 150 mph Wind Load 16 Feet Snow Load 0°F Winter Design Temperature 64°F Summer Design Temperature 4.UBC Seismic Zone 4. 5.Soil bearing capacity 2,000 pounds per square foot. 6.Plantsize is 7 MW net. 7.Plant and well design life is assumed to be 25 years. 8.Specific mechanical equipment design criteria found in Mechanical Equipment List. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -1 2 FIGURE 5-2 BASE CASE PRODUCTION LINE SUMMARY*kk Installed Cost 24”Std.Wt.Pipe -2,500 L.F.w/Supports and Insul.$478,498 20"Std.Wt.Pipe -5,200 L.F.w/Supports and Insul.965,813 14”Std.Wt.Pipe -5,200 L.F.w/Supports and Insul.741,744 Fox Canyon Pipe Bridge TOTAL -BASE CASE ALTERNATE INJECTION LINE SUMMARY* 341,551 $2,527,606 kk Installed Cost 14”Std.Wt.Pipe -2,500 L.F.,Coated and wrapped $161,639 Valves,Fittings,Piping Specialties 43,861 Misc.(Drain Valves,Vents,Q/A,Etc.)20,500 Excavation and Backfill TOTAL -ALTERNATE CASE 17,703 $243,703 *Quantities taken-off Base Case and Alternate P&IDs and area plan drawings.Installation time and material costs from The Richardson Rapid System Estimating Standards,1987,labor rates based on Anchorage union shop quotations. **For the Base Case,the production line only was taken-off and estimated separately.The injection line,which is quite short,was assumed to be in the plant piping.Piping runs above grade on drilled pier supports.For the Alternate,the injection line only was taken-off and estimated separately as its production line is very short and assumed to be part of the plant piping.Injection piping is buried four feet. V-13270iIND1198(11/02/87) FIGURE 5-3 SUMMARY OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (FOB SEATTLE) Equipment Alternate Base Case HP Separator $21,068 ---- HP Demister 15,200 ---- Primary Separator ----$28,100 LP Separator 29,835 ---- LP Demister 45,000 o--- Secondary Separator ----14,000 Steam T-G(s)2,750,000 3,026,000 Condenser and NC Gas System 1,800,000 1,600,000 Instrument Air Compressor 35,000 45,000 Crane 131,496 45,000 Binary Modules ----2,000,000 lsopentane Storage Tanks ----19,800 Transfer Pumps ----3,100 Emergency Generator 25,000 25,000 TOTAL $4,852,599*$6,806,000** *94.3 percent of equipment cost from Vendor budget quotations. **97.7 percent of equipment cost from Vendor budget quotations. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-14 FIGURE 5-4 PRODUCTION,INJECTION,AND GENERATION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 1987 DOLLARS Description Alternate Base Case Mechanical Equipment $4,852,599 $6,806,000 Mechanical Equipment Installation 1,516,437 2,126,875 Instrumentation &Controls (Installed)363,945 510,450 Plant Piping (Installed)606,575 850,750 Electrical (Installed)703,627 986,870 Buildings (w/Services)727,890 1,020,900 Yard Improvements 181,972 255,225 Service Facilities 982,651 1,378,215 Land 121,315 170,150 Subtotal Direct Costs $10,057,011 $14,105,435 Production Piping ----2,527,606 Injection Piping 243,703 ---- TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $10,300,714 $16,633,041 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -1 5 BASE CASE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LIST NAME:Primary Separator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -140 psig,360°F;Operating Conditions -80 psia operating pressure,1,100,000 Ib/hr total feed,89,300 lb/hr steam,1,010,700 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel SIZE:56”1D,187"S-S WEIGHT:8,000# COST:$28,100 COSTSOURCE:SimilarJob 2701ND 1198 (11:02:87)V-16 NAME:Secondary Separator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -100 psig,338°F;Operating Conditions -63 psia,1,010,700 lb/hr feed,15,500 !b/hr steam,995,200 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel SIZE:36”ID,138”S-S WEIGHT:3,500# COST:$14,000 COSTSOURCE:SimilarJob 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-17 NAME:Steam Turbine-Generator QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Skid-mounted,single-cylinder condensing geothermal steam turbine with lube oil system and air-cooled synchronous generator with brushless exciter. DESIGN CONDITIONS:Turbine -49,500 pph,60 psia,293°F steam supply;3”HgA exhaust;Generator -2,750 KW,.85 lagging power factor, 4,160V,32. COST:$3,026,000 COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-18 NAME:Main Steam Condenser QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Air-Cooled,finned-tube,A-frame condenser with two 75 hp thermostatically controlled motor-driven fans,includes transition piece and ducting. DESIGN CONDITIONS:64°F Dry bulb temperature at 1%for summer conditions; O°F Dry bulb temperature for winter conditions;wind velocity maximum 150 mph;2.5"HgA;46,000,009 BTU/hr.; 1,100'plant elevation. MATERIAL:304SS CONNECTED HP:300 COST:$1,600,000 (Price also includes complete non-condensable gas and condensate system as these components would be purchased as a package.) COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -19 NAME:NC Gas Removal System QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Two-stage steam jet ejector system with two 100%capacity jets;includes air-cooled inner-condenser. DESIGN CONDITIONS:2.5”HgA condenser pressure,4.3 psia first stage jet discharge pressure,14.5 psia second stage jet discharge pressure,1500 pph steam consumption. MATERIAL:304SS COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -20 NAME:Condensate Drain Tank QUANTITY:Two DESIGN CONDITIONS:Full vacuum to 100 psi,338°F. MATERIAL:30485 SIZE:30”1D;60”S-S WEIGHT:700# COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -2 1 NAME:Condensate Receiver QUANTITY:Two DESIGN CONDITIONS:Full vacuum to 100 psi,338°F. MATERIAL:304SS SIZE:33”ID,67”S-S WEIGHT:1,100# COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -22 NAME:Condensate Pumps QUANTITY:Four TYPE:Vertical Turbine Can-Type DESIGN CONDITIONS:105 gpm at 75'TDH,12'NPSHR. CONNECTEDHP:3hp/pump MATERIAL:304SS COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V ad 23 NAME:Drain Pumps QUANTITY:Four TYPE:Horizontal Centrifugal DESIGN CONDITIONS:70 gpm at 25'TDH,5'NPSHR. CONNECTED HP:1hp/pump MATERIAL:304SS COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 27ND 1198 (1102/87)V-24 NAME:Instrument Air Compressors QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Reciprocating,oil-free compressor with dryer,air receiver and control package. DESIGN CONDITIONS:100 psig discharge pressure,60 scfm. CONNECTED HP:15/compressor COST:$45,000 COST SOURCE:Factored from Similar Job 270IND 1198 (1102/87)V >25 NAME:Crane QUANTITY:One DESIGN CONDITIONS:Five-ton,40 ft.span. COST:$45,000 COST SOURCE:Factored from Similar Job 270INO1198(11/02 87)Vv -26 NAME:Binary Generation Module QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Skid-mounted binary generation unit with turbine,air-cooled synchronous generator with brushess exciter,preheater,vaporizer,feed pump,separate air-cooled condenser,controls,duct to condenser and interconnecting piping between components. DESIGN CONDITIONS:988,500 Ib/hr brine feed,296°F brine feed temperature, isopentane working fluid;1,100 KW,4,160 V generator. SIZE:8'x8'x 40'module (basic unit without condenser) COST:$2,000,000 COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)V -27 NAME:Isopentane Storage Tanks QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Horizontal Pressure Vessel MATERIAL:Carbon Steel WEIGHT:2,500#ea. COST:$19,800 COSTSOURCE:Factored 270iND 1198 (11/02/87) NAME:Isopentane Transfer Pumps QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Gear-type positive displacement pumps. CONNECTED HP:10hp COST:$3,100 COSTSOURCE:Estimating Manual 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -29 NAME:Emergency Generator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Diesel engine generator with breaker,battery charger,day tank,controls and fuel storage tank. DESIGN CONDITIONS:100 KW,.80 power factor,480V,three-phase,seven-day fuel storage tank. COST:$25,000 COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11.02.87)V -30 ALTERNATE DESIGN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LIST NAME:High-Pressure Flash Separator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -140 psig,360°F;Operating Conditions -85 psia operating pressure,983,000 Ib/hr total feed,75,800 lb/hr steam,908,000 Ib/hr liquid. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel SIZE:51”ID,170”S-S WEIGHT:6,000#4 COST:$21,068 COST SOURCE:SimilarJob 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -31 NAME:HP Demister QUANTITY:One TYPE:Vertical Separator with Chevron Separator Internals DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -140 psig,360°F;Operating Conditions -83 psia,75,800 lb/hr steam. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel SIZE:36"ID,72"S-S WEIGHT:1,900#4 COST:$15,200 COST SOURCE:Engineer's Estimate 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -32 NAME:Low-Pressure Flash Separator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Vertical Cyclone Separator DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -50 psig,300°F;Operating Conditions -20 psia,908,000 lb/hr feed,85,300 Ib/hr steam, 822,700lb/hr liquid. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel SIZE:75"1D,249"S-S WEIGHT:8,500# COST:$29,835 COSTSOURCE:Similar Job 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -33 NAME:LP Demister QUANTITY:One . TYPE:Vertical Separator with Chevron Separator Internals DESIGN CONDITIONS:Vessel Design Conditions -50 psig,300°F;Operating Conditions -20 psia,85,300 Ib/hr steam. MATERIAL:Carbon Steel! SIZE:70”ID,170”S-S WEIGHT: 6,500# COST:$45,000 COST SOURCE:Engineer's Estimate 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V-34 NAME:Steam Turbine-Generator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Skid-mounted,single-cylinder condensing geothermal steam turbine with lube oil system and air-cooled synchronous generator with brushless exciter. DESIGN CONDITIONS:Duel-inlet turbine -High-pressure steam -73,150 lb/hr,81 psia,1184.2 BTU/Ib;Low-pressure steam -85,300 lb/hr,15.5 psia,1156.3 BTU/Ib;Condenser pressure -2.5”HgA; Generator-7,300 KW,.85 lagging power factor,13.8kV,3@. WEIGHT:150,000#4 COST:$2,750,000 COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -35 NAME:Main Steam Condenser QUANTITY:One TYPE:Air-Cooled,finned-tube,A-frame condenser with four-100 hp thermostatically controlled motor-driven fans,includes transition piece and ducting. DESIGN CONDITIONS:64°F Dry bulb temperature at 1%for summer conditions; O°F Dry bulb temperature for winter conditions;wind velocity maximum 150 mph;2.5"HgA;148,000,000 BTU/hr; 1,100'plant elevation. MATERIAL:304585 CONNECTED HP:400hp COST:$1,800,000 (Price also includes complete non-condensable gas and condensate system as these components would be purchased as a package.) COSTSOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -36 NAME:NC Gas Removal System QUANTITY:One TYPE:Two-stage steam jet ejector system with two 100%capacity jets;includes . water cooled inner-condenser and after-condenser. DESIGN CONDITIONS:2.5”HgA condenser pressure,6.1 psia first stage jet discharge pressure,16.0 psia second stage jet discharge pressure,2600 pph steam consumption. MATERIAL:3048S COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND1198(11 02°87)V 37 NAME:Condensate Receiver QUANTITY:One DESIGN CONDITIONS:Full vacuum to 100 psi,338°F. MATERIAL:304585 SIZE:48”ID,96"S-S WEIGHT: 1,800# COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)V-38 NAME:Condensate Pumps QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Vertical Turbine Can-Type DESIGN CONDITIONS:326 gpm at 75'TDH,12'NPSHR. CONNECTED HP:10hp/pump MATERIAL:304585 COST:Included in Main Steam Condenser Cost COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)V -39 NAME:Instrument Air Compressors QUANTITY:Two TYPE:Reciprocating,oil-free compressor with dryer,air receiver and control package. DESIGN CONDITIONS:100 psig discharge pressure,50 scfm. CONNECTEDHP:10/compressor COST:$35,000 COSTSOURCE:Factored from Similar Job 270IND 1198 (11-0287)V -40 NAME:Gantry Crane QUANTITY:One DESIGN CONDITIONS:30-ton,40 ft.travel,30 ft.span. CONNECTED HP:Hoist-15hp Travel-2hp Trolley -2hp COST:$131,496 COSTSOURCE:Similar Job 270IND 1198(1 1/02/87)V -41 NAME:Emergency Generator QUANTITY:One TYPE:Diesel engine-generator with breaker type transfer switch,battery charger, controls and fuel storage tank. DESIGN CONDITIONS:100 KW,.80 power factor,480V,three-phase,seven-day fuel storage tank. COST:$25,000 COST SOURCE:Vendor Quotation 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)V -42 aa GAS SYSTEX 14 { VENT TO(---4 ATMOSPHERE START-UP -()POND (=) |36 |ODEMISTEA:HIGH PRESSURE_.FLASH co AIR-COOLEDSEPARATORCONDENSER7300 7 TURBINE GENERATOA VENT TO ATMOSPHERE CONDENSATE &RECEIVER PROQUCTIONWELL _/CONDENSATE PUMP -CONDENSATE PUMP ==.) SPARE PRODUCTION WELL S77 INJECTION WELL STREAM NUMBEA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 12 13 4 FEED To |HIGH FEED TO |He steam |HP STEAM |LP STEAM ues ipc's To nc]eS.CONDENSATE]INJECTIONDESCRIPTIONHPFLASH|pressune |LP FLASH 10 10 10 sepanaton |GAS To 10 FlowSEPARATOR|STA |SEPARATOR |TURBINE |EvecTORS |TURBINE {CIQUIO oUT|system |aTMOSPHEAE|INJECTION |TO WELL TOTAL FLOW 40”PPH 963.8 75.8 908.0 73.2 2.60 85.3 622.7 661 510 161.1 983.8 4,0 10"PeH 977.9 75.6 902.3 85.3 817.0 422 264 161.4 978.1 Tos 10?PPH $7 5.7 5.7 5.7 . NON-COND'S 10°PPH 212 1212 205 .007 239 1246 A'_[YSSUED FOR INFORMATION tfe/g|ErPAAwtEF :FeV DESCRIPTION OaTE |BY |APPOPRESSURE.PSI4 C)PEF ERENCE DRAWINGS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY EXTHALPY BTUAS 355.7 4164.2 206.5 1184.2 1184.2 1156.3 196.3 92.0 176.2 TEMPERATURE,°F [C__]UNALASKA ISLANO STREAM NO.=.7 C>GEOTHERMAL PROJECT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAH DAN.ROP DOO NO.3198 OD.poFZ DRAWING NO,|REV APPO.fe.to)£2 8-31-04aE1198-3 A {2 i \4 |5 |6 |7 |'|r)|.10 i M4 ]42 |43 45 seswes E GAS SYSTEM ___-f""}.je =89/2"CS XSaxt-1/2 (-DTem PTaeeens ,VENT TO>Gunny '4°CS-STO-WT ATMOSPHERE. ' START-UP L 'POND peeee----4f--------' §"1 '°i=t mT 'ES 'ATMOSPHERE et L]\°' 1 8 ' '.t 'a ' !'DEMISTEACc' 1 4van:16°CS-STD-WT woeen }"T ' 16x12 16x12 '¢ ''5s &x |EE 'onaienneie 'a Md ''3 8of;fe©||(9 ::>+t--_3 'CST ea"CS-S10-KT 2 5 § !8077&.(ay @)&- PROOUCTION e 'DEMISTER WELL ' 'bd 1 vn 'Gar)Gn)(in)----2------w=onan 24x8 'SCAVENGERCHEMI .'TREATMENT SYSTEM A t PRESSURE FLASH \ ' '4 'a 'riTotesereser'3 "a Q SPARE PROQUCTION tswelt 14x10 14x10 6x3 6°SS-STO-WT >Ht"1 Mi >44°CS-STO-WT A [ISSUED FOR INFORMATION Jp fer|BLE.REV DESCRIPTION "pate |BY |APPO REFERENCE DRAWINGS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY UNALASKA ISLANO GEOTHERMAL PROJECT 177 CONCEPTUAL P&ID Oe NO.1198INJECTIONWELLDRAWINGNO.|REV 4196-31-02}/\ 1 |2 |3 '{|1 9 ||sisens oo r VI.STATION REQUIREMENTS VI.STATION REQUIREMENTS GENERAL Having reviewed the Base Case report in conjunction with other available information,POWER has determined that the Base Case proposal is adequate. Using equipment and material lists as a guide to developing comparable cost estimates,Base Case and Alternate scenarios were estimated assuming that each respective station would have a similar or identical layout. The significant difference in total station costs is due to the elimination of Switching Station "A”from the Alternate route. The following subsections present the expected station requirements for each of the two Alternate routes.A brief explanation of each station is followed by a tabulation of the estimated costs for that station.At the end of each section is a summary of the station costs for that route. | Station costs are broken down by structure and equipment costs,followed by lump sum costs for installation of structures,equipment,foundations,and all other equipment.The cost for all other equipment includes:fencing,grounding, buswork,cable and conduit,and transmission dead ends.The estimates of the Base Case route were developed using information from the Base Case report.Although single line diagrams and material lists from the report were available,no specific information on station layouts,structure types and arrangements,site size,etc.was available.Cost estimates,therefore,based on station layouts developed by POWER 2701ND 1198 (11/02/87)Vi -1 will not be a direct comparison to Base Case cost estimates.The costs developed for this report for both the Base Case route and the Alternate route are based on identical structures and equipment where applicable.This provides a direct comparison of costs.- Mobilization and demobilization costs are estimated as individual station costs within the project.Project mobilization and demobilization costs will be estimated separately. All costs are approximate current costs (1987)for the equipment and service indicated. ASSUMPTIONS e Adequate space is available at all station locations e@ There are no significant obstructions at the station locations such as swamps, rock outcrops,streams,rivers,etc. e Access to sites is not restricted.No road construction has been included in station costs. BASE CASE ROUTE The Base Case route would take delivery of power (generated at 4160 volts)at the main substation adjacent to the generating plant.The 4160-volt power would be transformed to 34.5kV and delivered to the system.The following stations would be required: e Substation;4.16-34.5kV 6/8/10 MVA XFMR,34.5kV circuit breaker and associated switches,equipment and structures. e Switching Station "A”-Overhead conductor to underground cable terminal; switches and associated equipment and structures. 2701ND 1498 (11/02/87)VI-2 e West Terminal Switching Station -Underground cable to undersea cable terminal;switches,spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. e East Terminal Switching Station -Undersea cable to overhead conductor terminal;switches,spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. 270IND 1198 (1102/87)Vi -3 BASE CASE STATION COST BREAKDOWN Substation,4.16-34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA Unit Quantity STRUCTURES 34.5kV Switch Str. 34.5kv Dead Str. EQUIPMENT: 4.16 -34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA XFMR 34.5kV Circuit Breaker 34.5kV Switch (GOAB) 34.5kV Grounding Sw. 34.5kV Voltage XFMR Switchboard Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Testing Mobilization &Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.:Lump Sum 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)VI-4 Unit Cost Extended Cost 1,500 1,500 6,000 6,000 95,000 95,000 35,000 35,000 3,500 7,000 _2,000 2,000 4,500 13,500 25,000 25,000 3,900 3,900 26,900 26,900 13,600 13,600 42,900 42,900 5,000 5,000 12,500 12,500 5,000 5,000 Subtotal $294,800 Switching Station "A” nit STRUCTURES: Dead End Str.CcSwitch &Terminator Str. EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization &Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (41/02/87)VI-5 Unit Cost Extended Cost 6,000 6,000 3,500 3,500 600 1,800 600 1,800 500 1,500 700 2,100 4,800 4,800 4,000 4,000 8,400 8,400 24,000 24,000 5,500 5,500 2,200 2,200 Subtotal $65,600 West Terminal Switching Station Unit -Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES: Switch &Terminator 2 3,500 $7,000 EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 6 600 3,600 35kV Grounding Switch 4 600 2,400 35kV Terminator 7 500 3,500 22kV Surge Arrester 4 700 2,800 Install Structures L.S.*3,600 3,600 Install Equipment L.S.6,800 6,800 Foundations L.S.6,600 6,600 Furnish and Install All Other Equipment L.S.15,600 15,600 Mobilization &Site Prep.L.S.6,000 6,000 Demobilization L.S.2,400 2,400 Subtotal "$60,300 *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vi -6 East Terminal Switching Station Unit STRUCTURES: Deadend Str. Switch &Terminator EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization &Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1:98 (1102/87) Quantity NO=VI-7 Unit Cost Extended Cost 6,000 $6,000 3,500 7,000 600 3,600 600 2,400 500 2,000 700 2,800 6,600 6,600 6,800 6,800 11,700 11,700 28,000 28,000 7,700 7,700 -3,000 3,000 Subtotal $87,600 ALTERNATE CASE The Alternate Case would take delivery of power (generated at 13.8kV)at the main substation adjacent to the generating plant.The 13.8kV would be transformed to 34.5kV and delivered to the system.The following stations would be required: e Substation;13.8-34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA XFMR,34.5kV circuit breaker and associated switches equipment and structures. e West Terminal Switching Station -Overhead conductor to undersea cable terminal;switches,spare undersea cable with transfer bus and associated equipment and structures. e East Terminal Switching Station -Same as West Terminal Switching Station. The elimination of Switching Station "A”provides significant cost savings and adds reliability.It also allows the West and East terminal switching stations to be identical in design,resulting in additional savings of operation and maintenance costs. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vi -8 ALTERNATE CASE STATION COST BREAKDOWN Substation,13.8-34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA Unit Quantity Unit Cost STRUCTURES 34.5kV Switch Str.1 1,500 34.5kv Dead Str.4 6,000 EQUIPMENT: 13.8 -34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA XFMR_1 95,000 34.5kV Circuit Breaker 1 35,000 34.5kV Switch (GOAB)2 3,500 34.5kV Grounding Sw.1 2,000 34.5kV Voltage XFMR 3 4,500 Switchboard 1 25,000 Install Structures L.S.*3,900 Install Equipment L.S.26,900 Foundations L.S.13,600 Furnish and Install All Other Equipment L.S.42,900 Testing L.S.5,000 Mobilization &Site Prep.L.S.12,500 Demobilization L.S.5,000 Subtotal *L.S.:Lump Sum 279IND 1198 (11 02°87) Extended Cost VI-9 1,500 6,000 95,000 35,000 7,000 2,000 13,500 25,000 3,900 26,900 13,600 42,900 5,000 12,500 2,000 $294,800 West Terminal Switching Station Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES:. Deadend Str.1 6,000 $6,000 Switch &Terminator 2 3,500 7,000 EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 6 600 3,600 35kV Grounding Switch 4 600 2,400 35kV Terminator 4 500 2,000 22kV Surge Arrester 4 700 2,800 Install Structures L.S.*6,600 6,600 Install Equipment L.S.6,800 6,800 Foundations L.S.11,700 11,700 Furnish and Install All Other Equipment L.S.28,000 28,000 Mobilization &Site Prep.L.S.7,700 7,700 Demobilization L.S.3,000 3,000 Subtotal $87,600 *L.S.:Lump Sum 2701NO 1198 (11.02:87)Vi-10 East Terminal Switching Station Unit STRUCTURES: Deadend Str. Switch &Terminator EQUIPMENT: 35kV Hookstick Switch 35kV Grounding Switch 35kV Terminator 22kV Surge Arrester Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and Install All Other Equipment Mobilization &Site Prep. Demobilization *L.S.:Lump Sum 270IND 1198 (11/02/87) Quantity N-VI-11 Unit Cost Extended Cost 6,000 $6,000 3,500 7,000 600 3,600 600 2,400 500 2,000 700 2,800 6,600 6,600 6,800 6,800 11,700 11,700 28,000 28,000 7,700 7,700 3,000 3,000 Subtotal $87,600 Summary of Station Costs -Base Case Station Substation,4.16-34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA Switching Station "A” West Terminal Switching Station East Terminal Switching Station TOTAL-CONSTRUCTION Summary of Station Costs -Alternate Case Estimated Cost Station Substation,13.8-34.5kV,6/8/10 MVA West Terminal Switching Station East Terminal Switching Station TOTAL-CONSTRUCTION 270iND 1198 (1102.87)Vi-12 $294,800 65,600 60,300 87,600 $508,300 Estimated Cost $294,800 87,600 87,600 $470,000 Vil.TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Vil.TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INTRODUCTION POWER investigated the adequacy of the Base Case transmission system and prepared cost estimates for both Base Case and Alternate scenarios.Conclusions regarding each aspect of the transmission system are discussed below. SYSTEM VOLTAGE AND CONDUCTOR TYPE POWER concurs with the Base Case proposal for a system voltage of 34.5kV.This voltage will adequately transmit 10,000 KW at an 85 percent power factor and an acceptable level of regulation and losses.Another apparent advantage of the 34.5kV system voltage is that the existing Dutch Harbor system is 34.5kV,thereby eliminating the need for transformation at Unalaska. POWER conducted load flow runs of three overhead conductor types,assuming 4/0 AWG conductors for the submarine and underground cables.Please refer to Table 7-1 fora summary of the analysis. At this level of study,it is reasonable to assume that any of the three overhead conductors would be acceptable for use on this project from a system loss and regulation standpoint.However,with a smaller diameter,the 336 kcmil conductor 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)Vil -1 TABLE 7-1 A-Base Case Load Flow Results Overhead |Voltage |Voltage Receting Voltage kVA Loss Line Type |Drop,%|Drop,kV Voltage,kV Regulation Mag.@ Angle 556 ACSR 4.92%1.70 kV 33.94kV 5.10%516.5 @ 69.38 kVA 477 ACSR 5.04%1.74 kV 33.90 kV 5.23%513.6 @ 67.06 kVA 336 ACSR 5.47%1.88 kV 33.75 kV 5.69%541.6 @ 64.18 kVA Note:Load flow is based on 6.5 miles of overhead,3.5 miles of underground,and3.5 miles of submarine cable at a base voltage of 34.5kV.The source voltageisassumedtobe1.0333 pu or 35.65 kV and the load is7MW @ 0.85 PF. B -Alternate Load Flow Results Overhead |Voltage |Voltage Receiving Voltage kVA Loss Line Type |Drop,%|Drop,kV Voltage,kV Regulation Mag.@ Angle 556 ACSR 5.20%1.79 kV 33.84 kV 5.40%582.1 @ 74.06 kVA 477 ACSR 5.37%1.85 kV 33.79 kV 5.59%575.5 @ 70.87 kVA 336 ACSR 6.05%2.09 kV 33.55 kV 6.32%618.2 @ 66.67 kVA Note:Load flow is based on 10 miles of overhead and 3.5 miles of submarine cable at a base voltage of 34.5kV.The source voltage and load is the same as intheBaseCaseloadflow. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)VIt-2 would result in less transverse loading.This is a significant consideration given the extreme high winds occurring within the project area.To help determine which of the three conductors would be used in the Alternate cost estimate,comparisons of. strength to weight were made. Conductors (ACSR)Rated Strength Weight per 1000'Str./Wt. ORIOLE 336.4 kcmil 17,300 527.1 32.82 HAWK 477 kemil 23,800 747 31.86 EAGLE 556.5 kcmil 27,800 872 31.88 ORIOLE has a slightly better strength-to-weight ratio than the other conductors. Considering electrical performance,diameter,and strength,POWER chose ORIOLE as the conductor for its Alternate proposal.In the final analysis,an AACSR conductor may be specified because of the extra strength this type of conductor offers. SUBMARINE AND UNDERGROUND CABLE The Base Case study proposed a 4/0 AWG conductor for both the submarine and underground cable portions.The Base Case recommends a 350-foot separation between the four,single-conductor submarine cables for reliability reasons. POWER concurs that a wide spacing of the submarine cables should be specified for this project.Telephone communication with the harbor master at Dutch Harbor informed POWER as to the prospect of increased shipping in the Broad Bay,Hog Island and English Bay waters.Due to expected increase in bottom fishing activity, Dutch Harbor anticipates a significant increase in shipping occurring as early as 1988.Associated with increased shipping traffic is the higher risk of damage to the submarine cables due to anchor dragging. Pirelli Cable Corporation has specified and priced out a 250 kcmil copper conductor for the submarine cable.Because of the 350-foot spacing,Pirelli's engineers feel that a 250 kcmil submarine cable should be selected for this project.Therefore, both Base Case and Alternate cost estimates are based on 250 kcmil submarine 270iNO 1198 (11/02/87)Vil -3 cable.A conductor optimization study may determine that a smaller cable could be specified. OVERHEAD GROUND WIRES (OHGW) The Base Case suggests the transmission line be fitted with OHGW.The OHGW is depicted in Figure 2-7 of the Dames &Moore report.POWER includes the associated costs with OHGWSs in the Base Case cost estimate.However,POWER has not included OHGWS in its Alternate proposal.POWER's investigation determined that Unalaska Island is in a very low isokeraunic area.Conversations with the City of Unalaska personnel indicated that lightning storms are extremely rare.Therefore, POWER did not include OHGWSs in the design and cost estimates associated with the Alternate transmission. OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE On Figures 2-1 and 2-2 are diagrams of road and transmission line routing for the Base Case and Alternate scenarios.The Alternate routing of the transmission line generally follows the road proposed by POWER's project team.This road would emanate from Broad Bay,traverse the Makushin Valley,continue up lower Fox Creek Canyon,over Fox Creek,and lead on to upper Fox Creek Canyon plateau (well/production plant site).A route generally paralleling the road was determined to be the best route for the transmission line because construction costs would be less,and operation and maintenance of the line would be more efficient and less costly. POWER is proposing the use of wood-pole structures for this project.Preliminary analysis indicates that H-Frame wood structures would be the best choice for the first 6.2 miles of the line and a single-wood pole for the last 3.5 miles to Broad Bay. The H-Frame section of the line would emanate from the well/plant site and traverse through lower Fox Creek Canyon to the south side of lower Fox Creek Canyon and on to Makushin Valley.The H-Frame section would terminate at the beginning of the marshy area in the Makushin Valley.The single-pole section 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vil -4 would continue from this point to Broad Bay for a total distance of 3.5 miles.The single-wood pole structures would be located between the road and adjacent hillside for most of the 3.5 miles,allowing conventional installation of the wood poles to take place without requiring piles or undergrounding. The advantages of POWER's Alternate routing of the transmission facility are: 1.Elimination of the underground line segment resulting in reduced construction costs. 3.By eliminating the underground line segment,a terminal station is also eliminated resulting in additional cost savings. 2.Possibly less exposure to high winds than Base Case routing because the line from Sugarloaf to the switchbacks would be exposed to extremely high winds from the Bering Sea.POWER's routing would be located against the valley sides at a lower elevation and would be partially protected from the high winds expected in the Sugarloaf area. 4.The transmission line would follow a road designed for transportation of heavy equipment that may be needed if major maintenance of the line is required.Heavy equipment would not have to be barged to Driftwood Bay for maintenance of the line or plant. OVERHEAD DESIGN POWER developed the following data that is included in the Appendix. Sag &Tension 556 kcmil ACSR EAGLE Sag &Tension 336 kcmil ACSR ORIOLE Allowable windspans (three cases) Maximum span limited by pole strength (three cases) 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vil -5 Design Criteria: Base Case Alternate Voltage 34.5kV 34.5kV Overhead Line Length 6.5 miles 10 miles Conductor 556 EAGLE 336 ORIOLE Ruling Spans 600 feet 600 ft &300 ft Structure Configuration H-Frame wood H-Frame &Single- . Pole Wood Loading Zone NESC Heavy NESC Heavy High Wind 120 MPH 120 MPH An analysis of Base Case H-Frame structure design determined that the H-Frame structure with six foot,nine-inch spacing would experience uplift problems. POWER's calculations show that uplift or walking of the poles would occur at a span length beyond 200 feet,unless bog shoes are used.The use of bog shoes may not be cost-effective for rocky foundation conditions. Therefore,under POWER's Alternate scenario,pole spacing was increased to 16.5 feet to allow a 600-foot ruling span.A single 20 kip,cross-brace would be used.The pole class was reduced from Class H to Class 1,because the cross-brace strength and uplift are more restricting than pole strength under this scenario. POWER recommends single-pole structures with a 300-foot ruling span for the lower Makushin Valley line segment.Because the structures would be located adjacent to the road on a slope,the most cost-effective construction would be with single poles.Given the loading conditions,a 300-foot ruling span was selected for this line segment. ) Figures 1 and 2 at the end of this section depict typical H-Frame and single-pole structures proposed by POWER. COST ESTIMATE The Base Case transmission scenario calls for nine miles of overhead line.However, POWER's scaling of the proposed Base Case route shows approximately 6.5 miles of 270iND 1198 (11/02.87)Vil -6 line.Consequently,POWER based the overhead line costs for Base Case scenario on 6.5 line miles. H-FRAME STRUCTURES (BASE CASE) The labor for 70-foot single poles was based on a loaded labor rate of $55 per hour at 47 hours for installing both poles of each H-Frame structure.For the seventy-five, three-pole structures,the labor was based on a $55 per hour labor rate with 73 man- hours allowed for installing the poles. For the PTAs,the labor component was $55 per hour and 22 man-hours for tangent and light-angle PTAs.For the medium-and large-angle structures,the man-hours for the PTA installation was calculated using 18 man-hours.The labor for the deadends was calculated at 44 man-hours at $55 per hour. The labor for guys and anchors was based on $55 per hour with three man-hours for the guys and 14 man-hours for the anchors. Conductor labor was calculated using a cost of $500 per tension-puller setup with three setups per pull calculated.Added was a cost of $1,800,multiplied by the conductor weight,and then multiplied by the number of conductors.This figure was then divided by 5.28 into 1000-foot units and then divided by the three conductors to arrive at the unit price.An average pull length of one mile was assumed. Example: (4500x3)+(1800x.871 x 3) =$1130 Per Unit (5.28 *3) The OHGW costs and fiber optic costs were based on $3,960 per mile or $750 per 1000-foot unit. Fiber optic splices were based on a cost of $665 per splice with 10 splices estimated. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vu -7 H-FRAME (ALTERNATE CASE) The cost for the installation of each 60-foot H-Frame structure for both poles was based on $55 per hour loaded labor rate for 43 man-hours.Estimates for the 65- foot poles were based on 66 man-hours for the three-pole structures for the foundation and installation of the poles. For the PTA tangent-and light-angle structures,the labor rate used was $55 per hour with 22 man-hours for installation.For medium-and large-angle PTAs,18 man-hours were estimated.The labor for the deadend PTAs was based on 44 man- hours at $55 per hour. The labor for guys and anchors was based on $55 per hour with three man-hours for guy installation and 14 man-hours for anchor installation. The conductor labor costs were calculated using a cost of $4500 per puller-tensioner setup with three setups per pull.To this total was added an extra cost of $1800, times the conductor weight,times the amount of conductors.This total was then divided by 5.28 and then by three to yield a price in 1000-foot units.An average pull of one mile was assumed. The fiber optic splices were based on a cost of $500 per splice with eight splices estimated. SINGLE-POLE,HORIZONTAL POST (ALTERNATE CASE) The labor for the 50-foot poles was based on a loaded labor rate of $55 per hour with 20 man-hours for installation of each single pole.Installation of the 55-foot - poles was estimated at 21 man-hours per pole. For the PTAs,the labor component used was $55 per hour with the tangent-and light-angles at 18 man-hours per unit,and the medium-and large-angle PTAs using 16 man-hours.The labor for the deadends was based ona total of 49 man-hours. 270INO 1198 (1 1/02/87)Vil -8 The labor for guy and anchor installation was based on three man-hours for each guy and 14 man-hours for each anchor. Conductor labor costs were based on a flat rate of $4500 for each tensioner-puller setup.To this was added a component of $900,times the conductor weight,times the total conductors.The total was divided by 5.28 and then by the three conductors to yield a 1000-foot unit cost. The fiber optic splices were based on four splices at $665 per splice. Installation costs for the underground cable and submarine cable line segments were provided by Pirelli Cable Corporation (refer to the Appendix). 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)Vil -9 COST ESTIMATE,BASE CASE 34.5 KV DISTRIBUTION LINE,6.44 MILES SINGLE CIRCUIT H-FRAME XBRACED,TH-34X UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT UNIT DESCRIPTION POLE,70-1(TANGENT,2-POLE H-FRAME) POLE,70-1(LIGHT ANGLE,2-POLE H-FRAME) POLE,75-1(MEDIUM ANGLE,3-POLE) POLE,75-1(LARGE ANGLE,3-POLE) POLE,75-1(DEAD END 3-POLE) PTA,TH-34X,TANGENT PTA,LIGHT ANGLE(0-10 DEGREES) PTA,MEDIUM ANGLE (10-30 DEGREES) PTA,LARGE ANGLE (30-60 DEGREES) PTA,DOUBLE DEAD END GUYING ASSEMBLY ANCHOR ASSEMBLY CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY,EAGLE 556.5 ACSR OHGW ASSEMBLY 3/8"EHS STEEL FIBER OPTIC CABLE FIBER OPTIC SPLICE BOXES AND FUSION SPLICER QUANTITY 1 LABOR UNIT SUBTOTAL 2,585 116,325 2,585 5,170 4,015 16,060 4,015 20,075 4,015 16,060 1,210 54,450 1,210 2,420 990 3,960 990 4,950 2,420 9,680 165 22,770 770 106,260 1,130 117,520 _750 26,250 750 26,250 6,650 6,650 TOTAL COST 6.44 MILES TOTAL COST/MILE MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 1,200 54,000 1,200 2,400 2,010 8,040 2,010 10,050 2,010 8,040 520 23,400 520 1,040 620 2,480 620 3,100 1,220 4,880 25 3,450 35 4,830 820 85,280 135 4,725 1,250 43,750 43,200 43,200 LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT 3,785 3,785 6,025 6,025 6,025 1,730 1,730 1,610 1,610 3,640 190 805 .1,950 885 2,000 49,850 SUBTOTAL 170,325 7,570 24,100 30,125 24,100 77,850 3,460 6,440 8,050 14,560 26,220 111,090 202,800 30,975 70,000 49,850 $857,515 $133,155 COST ESTIMATE,BASE CASE 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE UNALASKA PROJECT,3.5 MILES 34.5KV UNDERGROUND UNIT DESCRIPTION UNDERGROUND(3 CONDUCTORS) FIBER OPTIC (OIRECT BURIAL) COST ESTIMATE,BASE CASE 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE BROADBAY TO DUTCH HARBOR,3.5 MILES 34.5KV SUBMARINE UNIT DESCRIPTION SUBMARINE(4 CONDUCTORS 3.50 MILES) FIBER OPTIC (SUBMARINE TYPE) LABOR QUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL 3.5 253,714 888,000 3.5 70,000 245,000 TOTAL COST FOR 3.50 MILES COST/MILE LABOR QUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL 3.5 338,286 1,184,000 3.5 90,000 315,000 TOTAL COST FOR 3.50 MILES COST/MILE MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL «UNIT. -SUBTOTAL 292,857 1,025,000 546,571 1,913,000 3,537 12,380 73,537 257,380 $2,170,000 620,000 MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 314,286 1,100,000 652,571 2,284,000 7,920 27,720 97,920 342,720 $2,627,000 $750,000 COST ESTIMATE,ALTERNATIVE CASE 34.5 KV TRANSMISSION LINE,6.22 MILES H-FRAME X-BRACED,TH-34X UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT UNIT DESCRIPTION POLE 60-2(TANGENT,2-POLE H-FRAME) POLE 60-2(LIGHT ANGLE,2-POLE H-FRAME) POLE 65-2(MEDIUM ANGLE,3-POLE) POLE 65-2(LARGE ANGLE,3-POLE) POLE 65-2(DEAD END,3-POLE) PTA,TH-34,TANGENT PTA,TH-2,LIGHT ANGLE(O-10 DEGREES) PTA,TH-3,MEDIUM ANGLE(10-30 DEGREES) PTA,TH-4,LARGE ANGLE(30-60 DEGREES) PTA,TH-5S,DEAD END GUY ASSEMBLY ANCHOR ASSEMBLY CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY,ORIOLE 336.4 ACSR FIBER OPTIC CABLE FIBER OPTIC SPLICE BOXES AND FUSION SPLICER QUANTITY LABOR UNIT SUBTOTAL 2,365 94,600 2,365 2,365 3,630 7,260 3,630 29,040 3,630 7,260 1,210 48,400 1,210 1,210 990 1,980 990 7,920 2,420 4,840 165 16,335 770 76,230 1,030 104,030 750 25,500 4,000 4,000 MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 790 31,600 790 790 1,220 2,440 1,220 9,760 1,220 2,440 420 16,800 420 420 620 1,240 620 4,960 1,220 2,440 25 2,475 35 3,465 495 49,995 1,250 42,500 40,000 40,000 TOTAL COST-6.28 MILES COST/MILE UNIT 3,155 3,155 4,850 4,850 4,850 1,630 1,630 1,610 1,610 3,640 190 805 1,525 2,000 44,000 LABOR AND MATERIAL SUBTOTAL 126,200 3,155 9,700 38,800 9,700 65,200 1,630 3,220 12,880 7,280 18,810 79,695 154,025 68,000 44,000 $642,295 $103,263 COST ESTIMATE,ALTERNATIVE CASE 34.5 KV TRANSMISSION LINE,3.58 MILES SINGLE POLE-HORZ.POST TP-34 UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT UNIT DESCRIPTION POLE 50-1(TANGENT,HORZ.POST SINGLE POLE) POLE 50-1(LIGHT ANGLE,HORZ.POST SINGLE POLE) POLE 55-1(MEDIUM ANGLE,SINGLE POLE) POLE 55-1(LARGE ANGLE,SINGLE POLE) POLE 55-1(DEAD END,SINGLE POLE) PTA,TP-34(TANGENT-HORZ.POST) PTA,T9-34A(LIGHT ANGLE 0-10 DEGREES) PTA,TS-O3(MEDIUM ANGLE 10-30 DEGREES) PTA,TS-O4(LARGE ANGLE 30-60 DEGREES PTA,TS-O5(DEAD END) GUY ASSEMBLY ANCHOR ASSEMBLY CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY,ORIOLE 336.4 ACSR FIBER OPTIC CABLE FIBER OPTIC SPLICE BOXES QUANTITY LABOR UNIT SUBTOTAL 1,100 61,600 1,100 3,300 1,155 4,620 1,155 2,310 1,155 2,310 990 55,440 990 2,970 880 3,520 880 1,760 2,420 4,840 165 11,055 770 51,590 1,030 59,740 750 15,000 2,660 2,660 MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 350 49,600 350 1,050 390 1,560 390 780 390 780 300 16,800 300 900 310 1,240 350 700 800 1,600 25 1,675 35 2,345 495 28,710 1,250 25,000 3,200 3,200 TOTAL COST-3.58 MILES COST/MILE UNIT 1,450 1,450 1,545 1,545 1,545 1,290 1,290 1,190 1,230 3,220 190 805 1,525 2,000 5,860 LABOR AND MATERIAL SUBTOTAL 81,200 4,350 6,180 3,090 3,090 72,240 3,870 4,760 2,460 6,440 12,730 53,935 88,450 40,000 5,860 $342,795 $95,753 COST ESTIMATE,ALTERNATIVE CASE 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE,3.5 MILES BROADBAY TO DUTCH HARBOR 34.5KV SUBMARINE UNIT DESCRIPTION SUBMARINE(4 CONDUCTORS 3.50 MILES) FIBER OPTIC (SUMMARINE TYPE) LABOR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 3.5 338,286 1,184,000 314,286 1,100,000 3.5 90,000 315,000 7,920 27,720 TOTAL COST FOR 3.5 MILES COST/MILE LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 652,571 2,284,000 97,920 342,720 $2,627,000 $750,000 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 34.5KV TRANSMISSION LINE UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT BASE CASE SUMMARY CONTRUCTION TYPE H-FRAME (WOOD) UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBMARINE CABLE TOTAL COST (BASE CASE) ALTERNATIVE CASE SUMMARY CONTRUCTION TYPE SINGLE POLE (WOOD) H-FRAME (WOOD) SUBMARINE CABLE TOTAL COST (ALTERNATIVE CASE) COST $857,515 $2,170,000 $2,627,000 $5,654,515 COST $349,635 $642,295 $2,627,000 $3,618,930 ee eee ate a rs]ol Oa=k ele TES LELS SéGStes Foe. |'a4 /)Yh iJACOBSONBROTHERS,INC.VUlh Cater FACSIMILE MESSAGE COVER SHEET FAX NO:(206)789-2851 am:Sonn Me Geeu pate:107-8 COMPANY:"Fausee.CAG WEERS rer:SGrO2286-R3 FROM:'Bb.Sreoesos NUMGER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER):|4-: Al JACOBSON BROTHERS,INC. October 6,1987 Power Engineers,Inc. 1020 Airport Way Hailey,Idaho 83333 Attn:Mr.John McGrew Re:Cost Estimates Unalaska Geothermal Project In reference to the above subject project,at your request we have done a cost estimate tor the 3.5 miles of underground and 3.5 miles of submarine cables. ALTERNATE #1 -4 1/C Submarine and 3 1/C Underground Cable Design (Water &Underground) 1/C 250 KCM copper conductor.Suggest both submarine and underground portions be armored with #6 BWG galvanized steel armor wires.Armor wires on underground portion will give additional tensile strength required due to land portion shifting,and provide required strength during installation. Cable Cost Estimate: Water Portion 18,500'x4 =74,000'@ $16.00/Ft =$1,184,000LandPortion18,500'x3 =55,500'@ $16.00/Ft =888,0U0 $2,072,000 Installation Cost Estimate: Estimate includes: »Receiving Submarine Cable Scattle Port «Transportation of Submarine Cable to Site »Mobilization and Demobilization of Marine Equipment and Specialized Cable Laying Equipment (Linear Tensioner,Winches,Positioning Equipment,Etc) »All Labor for Water and Land Lnstallation »Conventional Submarine Cable Splice Kits and Materials for Water to Land Splice Points «Terminations,Testing and Final Commissioning of Subsea Cable System »Cargo Insurance for Cable and Equipment 5355 -28th AVENUE N.W./SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 *PHONE:(206)782-1618 TELEX:32-1192 (JACOBSON SEA)¢TELEFAX:(206)789-285: A PIRELLI GROUP COMPAM + Estimate Excludes: »Any local,state or federal taxes »Pre lay survey or Post inspection .Any special interface or protection between water and land »Embedment or burial of submarine cable The installation for the land portion of the cable would be to place the cables in a common pre=dug trench adjacent to the access road.This road would be constructed by others.We have included excavation and back-fill of the trench in our estimate,but have not included any special select back-fill. Water Portion §1,100,000 Land Portion 1,025,000 Total Installation Estimate $2,125,000 ALTERNATE #2 This alternate provides estimates using a single 3/C€250 KCM copper conductor armored cable for the water portion and 3 1/C 250 KUM copper conductor cables for the land portion. Cable Cost Estimate: Water Portion 18,500'@ $35.00/Ft $647,500 Land Portion 18,500x3 -55,500"@ $16.00/Ft 888,000 Total Cable Cost Estimate $1,535,500 Installation Cost Estimate: Includes same ttems as Alternate #1 and same method of land installation. Water Portion $750,000 Land Portion 1,025 ,000 Total Installation Estimate $1,775,000 These estimates are in 1987 dollars.We trust this information will assist you in your project. Sincerely, JACOBSON BROTHERS,INC, BJ /mm TOTAL P.4 '{e !3 i '!5 (s ]' LIST OF MATERIAL To fey.|ocacaivtsen 1 [9 [wom cuss 7 30"8 8 ae 2 19°08"HeTrica,2 |>|suseosie isin Mma Pe,CETIS-Ert2Asc2|2 |RPO Caw KA EVIS-ETE COMECION 4/6 H/1)o/et r A.a |6 fe am w/LITIS-€TE COORCICN 1/0 6/1)0/8()+3 2 |t-Cevis Eve S78"8 3 Ose"(2YnXr Yn)(=)(7)6 |2}awe noo.ae ys)ComucION ° (7)7 .?1 |AMR POO.1/8 8/1)COOUCTON(=)° eo]|vo we soso:suctt s 4 [Sls Linn,S/O"2 2 1/0"Twice,10 |2 |MElwonins MATE FORT aes 8 88"COCsean33acts TS aebemame*)os |a [eve oat erat,ave"o 90)1 $4 =.2 |2 [wou eat erat,wen ae it]4 |MACHINE BOLT eft,878"5 78e 1"2 |acing BOLT w/t,$78"0 12° J ws Toa [ance oat onan,sve a SECTION A-A 6b 2 [sae ale mpen wer, el of 6 [oape aie women wer. 10]0 [ano wpe sve Lt]2 SMUARE WADER 2/0".9 20 |se |Saunt amen 88".2 4/8" a z ww Lotus,Wwe az [0 fw comm.wer n t CODING Claw,3/6 aed [uss somew iat|Z|8 |commmesscon coracton,1/8 6/11 To me 6 tw<A ae Tm [me 6 SOT cna commaa -3%27 |e |esnera,sousmt tune,COMER COsITO STAMES"4 le ed eeeeieee[aCe Trica,a z GROOMS ALAIE QUIT Ie CorveTaamatsWericatzsprocsze]a faaics,Gacvanszen,1°mor ig 'we]6 |commession coedcion.me.8 Tome 6+'- al t H :e at mquno t '|es |1 .Ly a t aan'allsOog nt 'pouns ' 'NOTES: e - -L :1,OOO LENGTHS WILL VARY WET POLE $170.'.T er :2.STALL SPRING CLIP BAERS HORLIONTOLLY Te THE LEFT '3.GALIO VINE STARLES Meat BE HPAClO 2 FECT arsed 'EACEPT FOR THE DISTANCE OF 8 FIC)aBOvt CAODO that 'a Y FEET Gomm Face TOP OF PA WER SIAALES Sat A :WE ACO &GIT)Incres arentak': ' ' t t 'FOR REFERENCE ONLY °Or!'PHOTO REDUCEDKOLOesfosbosornNOTFORCONSTRUCTIONOP' a t 1H0 'ANI -_[tssveo Fon covstauction a'AN -__|1ssue0 FoR Btoorns _l. - 4 OeTalL f ANI -_[issueo Fon apennyai,re eee-_-POO PLAIC OF AIL ="iE8|(Pica.ey we Lok REVISIONS Date |Ay any t T SECTION 8-8CEte=----_-go ,TH-4 R wRAT RO AA Oi OFAMING ND ye:pret homer Oa!waiver fowo foae oa TH-IS9Ary'I 3 i '1 '1 )i ©Centre TYPICAL 6 PLACES TYPICAL 3 PLACES TYPICAL LIST OF MATERIAL TTEM[OTY DESCRIPTION 3 J HOAIZ,POST INSULATOR,415KV.POLYAMFA.LAPP,CAT.NO.F452207-12 MER 2 3°|SUSPENSION CLAMP,556.5 SSAC.W/AARMFR.ANOERSON,CAT.NO.HAS-162 N 3 3 {Y-CLEVIS EYE.30 KiPSMFA,ANOERSON,CAT.NO.YCS-13-90 4 3 |ARMOR ROO,S56.5 SSC-MFA.PREFORMED,CAT.NO.AA-0135 5 7 |MACHINE BOLT,3/4°X LENGTH REO'O.W/NUT6|8 |CURVED SQUARE WASHER,3/4°,3°x 3°x 4/4°MFA.JOSLYN,CAT.NG.J6823 aay TYPICAL 3 PUICES 7 |6 [ROUND WASHEA,3/4"a= =(6X9 ioXe 2)}y paces WFR.JOSLYN,CAT.BD.J1089 x 6 |7 |SPAING LOCKWASHER,3/4°MFR.JOSLYN,CAT.WO.J940 .9 |4 |souane nur,3/4°°MFA,JOSLYN,CAT.BD.J8S64 io 10 |4 |GONOING CLIP,3/4°MFA.HUGHES,CAT.6.2727.7 :{1 |%STAPLES,GALVANIZED 3 ™MFA,JOSLYN,CAT.$0.J16726 =TYPICAL .(42 |©[no.6 Sort oRaWN COPPER WIREry3PLACESa13|2 |SIGN,°HIGH VOLTAGE” ._---ae MFA.LIMITED PLASTICS,CAT.NO.HV-4 TYPICAL %AS REQUIRED ie 3 PLACES ZA OWNER FURNISHED KATERIAL rr)'.=TYPICAL (11)*AyASREQUIRED(12)]' eh : . =)->aa GuY ie }--ATTACHMENT a ->LOCATION NOTES .c2)a (SEE NOTE 5)--S Phe rary”rma 4.THAU-BOLT LENGTHS WILL VARY WITH POLE SIZE. 215 PJ Ls te4 2.GROUND WIRE STAPLES SHALL 6 SPACED 18°APART . ALL BOLTS SHALL BE BONDED AS SHOWN. a TYPICAL 3.HIGH VOLTAGE'SIGNS FOR $15 TO BE MINIMUM 2°-6°wcioSEENOTE32PLACESMAXIHUMOF3°BELGW LOWEST TRANSMISSION CONDUCTOR. ola :4.ALL POLES SHALL HAVE DATE NUILS. ei?it [4 ;5.GUY ASSEMBLY LOCATIONS WHEN REQUIRED (SEE OMG.60-08.[_ oleje [4 | TO CENTER OF U.B.CROSSARM j° .- ai AS ' ,Ome REFERENCE ONLY |one@era REOUCEO € ¢ °oCET FOR CONSTAUCTION tCENTERLINE 1 -OF - SURVEY A\|-__|[tSsxep Far CONSTRUCTION am --{ISSUED FOR BIDOING 'bh yer[tha 2 J-FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION a =Tissue FOR APPROVAL age pma]o® Me {ZONE REVISIONS OaTe |BY [APOTPAci7 OS-01 [UNOERBUILDasSDeLIES (2°-10)TPR-)[POLE FRascaG GUIDE GO-61 JGUTING aSeeea IFS AA-0%[ANCHOR aSkpes TES ee 2 DORN,emane {e108 |JOB NQ.1007OPIFYSCKO.7 [4-197 ]ORAWING NO.[REV'oyrert swemreed APPD 9-t+f3-9) |2 |3 t .4 5 i 6 |7 4/0 9606-39 8/S 1954 8 sp.1352 wit Vill.SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS Vill.SCADA AND COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL The Base Case scenario does not discuss in detail SCADA and communication design for the project.Consequently,POWER developed design assumptions for a SCADA system that would adequately meet the objectives of all unattended operations. POWER's discussions of the SCADA design,SCADA points,and cost estimates are applicable to both the Base Case and POWER's proposed Alternate concept. SCADA SYSTEM POWER proposes a distributed control system using programmable logic controllers (PLCs).PLCs will be located at the generation facility to monitor and control breakers,power transformer,relays,generator synchronizing,metering,and ancillary substation and generation functions.A list of typical SCADA points is included. The SCADA system will be integrated with the geothermal generation distributed control system for monitoring and producing hard copy reports from the geothermal generation master control center.A remote SCADA terminal in the generation facility would be located at the Dutch Harbor control center.This remote terminal would consist of a computer (CPU)with memory,CRT,keyboard and printer.Functions available at the remote terminal will be all SCADA functions, geothermal generation monitoring,and remote generation control for scheduling generation. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)VIM -1 A fully redundant SCADA system,including PLCs and a remote terminal,would also be incorporated for reliability. The PLC system would be programmed in "ladder logic”for all SCADA functions. This type of programming allows ease of operator modification for expansions, changes,and operating scenario variations.A fiber optic communication link would connect the SCADA system to the remote terminal at Dutch Harbor.This link would provide reliable remote monitoring and control of the generation facility. SCADA POINTS Monitoring: Breakers Open/Close Transformer Temperature Transformer Sudden Pressure Battery Voltage Station Service Voltage Station Temperature Station Intrusion Metering: Amps Volts Watts Vars KWH Power Factor Control: Breaker Position Generator Synchronizing Relay Operations: Line Overcurrent Substation Differential Generator Trip Functions 270INO 1198 (11/02/87)Vill -2 Alarms: Breaker Trip Transformer Temperature .Battery Voltage Over/Under Loss of Station Service Low Station Temperature FIBER OPTIC CABLE It is assumed for this analysis that the fiber optic cable will be installed below the transmission conductors on the overhead construction line segments for both Base Case and Alternate proposals.POWER is assuming a four-fiber cable. COST ESTIMATES Vendors were contacted to determine SCADA equipment prices.Pirelli Cable Corporation and Alcoa Fujihura LTD were contacted for fiber optic cable prices. Installation costs are based on project experience. 2701ND 1198 (11/0287)Vill -3 SCADA COSTS PLC Hardware $20,000 Remote Terminal 10,000 Software Development 30,000 Fiber Optic Terminals 15,000 Installation 15,000 Test 10,000 TOTAL $100,000 Note:The fiber optic cable costs are included in the transmission line cost estimate. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)Vill -4 IX.ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/ ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES IX.ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING/ ACCESS ROADS AND DOCK FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL POWER's environmental review was limited to a brief examination of the Base Case proposal to identify key issues and the types of permits required as well as estimate the amount of time required to obtain permits.POWER's Alternate proposal was reviewed to compare environmental issues and permitting requirements. Key Issues The key issue identified in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) reconnaissance study was the potential impact of discharging spent geothermal fluids into surface waters.Under the Base Case proposal,the fluids would be injected and erosion and sedimentations would be controlled by appropriate engineering design and construction practices.In comparing Base Case road and transmission line routing with POWER's Alternate scenario,potential impacts to fish rearing and spawning in streams are less likely to occur in the Alternate scenario, according to ADF&G (see attached meeting notes). ADF&G does not believe that air pollution would have a significant impact on fish and wildlife.However,the Base Case proposal recognizes that Alaska's air quality standards would be exceeded and that a variance would have to be granted,or emissions controls installed. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IX -1 The key issue that has not been completely addressed is land status.Unalaska Island was withdrawn from the Aleutians National Wildlife Refuge in the 1930s.The project area is within lands selected by the Aleut Corporation,and transmission line (as well as the access road under the Alternate proposal)is within land selected by Ounalashka Corporation.The corporations have received title under interim conveyances,which are not subject to further regulation by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).Land in the project area not withdrawn for other purposes has been returned to USFWS as part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.USFWS does not have jurisdiction over the marine waters within the project area;however,it does have jurisdiction over lands adjacent to Driftwood Bay (Bill Mattice,Realty,and Leslie Kerr,Refuge Planning).The draft refuge management plan will be available in January 1988,and these lands would remain under minimal management.The Driftwood Bay access road (Base Case proposal)would transverse these lands.The Alternate scenario access road would remain on lands conveyed to Ounalashka Corporation.Consequently,it is likely that fewer regulatory constraints would be encountered in permitting the Alternate case due to the simplicity of dealing with the local Ounalashka Corporation. PERMITTING If the Driftwood Bay access road were utilized,a Special Use Permit would be required from USFWS.The application process is lengthy (as described in the Anchorage/Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study),and permit may not be granted,as geothermal power development is not allowed in wildlife refuges (Dames &Moore 1987,p.3-1).If the access road were constructed near or adjacent to the transmission line on regional and village corporation lands,it would be possible to obtain the necessary permits for constructing the project in less than a year.For startup in May 1989,permit applications should be submitted no later than October 15,1988.The air quality permit may require additional time,but would not be required until 1990.It is essential,however,to determine that a variance would be granted;otherwise there would be an additional expense of installing emission control equipment.The process outlined on page 3-3 of the Base Case report is a reasonable approach,with the addition of a public hearing.A recommended budget is based on these steps. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IX-2 Recommendations Additional information is required on fish utilization of side channels,groundwater upwelling,and soils (see attached meeting notes).Sufficient borrow sources will have to be located,and beach materials probably cannot be used.The land conveyance and refuge planning process should be monitored,and right of ways will have to be obtained. ACCESS ROADS The estimate of the Base Case was done on the scheme provided in the Base Case report.However,there is some concern on the ability to construct the "floating” road section over the lower portion of the Makushin Valley due to the extremely soft soils underlying the area.The concern lies in the ability to traverse and dump hauling vehicles on the road surface during construction,since the road is capable of handling only very light loads.Therefore,small hauling vehicles with a tight turning radius must be used for hauling. In the Alternate scheme,the road was realigned to the south side of the valley. Although the original DNR study indicates that the slopes along this area are susceptible to avalanches,it is felt that the risk--prevalent only a few months each year--is overshadowed by the benefits of a higher capacity road that will permit hauling heavy plant equipment.The road will be constructed over a high performance geotextile for the first five miles and then diverge away from the valley slope and align with the old road.Just below the switchback road at the head of the valley,the road will turn south and cross the upper reach of the stream and proceed upslope crossing the small plateau alongside the stream.It will then transverse the side slope down to the river,cross over a bridge and proceed up the slope of the plateau to the plant location. The road will be constructed at a nominal 20-foot width with a 24-foot base.In cost, the 24-foot base will remain to allow adequate safety on the slopes. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IX -3 DOCKING FACILITIES A pile-supported dock will be provided in both schemes studied.The cost of identical docks was estimated in both cases.The dock was estimated to be a steel- pile,L-shaped structure with a steel supported timber deck.This type of structure will permit the off-loading of barges by crane for transferring the load to trucks backed onto the dock. A timber pile breakwater was included in the estimate.If the project goes to detailed design,however,consideration should be given to revising the breakwater design to allow fish passage.If a floating breakwater is not technically feasible, then an L-shaped,sheet-pile dock allowing barge unloading in the sheltered interior of the dock may be a more cost-effective alternative. Dock construction will be the first work begun,commencing at the same time as road construction equipment mobilization.It is anticipated that piling and a pile driver would be delivered to the site first.Equipment for road construction could not use the dock which would not be completed until road work would be well underway.However,the dock would be completed in the first summer,allowing it to be used for all plant construction and subsequent maintenance. 270IND 1198 (11/0287)IX -4 BASE CASE ROAD &DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS No.nit Rate Total Broad Bay to 2nd Bridge Dock at Broad Bay 1 LS.$1,594,000 $1,594,000 Geofabric 200,000 S.Y.3.00 600,000 Excavate pumice 26,500 CY.6.50 172,250 Haul pumice 26,500 CY.2.50 66,250 Place pumice 26,500 CY.9.55 253,075 Surface treatment 7,639 GAC 10.00 76,390 Gravel fill 19,800 CY.11.05 218,790 36”CMP 600 Ft.60.00 36,000 Subtotal $3,016,755 2nd Bridge to Plant Cut and fill 3,150 CY.$9.55 $30,083 Clearing grub 18 A.C.500 9,000 60”CMP 40 ft.121.50 4,860 24"CMP 400 ft.28.72 11,488 Bridge 1600 S.F.200 320,000 Bridge 640 S.F.200 128,000 Bridge abutments 106 CY.200 21,200 Rebar 15,900 1b 2.00 31,800 Forms 3,060 S.F.10.00 30,600 Subtotal $587,031 xui270INO 1198 (11;02/87) Repair of Existing Road 24"CMP C.I.P.Concrete Fill Regrade Bridge Steel Concrete Re-bar Forms Construction Surveys Onsite Engineer Soil Testing 270IND 1198 (11/02/87) BASE CASE ROAD &DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS (CONT.) 240 L.F.$28.72 10 CY.200 80 C.Y.9.55 5000 CY.9.55 Subtotal 1600 S.F.$200 53 CY.200 7950 Lbs.200 1530 S.F.10.00 Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Subtotal CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $6,893 2,000 764 47,750 $57,407 $320,000 10,600 15,900 15,300 $361,800 $4,022,993 $107,850 58,500 58,500 $224,850 $4,247,843 ALTERNATE CASE ROAD &DOCK CONSTRUCTION COSTS 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)IX-7 No.Unit Rate Total Broad Bay 5 Miles Dock at Broad Bay 1 L.S.$1,594,000 $1,594,000 Geofabric 200,000 S.Y.3.00 600,000 Fill 43,000 C.Y.11.05 475,150 Surfacing 1500 CY.11.05 16,575 Culverts 60 "180 ft.121.50 21,870 24”180 ft.28.72 5,170 Bridge 1000 S.F.200 320,000 Abutments 1 L.S.40,000 40,000 Subtotal $3,072,765 Plant 5 Miles Cut and fill 113,333 C.Y.9.55 1,082,330 Surfacing 1,500 C.Y.11.05 16,575 Bridges 1,600 S.F.200 320,000 Abutments 2 L.S.40,000 80,000 Culverts 60”120 L.F.121.50 14,580 24"120 L.F.29.72 3,446 Subtotal $1,516,931 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $4,589,696 Construction Surveys $107,850 Onsite Engineer 58,500 Soil Testing 58,500 Subtotal $224,850 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $4,814,546 X.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE X.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE For the purposes of developing costs for the operation and maintenance,the following criteria were used: 1.Line/station operation and maintenance would be conducted by two individuals once a week,eight hours a day for a total of 832 manhours a year. Road/dock maintenance and snow removal would average out to two individuals for one day every two weeks during summer months and one day every week during winter months,eight hours a day for a total of 624 manhours a year. Wages at $26.10 per hour and benefits at $7.00 an hour plus an overhead multiplier of 2.1 for both operation and maintenance labor costs were used (this will not apply to contract labor costs). The truck and work boat includes capital cost;repair,and fuel. A full-time plant operator and supervisor will be required.These two individuals will travel to the plant four days per week,weather permitting, and will monitor,from the plant or the remote monitoring location,plant operations on the day shift,seven days per week (five-day work weeks for each man are assumed).The total manhours per year are 4,160. 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)X-1 6.A full-time plant engineer to supply technical,maintenance,and operations support will be required for 2,080 manhours per year.Assume this individual's annual salary,with benefits,is $75,000 per year. 7.Plant maintenance for the Alternate has two components,routine maintenance and an annual shutdown for major maintenance requirements. The routine maintenance will be performed by local personnel and will require 2,080 manhours per year.The annual shutdown will last seven days per year and be staffed by two,five-man crews (16 hours per day)contracted out of Anchorage.Total for the contract maintenance help is 560 manhours.For these individuals $80 per hour is assumed for their wages,overhead and contractor's profit.Per diem at $50 per manday and transportation costs related to these crews will be $10,500. 8.The Base Case maintenance labor costs are assumed to be 1.4 times the Alternate.This is based on the ratio of the Base Case mechanical equipment capital cost to that of the Alternate and rests on the assumption that the larger quantity of equipment will require proportionately more maintenance. 9.Plant maintenance parts cost are assumed to be 50 percent of maintenance labor. 10.Plant diesel fuel and expendable supplies costs are assumed to be $20,000 per year for the Alternate and $50,000 per year for the Base Case (to account for periodic isopentane replacement in the binary units). 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)X-2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS DESCRIPTION BASE CASE ALTERNATE CASE Line/Station Labor Costs $57,832 $57,832 Parts 10,000 10,000 Road/Dock Labor Costs 43,374 43,374 Truck 22,000 22,000 Work Boat 25,000 25,000 Expendable Supplies 55,000 25,000 Plant Operating Labor Costs 364,162 364,162 Plant Maintenance Labor Costs 279,833 199,881 Plant Parts 139,917 99,941 TOTAL O&M COST $997,118 _$847,190 270IND 1198 (11/02/87)X-3 ' . ' nt " 5 dy:ee eee : ook.we caps Sea iheOS 8 yO Pees seme4 . 7 t : wy ao * .. ;.; . ._.'*. : . ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA DIAMETER=.74068 IN.UNALASKA WEIGHT=.5271 LBS.ULT.=17300 LBS.ORIOLE 336.4 30/7 ACSR AREA=-32590 SQ.IN.. DATA FROM CHART NO.1-773 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN=300.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN.PSF LB/F FT.LB.FT.LB. -40.0 00 _00 .5271 1.36 4361.1.35 4402 0 00 00 5271 1.91 3098.1.71 3460 0 50 4.00 1.7225 4.20 4621.4.16 4668 20.0 00 00 5271 2.32 2556.1.97 3008 32.0 00 00 .5271 2.61 2274.2.16 2749 32.0 50 .00 1.2988 4.22 3469.3.95 3701 32.0 1.00 00 2.6925 5.82 5219.5.82 5219 32.0 00 6.00 6442 2.94 2470.2.51 2892 40.0 00 00 5271 2.82 2105.2.29 2585 60.0 00 00 5271 3.38 1755.2.69 2207 60.0 00 6.00 6442 3.67 1977.3.04 2387 60.0 00 9.00 7658 3.93 2194.3.36 2568 60.0 00 36.90 2.3378 5.98 4408.5.83 4521 80.0 00 00 5271 3.97 1496.3.14 1888 100.0 00 00 5271 4.26 1393.3.64 1631 120.0 00 00 5271 4.55 1305.4.15 1430 167.0 00 00 5271 5.23 1135.5.22 1138 212.0 00 00 5271 5.88 1010.5.87 1012 SPAN=600.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING - DESIGN POINTS -FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND WEIGHT SAG TENSION "SAG TENSION F IN.PSF LB/F FT.LB.FT.LB. -40.0 00 00 =.5271 6.67 3560.5.67 4185. 0 00 00 =.5271 8.42 2820.6.86 3460. 0 50 4.00 1.7225 13.42 5793.13.01 5972. 20.0 .00 00 =.5271 9.35 2541.7.55 3143 32.0 00 00 .5271 9.91 2397.8.00 2969 32.0 50 .00 1.2988 13.17 4448,12.23 4789 32.0 1.00 |.00 2.6925 16.68 7295.16.68 7295 32.0 00 6.00 6442 10.55 2753.8.85 3281 40.0 00 00 5271 10.28 2310.8.30 2861 60.0 00 00 5271 11.21 2121.9.08 2615 60.0 .00 6.00 6442 11.76 2469.9.87 2942 60.0 .00 9.00 7658 12.29 2811 10.58 3261 60.0 .00 36.90 2.3378 16.72 6317 16.36 6456 80.0 00 00 5271 12.06 1971 9.89 2402 100.0 00 00 5271 12.53 1898 10.70 2221 120.0 00 00 5271 12.99 1831 11.51 2065 167.0 00 00 5271 14.07 1690 13.36 1780 212.0 00 00 5271 15.09 1577 14.84 1603 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA AREA=-53910 SQ.IN. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA DIAMETER=.95297 IN. WEIGHT=.872 LBS.ULT.=27800 LBS. DATA FROM CHART NO.1-773 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN=600 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE F IN. -40.0 00 0 00 0 950 20.0 00 32.0 .00 32.0 90 32.0 1.00 32.0 00 40.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 00 60.0 .00 60.0 00 80.0 00 100.0 00 120.0 .00 167.0 00 212.0 00 .O FE ET UNALASKA EAGLE 556.5 30/7 ACSR HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT LB/F 8720 -8720 2.1913 .8720 .8720 1.7758 3.3015 9937 8720 .8720 9937 1.1275 3.0575 -8720 -8720 -8720 .8720 -8720 FINAL TENSION LB. 6228. 4908. 8344, 4403. 4144, INITIAL TENSION PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.1.2 CONDUCTOR LOADING DATA:1.Rai =LOADING ZONE ICE(IN)........cece cece cence cece 0.502.F1Z =LOADING ZONE WIND(PSF)........ccc cece eee cence 4.03.K1z =LOADING ZONE CONSTANT.......cece cee ween eee 0.30 3.Fwh =FASTEST MILE WIND(PSF)........cc cece e eee ee ee cee 36.94.Fsh INSULATOR HIGH WIND(PSF).........ccc eee cece eee 9.05.Fih =HEAVY ICE RADIAL(IN)......cece cece cece cece 1.00 6.Wic =DENSITY OF ICE(LBS/FT*3).........cece eee eee eee 577.Wcb =WEIGHT OF BARE CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)................2.0.5278.Dcb =DIAMETER OF CONDUCTOR(IN)..........ccc eee eee wees 0.7409.Wub =WEIGHT OF BARE UNDERBUILD(LBS/FT)..............-.-0.40010.Dub =DIAMETER OF UNDERBUILD(IN).............eee eee 0.500 THE UNIT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES FOR LOADING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE WERE CALCULATED USING THE EQUATIONS SHOWN BELOW.LOAD FOR GALLOPING IS 1/2 INCH ICE WITH 2 PSF WIND. Woi=Wic*PI*((Dcb+2*(Rai))42-(Deb)*2)/(4*144)4Web Pei=Dci*F1z/12 Wek=((Wei)42+(Pci)*2)%.5+K1z FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION _WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.298 0.290 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.527 0.370 -- INS SWG HIGH 0.527 0.555 --- HIGH WIND 0.527 2.276 --- 1.298 0.580 1.722 HEAVY ICE 2.691 ------ FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+KCONDITION--WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.022 0.250 --- INS SWG 6PSF --0..400 0.250 -- INS SWG HIGH 0.400 0.375 --- HIGH WIND 0.400 1.538 --- 1.022 0.500 1.438 HEAVY ICE 2.265 ------ =PCO025KL 2 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.1.2 CONDUCTOR LOADING DATA:1.Rai =LOADING ZONE ICE(IN).........ceecccccuesceeeccees 0.502.Flz =LOADING ZONE WIND(PSF)........scsscesssceeseceees 4.0 3.Klz =LOADING ZONE CONSTANT..............0..vevecaeeees 0.30 3.Fwh =FASTEST MILE WIND(PSF).........scseeccceeecceeees 36.9 4.Fsh =INSULATOR HIGH WIND(PSF)...........cccceeccceeees 9.0 5.Fih HEAVY ICE RADIAL(IN).......scccceeeseccceecccuees 1.00 6.Wic =DENSITY OF ICE(LBS/FT*3).........eeceeeccceeeeees 57 7.Wcb =WEIGHT OF BARE CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT).............000.0.527 8.Dcb =DIAMETER OF CONDUCTOR(IN)..........ccceeccceeeee,0.740 9.Wub =WEIGHT OF BARE UNDERBUILD(LBS/FT)................0.400 10.Dub =DIAMETER OF UNDERBUILD(IN)............... eeeeeee 0.500 THE UNIT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES FOR LOADING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE WERE CALCULATED USING THE EQUATIONS SHOWN BELOW.LOAD FOR GALLOPING IS 1/2 INCH ICE WITH 2 PSF WIND. Wei=Wic*PI*((Dcb+2*(Rai))*2-(Dcb)*%2)/(4*144)+Web Pei=Dci*F1z/12 Wek=((Woi)42+(Pci)*2)%.5+K1z FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+KCONDITION--WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.298 0.290 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.527 0.370 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.527 0.555 --- HIGH WIND 0.527 2.276 --- 1.298 0.580 1.722 HEAVY ICE 2.691 ------ Fe FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+KCONDITION--WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)-WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.022 -0.250 a INS SWG 6PSF 0.400 0.250 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.400 0.375 --- HIGH WIND 0.400 1.538 --- 1.022 0.500 1.438 HEAVY ICE 2.265 ------ =PCOO025KL 2 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.1.2 CONDUCTOR LOADING DATA:1.Rai LOADING ZONE ICE(IN)......ec cece cece cee eens 0.50 2.F1z =LOADING ZONE WIND(PSF)........cece ecw ee eee ences 4,03.K1z =LOADING ZONE CONSTANT........cece cece cece wees eens 0.303.Fwh =FASTEST MILE WIND(PSF).......ccc ccc ecw cece ee ees 36.94.Fsh =INSULATOR HIGH WIND(PSF).........cece eee eee e eee 9.05.Fih =HEAVY ICE RADIAL(IN).........cece cece cece ce ecees 1.006.Wic =DENSITY OF ICE(LBS/FT*3).1.0...cece eee eee 577.Wcb =WEIGHT OF BARE CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)..............25-0.8728.Dcb =DIAMETER OF CONDUCTOR(IN).........ccccceeeeceeees 0.9539.Wgb =WEIGHT OF BARE OHGW(LBS/FT)..........cceceeeeeee 0.27310.Dgb =DIAMETER OF OHGW(IN)..........ccc cee e eee eee ceee 0.359 THE UNIT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES FOR LOADING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE WERE CALCULATED USING THE EQUATIONS SHOWN BELOW.LOAD FOR GALLOPING IS 1/2 INCH ICE WITH 2 PSF WIND. Wei=Wic*PI*((Dcb+2*(Rai))*2-(Deb)*2)/(4*144)+Wcb Pei=Dci*Flz/12 Wok=((Wci)A2+(Pct)*2)*.5+K1z_ FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 1.775 0.326 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.872 0.477 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.872 0.715 --- HIGH WIND 0.872 2.930 --- . 1.775 0.651 2.191 HEAVY ICE 3.301 ------ FOR LOAD WEIGHT WIND RESULANT+K CONDITION WCI(LB/FT)PCI(LB/FT)WCK(LB/FT) GALLOPING 0.807 0.227 --- INS SWG 6PSF 0.273 0.180 --- INS SWG HIGH 0.273 0.269 --- HIGH WIND 0.273 1.104 --- 0.807 0.453 1.226 HEAVY ICE 1.963 ------ =PCO025KL 2 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD [1.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34X HORIZONTAL SPANS POLE UPLIFT HT-CL DTE SPAN X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300 60-3 12.25 555 748 669 637 60 -2 12.25 728 738 719 *687 60-1 12 932 734*772 *740 65-3 13.5 489 683 674 644 65 -2 13.5 635 673 720 690 65-1 13.25 813 667 *771 *741 70-3 15 430 622 672 644 70-2 14.75 568 615 722 694 70-1 14.5 722 608 *773 745 75-3 16.5 377 568 666 640 75-2 16.25 503 560 716 690 75-1 16 657 553 *775 749 80 -3 18.5 335 514 654 629 80-2 17.75 458 511 719 694 80-1 17.5 595 503 *774 749 85 -2 19.5 409 464 709 686 85 -1 19 539 458 *768 745 90 -2 21.25 378 421 708 =68690-1 20.75 488 414*758-736 *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 6 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 HS=800 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD 11.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34XX HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300SPAN 747 978 744 964 738 957 729 947 683 906 774 987 671 861 1203 1192 1138 1126 1081 1069 1030 1018 981 967 910 896 * 857 843 * *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 7 UPLIFT 486 *461 523 *498 507 *483 542 *518 526 *503 562 *539 541 *518 579 *557 552 *531 598 *577 602 *582 647 *626 613 *593 650 *631 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 639 639 639 639 639 639 -639 639 639 639 639 639 639 639 HS=800 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD I1.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34VOXX POLE HT-CL 60 -3 65 -3 70 -3 75 -3 80 -3 80 -2 85 -2. 90 -2 90 -1 DTE 10 10 10 10. ll. ll. 12. 13 13 25 5 25 SPAN 972 968 961 901 738 972 830 720 919 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300 1203 1138 1081 1026 964 951 894 839 828 *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL * * 9 UPLIFT 486 *461 507 *483 526 *503 538 *516 542 *521 588 *567 592 *572. 600 *581 640 *620 * * * * * VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 2611 2611 2611 2578 2447 2447 2318 2160 2189 HS=800 2555 2555 2555 2519 2380 2380 2242 2074 2105 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34VOX 90 -2 23 25 wu75 -25 SPAN 604 791 530 689 467 611 416 549 373 501 454 425 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300 730 724 * 666 656 * 607 600 * 548 543 * 495 492 * 446 * 402 * *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL UPLIFT 654 622 707 675 659 630 704 675 658 630 707 679 647 62] 699 673 636 612 698 674 690 667 687 666 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 2199 2228 2046 2043 1866 1892 1631 1683 1401 1482 1282 1062 HS=800 2115 2146 1952 1949 1760 1788 1509 1565 1264 1351 1137 903 EI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD '1.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34V4X T-CL ODTE SPAN 60 -3 17 765 65 -3 18.75 659 65 -2 18.75 845 70-3 20.5 575 70 -2 20.5 739 75 -3 22.75 491 75 -2 22.5 643 80 -3 24.75 431 80 -2 24.5 571 '85 -2 26.5 508 90 -2 28.75 453 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300 801 729 716 664 651 601 589 546 533 481 431 'SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH °C0025KL 10 UPLIFT 602 *572 602 *575 644 *616 601 575 642 *617 590 566 635 *611 582 560 634 612 626 605 623 603 * * * VERTICAL SPANS BY VEE BRACE STRENGTH THETA=0 DEG.THETA=0 DEG. HS=750 HS=800 3522 3296 3123 2870 3110 2857 2731 2452 2716 2435 2237 1925 2271 1961 1805 1465 1846 1508 1419 1052 964 567 HS=750 3522 3123 3110 2731 2716 2237 2271 1805 1846 1419 964 HS=800 3296 2870 2857 2452 2435 1925 1961 1465 1508 1052 567 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR TH34V4XX HORIZONTAL SPANS POLE UPLIFT HT-CL DTE SPAN X-BRACE VS=750 VS=300 80 -3 14.5 958 1010 513 *492 * 90 -2 17.5 907 879 *562 *544 * *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOO25KL 11 VERTICAL SPANS BY VEE BRACE STRENGTH THETA=0 DEG.THETA=0 DEG. HS=750 HS=800 HS=750 HS=& 4098 3910 4098 3910 3372 3135 3372 3135 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD I1.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR HI6NX 25 HORIZONTAL SPANS X-BRACE VS=750 VS=400 940 934 924 * *SPAN LIMITED'BY X-BRACE STRENGTHPCOO25KL UPLIFT 987 968 1069 1050 1144 1125 996 978 1072 1055 1150 1132 1000 983 1077 1060 1155 1138 992 977 1074 1058 1171 1155 979 965 1078 1063 1169 1154 1064 1050 1159 1145 1068 1054 1149 1135 VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 299] 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 HS=800 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD 11.2.1]ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR H16NXX POLE HT-CL OTE 60 -3 5 65 -3 5 70-3)5 75-3 5.75 75-2 §.75 80-3 7 80 -2 6.75 85 -2 8 | 85 -1 7.75 90 -2 9.25 90 -1 9 90 -Hl 8.75 SPAN 990 988 984 831 1093 699 946 812 1057 717 921 1183 HORIZONTAL SPANS 1557 1481 1414 1337 1322 1256 1246 1171 1160 1103 UPLIFT X-BRACE VS=750 VS=400 753 *737 * (790 *775 * 822 *808 * 837 824 *898.*885 * 843 830 920 *907 * 925 912 999 *987 * 940 928 1003-9911091 1079 * *SPAN LIMITED BY X-BRACE STRENGTH PCOOZ5KL 4 1082 *1070 * VERTICAL SPANS X-ARM STRENGTH HS=750 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 2991 HS=800 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 2983 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.3 MAXIMUM SPAN LIMITED BY POLE STRENGTH (TP34)CALCULATIONS UTILIZING 70 FT,CLASS H1]POLES © DATA:1.Dvtv =VERTICAL SPAN (FOR ECCENTRIC VS ONLY) 2.Nc =NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS....cece cece cence eee e nee 3.0 3.Ng =NUMBER OF QHGW........cee eee cee cece ener e ec eens 1.0 4.F1z =LOAD ZONE WIND(PSF).....cece wee eee cee ce ec cees 36.9 5.O0CFww=OVERLOAD FACTOR FOR TRANSVERSE WIND..............1.50 6.Wubs =ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WOOD POLE(PSI)..............8000 7.Pci =LOAD ZONE WIND ON ICED CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT).........2.276 8.Pgi =LOAD ZONE WIND ON ICED OHGW(LBS/FT)..............0.000 9.Wci.=WEIGHT OF ICED CONDUCTOR(LBS/FT)................,1.29810.Wgi =WEIGHT OF ICED OHGW(LBS/FT).........cece ecw e eee ee 0.00011.Wins =WEIGHT OF INSULATORS (LBS).........ccc cee eee eee 3012.Dtg =DISTANCE FROM OHGW BRACKET TO POLE TOP(FT).......0.75 13.Dtd1 =DIST.1ST COND.ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)...4.0014.Dtd2 =DIST.2ND COND.ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)...6.0015.Dtd3 =DIST.3RD COND.ARM ATTACHMENT TO POLE TOP(FT)...8.0016.Lnd1 =LENGTH OF IST COND.ARM(FT).........ccc cece eeee 2.0017.Lnd2 =LENGTH OF 2ND COND.ARM(FT).........ccccceeeeeees 2.00 18.Lnd3 =LENGTH OF 3RD COND.ARM(FT)..........ccccceeeeece 2.00 19.Hgl =POLE HEIGHT ABOVE GROUNDLINE (FT)................61.00 20.Da =DIAMETER OF BASE POLE AT GROUNDLINE(IN)..........19.6721.Dt =DIAMETER AT TOP OF POLE (IN)........ccccesesseece 7.9622.WNDp1=WIND MOMENT ON BASE POLE(FT-LBS).................%100845 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HORIZONTAL WINDSPANS WERE CALCULATED USING THE DATA ABOVE AND THE FORMULAS LISTED BELOW.THE LOADS APPLIED WERE WIND ON POLE,WIND ON CONDUCTOR,AND VERTICAL LOAD OF WIRES FOR TWO SEPARATE VERTICAL SPANS.POLE STRENGTH WAS CALCULATED FOR EACH HEIGHT AND CLASS OF POLE AND THE ALLOWABLE SPANS ARE TABULATED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.THE © DESIGNATION c,g,u,n REPRESENT CONDUCTOR,OHGW,UB,OR NEUTRAL RESPECTIVELY. Pt=Nc*Pci+Ng*Pgi+Nu*Pui+Nn*Pni Dr=(Nc*Pci*(Dtd1+Dtd2+Dtd3)/3+Ng*Pgi*Dtg+Nu*Pui*Dtub+Nn*Pni*Dtn)/PtWNDp1=OCFww*F1z*(2*Dt+Da)*Hg142/72Mins=(Lndl+Lnd2+Lnd3+.5)*Wins(1)Dvtm=0CFww*(Dvtv*(Wci*(Lndl+Lnd2+Lnd3+.5)+Wgi*.5)+Mins)Sa=(Wubs*Da*%3/122.23-WNDp1-Dvtm)/(Pt*OCFww*(Hg1-Dr)) FOR THE BASE POLE LISTED ABOVE THE FOLLOWING VALUES WERE CALCULATED: SPAN SUM OF SPANS (FT)(FT) 371 742=PCOO25KL 5 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD II.2.11 ALLOWABLE SPANS TABLE FOR H16NVOX HORIZONTAL SPANS VERTICAL SPANS POLE ”UPLIFT X-ARM STRENGTH HT-CL OTE SPAN X-BRACE VS=750 VS=400 HS=750 HS=800 PEI LINE DESIGN PROGRAM-WOOD ALLOWABLE WINDSPANS TP34 POLE HT-CL SPAN SUM OF SPANS (FT)(FT) 50-3 221 442 50-2 292 584 50-1 375 .750 50-H1 457 914 55-3 206 412 55-2 272 544 55-1 352 704 55-H1 440 880 60-2 258 516 60-1 330 660 60-H1 416 832 65-2 243 486 65-1 310 620 65-H1 393 786 65-H2 483 966 70-2 229 458 70-1 295 590 70-H1 371 742 70-H2 458 916 75-2 211 422 75-1 286 572 75-H1 355 710 75-H2 454 908 80-2 202 404 80-1 271 542 80-H1 340 680 80-H2 424 848=PCO025KL 6 nwPower Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:UACASES 10-23-1987 alUNALASKALOADFLOW;°POVER”;336ACSROVERHEAD "NO-LOAD? LOADFLOV ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations Start Node=2 kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 52.55 1E-2 -52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 1E-2 2E-2 B-Phase 52.55 1E-2 -52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 1E-2 2E-2 C-Phase 52.55 1E-2 -52.55 -2E-2 100 2.553 1E-2 2E-2 Neutral 2E-7 0 [2] Total 157.6 3E-2 -157.6 -.0237 100 3E-2 8E-2 Max%Conductor Min%At Max%At Ampac.Fron To Type Volt.Node Volt.Node A-Phase .3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 B-Phase .3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 C-Phase 3731 2 3 336 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/KVA "'VA AMPS «AMPS %AMP."AMP.TO BUS CAP.kVAr kW kW &kVAr kW sokVAr TO H LENGTH(ft)IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT kV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IW Iv OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 122.1 122.1 1.977 1.977 .3731 .3731 20.59 103.3 24.6 SE-2 7E-2 0 ie)SE-2 -122.1 1E-3 -122. .3 52800 : 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.30 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.30-2E-5 -43.3 4 18480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:VACASES DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#&-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kV KVAR kVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0°is)11.1 Y 0 336 ACSR 52800 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE a 3 2 0 0 24.6 Y 0 CD=6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 (e)24.6 Y ie)4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0O NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 Y ie)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATABASE-A:UACASE6.bee es aegeaaymn oe pS ogeeUNALASKA-LOAD FLOW ;-:POWER }336 "ACSR DVERHBAD "}"-7MV "@'0785 'PR.Wea PaytaeMO yo thonroeees Re denimen tm eee wees done Bere eld leh BAM le coal NY Ste,he oe LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 3 iterations .kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kV Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2889.2414.1586.83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 B-Phase 2889.2414,1586.83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 C-Phase 2889..2414.1586.83.57 84.99 140.3 81.60 189.2 Neutral 3E-5 (8)0 Total 8667.7243.4759.83.57 84.99 244.8 567.7 Max%Conductor Min%At .Max%At Ampac.Fron To Type Volt.Node Volt.Node A-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.25 5 103.3 2 B-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.25 5 103.3 2 C-Phase 48.18 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.25 5 103.3 2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA kVA AMPS AMPS %AMP."AMP.TO BUS CAP.kV OkKVAr OKW)CO&VAr =Oo KW)OKVAr)-OoKWSO«KVArTOHLENGTH(f£t)>I¥OUT IN OUT Iv OUT kV %VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT QUT ABC 336 ACSR 8686.8327.140.6 140.6 26.54 26.54 19.73 99.05 24.6 181.6 381.7 0 0 7243.4794.7061.4413 3 52800 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8366.8214.141.3 141.3 48.07 48.07 19.37 97.25 13.5 63.12 186.0 0 (9)7061.4485.6998.4299 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8234.O 141.6 0 48.18 0 19.37 97.25 0 1E-2 SE-2 6999 4338 6998.4337.0 (e) 5 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:UACASE6 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE.CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH'PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD COHN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kV kVAR kVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 0 11.1 Y¥0 336 ACSR 52800 FT ABCNH #0 0 NONE 3 2 0 (8)24.6 ¥0 CD=6 3-PH 19.92kV'.0 $0 3 2 0 0 24.6 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 (e)13.5 ¥0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 (0)13.5 Y is)4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 06 0 0520(8)is)is)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0 0 0 .SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 0 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Halley,IDDATABASE-A:UACASE3 ane att:ng'YNALASKA 'LOAD |FLOW.j."POWER”om."ATT."ACSROv {NO-Loant LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.KVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 53.41 9E-3 -53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 0261 B-Phase 53.41 9QE-3 -53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 +0261(C-Phase 53.41 9E-3 .-53.41 -1E-2 100 2.594 9E-3 2E-2 Neutral 3E-7 [0]Q \Total 160.2 2E-2 160.2 -1E-2 100 2E-2 7E-2 , Max%..Conductor Min%,At Max%At C Ampac.Fron To Type Volt.Node Volt.Node ".) A-Phase =.2982.2 3...477 ACSR =:103.3 2 103.4 4 .B-Phase 12982 2 3 477 ACSR 103.3 2 on 103.4 4(°C-Phase 2982 2 3 477 ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS "%AMP.%AMP.TO BUS CAP,kV OkKVAr)=6kKW OO OVAr)=Oo kW O«VAr =OokKkWSO«VAr{TO H LENGTH(ft)IN QUT IN OUT IW OUT kV VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IW Ii OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 123.3 123.4 1.998 1.998 .2982 .2982 20.59 103.3 25 2E-2 7E-2 0 (9)2E-2 -123.3 1E-3 -123.r 3 52800 :3.ABC 470 BoKy SUB 43.29 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 18-3 ”4E-3°40 0 1E-3 -43.29-1E -5 -43.3 4 4 . ( ( ie 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID R DATA BASE-A:UACASE3 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING (+FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/.PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW KVAR KVA #CUST MWh t 2 2 0 0 11.5 Y 0 477 ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 0O NONE 3 2 Oo 0 25 Y 0 CD=7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 C 3 2 0 0 2 6Y (e)4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #0 OO NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 ¥(e)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 omnteietae lemme esos ntseedathe 10-23-1987 Power Engineers, DATA BASE-A:UACASE4UNALASKALOADFLOW:;POWER,; Inc.,Hailey,ID _A7T ACSROVERHEAD{f°7MV:@ 0,85 PRA LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2867.2395.1576,83.53 84.99 139.3 62.87 181.2 B-Phase 2867.2395.1576.83.53 84.99 139.3 62.87 181.2 C-Phase 2867..2395.1576.83.53 84.99 139.3 62.87 181.2Neutral1E-5 0 0 Total 8603.7186.4729.83.53 84.99 188.6 543.7 Max%Conductor Min%At Max%At - Ampac.From To Type -Volt.Node .Volt.Node A-Phase 47.84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 '103.3 2. B-Phase 47,84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.84 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 97.93 5 103.3°2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/KVA kVA AMPS AMPS "%AMP.%AMP.TO BUS CAP.kW kVAr kV kVAr.KW kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(f£t)IN OUT iW OUT Iv QUT kV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IW Iv OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 8623.8322.139.6 139.6 20.84 20.84 19.86 99.71 25 126.3 360.3 0 0 7186.4765.7060.4405 3 .52800 3 4 ABC 4/0 S5KV suB 6361.8211.140.3 140.3 47.72 47.72 19.50 97.93 13.5 62.22.183.3 0 0 '7060.4480.6998.4296 . t 4 5 ABC 470 SOKV SUB 8232.0 140.6 0 47.84 0 19.50 97.93 0 1E-2 48-2 6999 4338 6998.4335.0 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE A:UACASE4 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.'CAP,GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-W kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW kVAR kVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 0 11.5 ¥0 477 ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 0 NOE 3 2 9}0 25.Y 0 CD=7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 (9)is)25 Y '0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 is)NONE 4 2 0 (3)13.5 Y¥ie)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 f0)13.5 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #O 0 SPOT AW 2333 1446 0 ie)(6) 5 2 (8)is)Q [¢)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BY 2333 1446 0 0 0 SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 is)0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATABASE-_A:UACASE1DHALASKA'LOAD FLOV,}POVER"}956.ACSROVERHEAD.-NO-LOAY,Ate a Lente tap ial LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY ,Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 53.84 7E-3 -53.84 -.0135 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 B-Phase 53.84 7E-3 -53.84 -1E-2 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 -(C-Phase 53.84 TE-3 -53.84 -1E-2 100 2.615 7E-3 2E-2 Neutral ,2E-7 0 0 (Total 161.5 2E-2 -161.5 -.0135 100 2E-2 8E-2 -Max%a Conductor Min%At.Max%At (; Ampac..Fron To Type Volt...Node Volt.Node ""A-Phase 2751 2 3 556ACSR 103.3 2 103.4 4 ™B-Phase -.2751 2 3 SS6ACSR 103.3 2 ,103.4 4(-.C-Phase «et5l 2 3 .. SS6ACSR ,103.3 2 :103.4 4 . FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA kVA AMPS AMPS "%AMP.ZAMP.TO BUS .CAP.kW kVAr kW kVAr kW okVAr kW)okVAr f TO H LENGTH(f£t)Iv OUT iy OUT WW OUT KV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD iy iy OUT OUT r 2 ABC 556ACSR 124.0 124.1 2.008 2.008 .2751 .2751 20.59 103.3 25.2 28-2 V7E-2 0O (9)2E-2 -124.0 1E-3 -124. -3 52800 ; , 3 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.30 43.30 .7007 .7007 .2383 .2383 20.59 103.4 13.5 18-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.30-1E-5 -43.3 4 18480 . ( ¢ i © |10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID {c DATA BASE A:UACASE1 , DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING (FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW kVAR kVA #CUST MWh ¢2 2 0 is)11.7 Y 0 .SS6ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE -_ 3 2 ie]0 25.2 ¥0 CD=25 S -PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 25.2 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 Y 0 $0CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:UACASE2viSiSTGADiow3"YOg 17 $58"AOSR OVERHEAD jru¥099.28) LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations Start Node=2 ; :kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2862.2386.1581.83.35 84.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 B-Phase 2862.2386..1581.83.35 84.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 C-Phase 2862.2386.1581.83.35 84.99 139.0 53.32 186.5 Neutral 1E-5 i8)is) Total 8587.7158.4743,83.35 84.99 159.9 559.7 Max%Lo Conductor Min%"At Max%At Ampac.From.To Type Volt.Node Volt.Node A-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.105 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.10 5 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.76 4 5 4/0 35KV SUB 98.10 5 103.3 2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA KVA AMPS AMPS "AMP.%AMP.TO BUS CAP.kW oOkVAr okW)OKVAr)0okW 0 O&VAr)kW)OVAr | TO H LENGTH(ft)IN OUT IN OUT IN QUT kV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IW OUT OUT 2 ABC 556ACSR 8607.8321,139.3 139.3 19.09 19.09 19.89 99.88 25.2 97.93 376.9 0 0 7158.4780.7060.4403. 3 52800 :: 3 :ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8361.8211.140.0 140.0 47.64 47.64 19.54 98.10 13.5 62.00 182.7 0 0 7060.4479.6998.4296 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232.0 140.4 0 47.76 0 19.54 98.10 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998.4335.0 0 5 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATABASE-A:UACASE2 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. To TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE #PH L-N kV BILL#COST *°TYPE PH kW kVAR kVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 (e)11.7 Y 0 556ACSR 52800 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 3 2 0 (e)25.2 Y 0 CD=25 3-PH 19.92k¥V 0 $90 ; 3 2 0 0 25.2 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 13.5 ¥(e)CD=27 3-PH 19.92k¥V 0 $0 4 2 0 ie)13.5 ¥0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 0 ie)(0) 5 2 0 0 ie)ie)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0 ie)(e) SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 ie)(e) 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATA.BASE=.A:UNALASON ....DNALASKA {LOAD FLOW,;.DAMES AND (NOORB "3;936"ACBR OVERHEAD "f'NO-LOAD,! LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations Start Node=2 Poeee eere a or kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 86.76 3E-2 -86.76 -3E-2 100 4.215 3E-2 68-2 B-Phase 86.76 3E-2 -86.76 -.0366 100 4.215 35-2 68-2 C-Phase 86.76 3E+2 86.76 -.0366 100 4.215 38-2 6E 2 Neutral ;2E-7 (9)0 Total 260.2 QE-2 -260.2 3E-2 100 9E-2 1865 -Max%Conductor Min%At Max%At Ampac.From To Type Volt.Vode Volt.Node A-Phase 7628 3 4°4/0 35KV URD 103,3 2 103.45B-Phase..7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4:5 C-Phase .7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM'-Ss P BRANCH TYPE/kVA kVA AMPS AMPS Y%AMP.%AMP.TO BUS CAP.kW kVAr kVAr kV oOkVAr)=okW sO«VAr TO H LENGTH(f£t)IN OUT In OUT IN OUT kV VOLTS kV4r LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 336 ACSR 224.7 224.8 3.639 3.639 .6866 .6866 20.59 103.4 26.9 7E-2 .1660 0 0 QE-2 -224.7 1E-2 224. 3 ) 34320 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 138.6 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 '1E-2 0 0 1E-2 -138.6 1E-3 -138. 4 18480 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.32 43.32 .7009 .7009 .2384 .2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.32-3E-5 -43.3 5 18480 . 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:USALAS3N DATA BASE KODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM''NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CON. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW =KVAR_s«KVA)=o #CUST MWb 2 2 0 a)14.1Y O 336 ACSR 34320 FT ABC #0 O HONE 3 2 0 0 26.9Y Oo CD=6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 fr)26.9Y Oo 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCY #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 0 29.7¥Oo CD=26 3-PH i9.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 |NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5Y oO CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 eee 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE A:UNALASKA "NAECATONEBUY.ines GO NORE B58.AcoR OvERNBAD {F37¥W 0°0.05PE LOADFLOV ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations hese wae?a Ym nd kW kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2836.2393.1523.84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 B-Phase 2836.2393.1523.84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 C-Phase 2836.2393.1923.84.36 84.99 137.8 60.64 161.1 Neutral 3E-5 i¢)0 Total 8510,7180.4569.84.36 84.99 181.9 483.4 Max% , Conductor Min%At Max'-At Ampac.From To Type Volt.Node Volt..Node A-Phase 47:63 5.6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2° B-Phase 47,63 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2 C-Phase 47.63 5 6 4/0 35KVY SUB 98.38 6 103.3 2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA kVA AMPS AMPS "%AMP.%AMP.TO BUS CAP.kV kVAr kW kVAr kV kVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(ft)IN OUT In OUT IN OUT kV "%VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IW OUT OUT 2 ABC SS6ACSR 8530.8350.138.1 138.1 18.92 18.92 20.14 101.1 27.5 62.52 240.6 0 0 7180.4606.7117.4365 3 .34320 .. . 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 8394.8313.138.8 188.8 47.24 47.24 19.95 100.1 29.7 57.72°60.96 0 is)7117.4450.7059.4389 4 18480 . 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8360.8212.139.6 139.6 47.51 47.51 19.59 98.38 13.5 61.66 181.7 0 0 7059.4478.6998.4297 5 18480 ¢ 5 6 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232.0 140.0 0 47.63 0 19.59 98.38 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998.4336.0 ie) a &Lee 10 -.on a woe om Ce ene on eee Lobe ee we -_- 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE A:UNALASKA DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH'PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD.CONN TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW KVAR KVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 ie}11.7 ¥0 S56ACSR 34320 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 3 2 ie}0 27.5 Y¥0 CD=25 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 27.5 ¥0 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 0 is)29.7 Y¥0 CD=26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 (0)ie)29.7 ¥(8)4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE520i¢)13.5 ¥0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0O $0 5 2 (9)is)13.5 ¥ie)4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 0O 0 ie)6 2 ie)(8)(9)Q CD=27 S-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0O 0 (6) SPOT CN 2333 1446 0O 0 0 mi retinas| 10-23-1987 Start Node=2 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:UNALAS-N ee reunites ne ue te cman tom ena weUNALASKA”LOAD,FLOW,;:°DANES AND.MOORE;.556 ACSR,OVBRHEAD,.;:NO-LOAD. LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 87.93 2E-2 -87.93 -2E-2 100 4.272 2E-2 6E-2 B-Phase 87.93 .0201 -87.93 -.0229 100 4.272 2E-2 6E-2 C-Phase 87.93 .0201 -87.93 -.0229 100 4.272 2E-2 .0632 Neutral 3E-7 (0)(8) Total 263.8 6E-2 -263.8 2E-2 100 6E-2 1898 Max%Conductor Ming |At .Max%.At Ampac.From To .Type Volt.Vode Volt.Node 'A-Phase ..7628 3...40 4/0 35KV URD 103.32 103.4 5 B-Phase ._.7628 3 4 .4/0 385KV¥URD 103.3 2:103.4 5 C-Phase 7628 3 4 ..4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA KVA AMPS AMPS %AMP."ZAMP.TO BUS .CAP.kV kVAr kV kV so&KVAr kW kVAr TO H LENGTH(f£t)>Iv OUT IN ouT IN OUT kV "ZVOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN QUT OUT 2 ,ABC S5S6ACSR 226.3 226.4 3.665 3.665 .5020 .5020 20.59 103.4 27.4 4E-2 ..1694 0 6E-2 -226.3 1E-2 -226. 3 34320 | 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 138.6 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 ..0158 0 1E-2 -138.6 1E-3 -138. 4 18480 .. 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.32 43.32 7009 -7009 .2384 .2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 1E-3 -43.32-2E-5 -43.3 5 18480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Halley,ID DATA BASE A:UNALAS-¥ DATA BASE NODE AND SEGKENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH'PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW KVAR KVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 0 11.7 Y 0 556ACSR 34320 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE 3 2 0 0 27.4 Y 0 CcD=25 3-PH 19.92kV 06 $0 3 2 0 Oo 27.4 Y 0 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 4 2 [9]0 29.7 Y (0)CD=26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 ' 4 2 [e)0 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE520013.5 Y 0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 o ont10-23-1987 Start Node=2 Power Engineers, DATA,BASE:A:UNALAS47Inc.,Hailey,ID rabeRy RN Te Tite whem Ds AUNALASKALOAD.FLOV..+DAMES 'AND HOORE.4.47%.ACSR.'OVERHEAD ome 2g.0.85."PRS LOADFLOV ANALYSIS SUMMARY Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kV Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Aups Loss Loss A-Phase 2840.2399.1520.84.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 B-Phase 2840.2399.1520.84.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 C-Phase 2840.2399.1520.84.47 84.99 138.0 66.75 157.6 Yeutral 3E-5 0 [¢} Total 8521.7198.4560.84.47 84.99 200.2 473.0 Max%Conductor Min'At Max%At Ampac.Fron To Type Volt.Node Volt.Node A-Phase 47,68 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.26 6 103.3 2 B-Phase 47.68 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 98.26 6.103.3 2 C-Phase 47.68 5 6 4/0 85KV SUB 98.26 6 103.3 2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA kVA AMPS AMPS AMP."AMP.TO BUS CAP.kW oOkVAr)==6kW)OKVAr)=Oo KW)sCOd«VAr=-OKW Oi«Arr TO H LENGTH(ft)Iv OUT IW OUT Iv OUT kV "ZVOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD Iv Iv OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 8541.8351.138.3 138.3 20.64 20.64 20.12 101.0 27.3 80.58 229.8 0 ie)7198.4597.7117.4367 3 34320 . 3 ABC 4/0 35KV URD 8395.8313.139.0 139.0 47.29 47.29 19.92 100.0 29.7 57.86 61.10 0 0 7117.4451.7060.4390 4 18480 a 7 4 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8361.8212.139.8 139.8 47.56 47.56 19.57 98.26 13.5 61.80 182.1 0 0 7060.4479.6998,4297 5 18480 ; ; . 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232.0°140.1 0 47.68 0 19.57 98.26 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338 6998.4336.0 0 6 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE-A:UNALAS47 DATA BASE WODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kV KVAR KVA &#CUST MWh 2 2 0 0 11.5 Y 0 477 ACSR 34320 FT ABCH #0 O NONE 3 2 0 0 27.3 ¥0 CD=7 3-PH 19.92k¥V 0 $0 3 2 (e)0 27.3 Y 0 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN #€O (9)NONE 4 2 0 0 29.7 ¥0 CD=26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 ' 4 2 0 0 29.7 ¥0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0O NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5 °¥i?)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 5 2 0 (e)13.5 ¥0 4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 0O 0 0 6 2 #0 0 (6)0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 0O (e)(0) SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 9)(e) oem ne orem reeOTDeeeaed 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATABASE-A:UNALASAN.DNALASKA'LOAD,FLOW|;-DANES "AND”"MOORE 3.477"ACSR™'OvpRARAD<(iNO-Loapt LOADFLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 1 iterations kV kVAr Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 87.61 2E-2 -87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 6E-2 B-Phase 87.61 2E-2 -87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 0604 C-Phase 87.61 2E-2 -87.61 -2E-2 100 4.256 2E-2 .0604 Feutral ,2E-7 ie)[9] Total 262.8 7E-2 -262.8 -2E-2 100 TE-2 +1813 Max%Conductor Kin%At Max%At Ampac.Fron To Type Volt.Vode Volt.Node A-Phase -7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 , 103.4 5 B-Phase 7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 C-Phase 7628 3 4 4/0 35KV URD 103.3 2 103.4 5 FROM/'P BRANCH TYPE kVA kVA AMPS AMPS AMP.ZAMP.TO BUS .CAP.kV okVAr «kW.sOKVAr kV =kVAr ==6kKW)O&KVArTOHLENGTH(ft)IN OUT IN QUT It OUT kV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD IN IN OUT OUT 2 ABC 477 ACSR 226.0 226.1 3.659 3.659 .5462 .5462 20.59 103.4 27.3 5E-2 .1608 0 (9)7E-2 -226.0 1E-2 -226. 3 34320 3 'ABC 470 36S5KV URD 138.5 138.6 2.242 2.242 .7628 .7628 20.60 103.4 29.7 1E-2 1E-2 0 0 1E-2 -138.5 1E-3 -138. 848 4 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 43.31 43.32 .7009 .7009 .2384 2384 20.60 103.4 13.5 1E-3 4E-3 0 0 1E-3 -43.31-2E-5 -43.3 18480 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE A:UNALAS4N DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LENGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kW KVAR KVA #CUST MWh 2 2 0 ie)11.5 ¥0 477 ACSR 34320 FT ABCN #0 O.NONE 3 2.0 0 27.3 Y (e)CD=7 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 (e)27.3 Y¥is)4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCN #0 0O NONE 4 2 0 oO 29.7 ¥0 CD=26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7 Y¥is)4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCN #0 0 NONE 5 2 0 0 13.5 ¥0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 ™10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,IDDATABASE _A:UNALAS33 .ne me gtapaee pas cy :20..wet ties 0..¢PRALABEAJOhpFS DANES AND NOORE "996,CSR,OVERIBAD CPW,@ 0:98 FyLOADFLOWANALYSISSUMMARY Start Node=2 Nominal L-N Source Voltage =19.92 kV Convergence reached in 2 iterations kV kVAr _Ckt.kVA Ckt.kW Ckt.kVAr SRC.PF%LD.PF%Amps Loss Loss A-Phase 2853.2411.1526.84.49 84.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 B-Phase 2853.2411.1526.84.49 84.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 C-Phase 2853.2411.1526.84.49 84.99 138.6 78.65 162.5 Neutral 1E-5 0 (8) Total 8561.7233.4579.84.49 84.99 235.9 ..487.5 i] Max%Conductor Min%At ..Max%At Ampac.From To Type Volt.Node -Volt.Node A-Phase 47.89 5 6 _-4/0 35KV SUB.97.83 6 _103.3 2 B-Phase 47.89 5 6...4/0 35KV SUB 97.83 6.103.3 2 C-Phase 47.89 5 6 4/0 35KV SUB 97.83 6 103.3 2 FROM/P BRANCH TYPE/kVA KVA AMPS AMPS %AMP."AMP.TO BUS CAP.kV =&KVAr kV kVAr kV kVAr kV kVArTOH LENGTH(ft)Iv OUT I¥OUT I¥OUT kV "VOLTS kVAr LOSS LOSS LOAD LOAD ly IN OUT OUT 2 .ABC 336 ACSR 8580.8354.138.9 138.9 26.21 26.21 20.04 100.6 26.9 115.2 242.0 0 (8)7233.4614.7118.4372 3 34320 : . 3 :ABC 470 SOKV URD 8397.8315.139.6 139.6 47.50 47.50 19.84 99.62 29.7 58.37 61.65 0 [¢}7118.4454.7060.4392 4 18480 . ' 4 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8362.8212.140.4 140.4 47.77 47.77 19.48 97.83 13.5 62.35 183.7 0 0 7060.4481.6998.4297 18480 5 ABC 4/0 35KV SUB 8232.0 140.8 0 47.89 0 19.48 97.83 0 1E-2 4E-2 6999 4338:6998.4336.0 0 6 10 10-23-1987 Power Engineers,Inc.,Hailey,ID DATA BASE A:UNALASS3 DATA BASE NODE AND SEGMENT LISTING FROM/NODE CAP.CAP.GEN.GEN BRANCH TYPE LEYGTH/PHASE/REINF#-YR LOAD CONN. TO TYPE X-CRD Y-CRD kVAr ST.REF#ST.CODE -#PH L-N kV BILL#COST TYPE PH kV kKVAR kVA #CUST MWh 20 2 (6)[8]11.1 Y 0 336 ACSR 34320 FT ABCY #0 ie)NONE 3 2 0 (e)26.9 Y 9}CD=6 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 3 2 0 0 26.9 Y 0 4/0 35KV URD 18480 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE 4 2 ie)Q 29.7 Y¥0 CD=26 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 4 2 0 0 29.7 Y 0 4/0 35KV SUB 18480 FT ABCH #0 0 NONE 5 2 0 (6)13.5 ¥[e)CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV 0 $0 5 2 ie)0 13.5 Y (8)4/0 35KV SUB 10 FT ABCN #0 0 SPOT AN 2333 1446 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 (9)0 CD=27 3-PH 19.92kV O $0 SPOT BN 2333 1446 O 0 0 .SPOT CN 2333 1446 0 ie)(0) &?DOWES TELEPHONE RECORDEngineersincorporaisd]; O°Kip Project Name To.(Vegh es Une ti AD Ore - Job Ph.Sve.Task Sub. an)\i .f Ae 6 who Pyotr Tg)//GY Le fin a aa FileName From:GC fia i Se 2 7 12°57 AD Date Time 1 3 ra s.?f -)-Ext. _Telephone Number fi oo em Ah." .4Subject:Unott Ate.OMX FT OO KZ ISS et 3 qo 78, ; 4 .4d °X-Brace bt Le lee -FO =3x90"/ser Cc: T&D $8 O18722-01 (6/1/87) TELEPHONE RECORD Project Name To:4 Car (yaw tives )WAF,won,.mcs Job Ph Sve.Task Sub.PAT U ALAS cA File Name From:GARY Runtic ke 712%a7 Date Time -(206)GIF 4 SYO _20 Telephone Numbersubiet:Costs For Pave Coudectip TOY 2 20 cc: T&O $8 OHB722-01 (6/187) TELEPHONE RECORD UMALAS KA,.roject Name To:Ror er eV &:.,. Job Ph.Sve.Task Sub. SHERM DAYS UNALASKA File NameFrom:G Key Runicle 9 1251 &?f/-Qo Date Time Tn suletor Cogt,Yo SeatGbe (80)992.99H 3 ex #Telephone NumberSubject:thor 2 Pos 3 4635-70 -G00 Susp.#2200 £%loo"-/L50 cc: TSO 58 OM8722-01 (6/1/87) TELEPHONE RECORD Project NameTo:eH 'Baxter :...- - Job Ph.Sve.Task =Sub.Vean B to Kary File NameFrom:Gary Kuve K-L l : ate Time /O06)265-272 /ext.C Asts Telephone Number Subject:vd )__2 -HE /ia ee Osx b77!"3 70 Sas |Josette 76 S5ya_439 6 OP ||Ada /Y, 25+-yooQSbora¥7 GIP |pies SO GI6 54%PO2Q |-- 6S 992 bao F5e | $4 350 pepe \ss!396 a!|oodepeneee| Sam pow 724.0 Gang e -_To Os dole oo thick AA gi, fitasky Fneight 266-267-6977 Morth buh DOU6 -V¥ES-G5 O2 A Ahaslea Cengs 206-762 -303Fe2dore cc:1 .¢Foss PPREAS KYA Aw eS T&D 58 OH8722-01 (6/1/87) TELEPHONE RECORD Project Nameto:YLASKA xT IT WIR Job Ph.Sve.Task Sub.Via Osdale_os Peek ©td waluan«e File Name From:(phe XK a ce it . ' . Date Time Telephone NumberSubj.we,PLSD,Y,20 S270 WOK creo Poges LALaLOYSrA.BY 1 How Much wo ergot\tow many trips1¥ Wo eight frRie Brits ry 1g [§5o Tons cc: THO $8 OH8722-01 (6/1/87) @Dole!wx JOB NO. Engneers heorporared pylAA pare -ok.BY Toate 254 Back for Bo B32 FEXOMA Pesos is 7 CO 112 BESO J Trade Lose Jo Man tar Tryst C 2 72H ») 4M Jae -Trador -/itri-FR- BON 25-30 Fan FAY a2 Goose -Ay pea Lane 30m /-3 Dem Fu eI10)1 [-Jedson PMahHi ne ASN Bs,OX Jauehes Ww /pers Sstrnos34/£Jeon Mechanics Jruwk AMY -3 Puss 4x¥'s A ry |2 Nandan "Axy'sMiseJd0c%,Virde)CLP S,ES [Pa fot UMACASEZ A -Project NameTo:72 1 Os OnE >H7*... job Ph.Sve.Task Sub. BOASAA FROGEL -o02, File Name From:J.U nual fo;71 Date Time ():Ext. Telephone Number 1.)SLA Ze.Pt A ZOw _Rep Sear7oe. ce OO *Le4a Parr a S/o QB Fon tee °-Se onty rhe "ZOeS Z2bareL-fom ees yore tw Cn sea LE =&fA faeer Sern ClnSopres |OT 2OSeyA oa NAANweeTK.haters,2)As fad Fvha.foces fron boner.-West- Faye Wait Cert f7i-Vel OFS flte @ fs GOO a. A cc: T&D 58 OH8722-01 (6/1/87) TELEPHONE RECORD VPralas LA ,Project Name te:lA:bp fReGgh7 78.. "/Job Ph.Svc.Task Sub. Jon Osdala - ReceS Feraht UMAlC4A SHA File NameFrom:CS)ZC 0?1S}a Date Time (206)77-6977 en.Telephone Number Subject: Serl7 le::wen hr Toes web pe Plart hayevtAc 1/27 Lb89 Fr? Ol be 336 frm _y.*fPotes 22 5 [0,0 45 £7? "Conf (7252006;BE BIBS FE" +Mawr.43 £290 Fr UG Tape _f/3 3 92S es a IV Oot iq tryyer[8S To S@ cco F/ (Fated to-Acety Ltxis4 eT he pal,297% =wy ae wn LOn Osd al Poel cc: T&D 58 OH8722-01 (6/1/87) oP DOWEL TELEPHONE RECORDEngmeersincorporated Project Nameto.)A HIB.. ”Job Ph.Sve.'Task =Sub. -File NameFrom:Vien flere (2,58).Date Time ():Ext, Telephone Number Subject: f)CorwsTe-Eq p bve-T BY c5ees fercten -AA. 272-692/Mejp le Confanre -Haney 235-4847 M2)powe 7 get beh ee Fe oteCos7sfervrstnLot?owt7. Eee Pome SEA ame bracle fare,t-CA err Z a Cate Gach ev fof2/s7 CD Cofs7>ey.B.ouee fe.s olla cee _ ly frer>2 Sen [Oe TIrA&-L4 000 Pr' "2.LvAo2 Cpa aS LZ John 24,062 AT <a f.isc [catherines Sysren.)(5 Jou 3 2S 2 ev 4 Deidl Aco _!3 S Joes [C,CC CFT: |ISB Tors G6 2527[Ra)[000 Tor G7 2eo Pr cc: T&O 58 OH8722-01 (6/1/87) TELEPHONE RECORD U0rA CAS CFFF Project Name Te:Very We LeCLS : Job Ph.Sve.Task Sub.INV Coomeraon Lac cam OA Gr Bm {edDate Time File Name ():Ext, Telephone Number )fave 3 Se Tors Ce o ly Clare Bye barton -ea-atasAs f 22 ore Rove rey 5 ey /yaee2 fooce ce ad rit 459 Sipcn 4 haw few nting En 753 Few 25 ese py? 32.0°00 Loatst,DS eo FK-609 3- Z7Zec FT.Pe A SVAc2 OP r+Bex kilbittc Sernor F- -$F 7erp;BZcew eqeht Fire 3,rayeo Dr te Ace 9 Cop tte Frol |Reach LG 0 10 A 7 cc:=Las Te:2 >[tans @ Sa $ON)= T&O 58 OHS722-01 (6/187) .GC J0OUWEF TELEPHONE RECORDEngneersbearporated To Ly,/tal tuts oto Teoh ba -From 2Ll Lee's Subject Project JobNo._//78 Phone No.NIEGLYZY-2340 ¢ Date AfLt Z Time +For Site.Pee Yawn Lor No)Dub tale THe pith Pour,Fines has i Com dha s cc:pig cgWWef TELEPHONE RECORDeean Project JobNo._//78-3/To ka a7 Keer,Za <Phone No.11S A398 -54S 7fhFsubsh!Date ule Lin_From yay AA Lewis Time Subject 7-G sets Wt Atillav tes My,Eeciea bn ;prasad +L,Ellawine LAs A 4550 [Kod Fre 2775p Eb)ae AL Sion 0 #2-o fer)<<309 Ky rmrachine "Ba 2.5 ay cc:Ao oTGl(1 TELEPHONE RECORDtngneerscorporate?-Project JobNo.//96-2?/-%ee Kea Theor -Phone No.295 [oe Bla-BLETA6tea2Laut .Date gAshep'TimeFrom74LLawl1s SubjectFiroteLod 4,.ZZ OP hyp»LowEe2LeFinchiner7»)$fs.es,<l fate Ae Les LA ar Lz 2 aaah 2.LZ}(ibeweer Aaple i_@Zi -,|Z?-Ee Arrolas ALS '28 Lf SOSA&feo A Wat Xa D>a fadcaLDgQ7eatherLereZptecbonsLn2VBAsefl)7<1 ze Wen CY,te 9 967>Ke)"74cast bo bsvce AA Leth,Zrns a Ct7 A 4peehaoeWA2700L2Groachdn,WA ere eeeoa-+s howl 20.0 feSipe fe gel lVBLCeHCoe?yn vers bon2Jeomy-Lew owe shu Ve er orthLornLip»eH eopcle,the sar ThoneeZAPYLeArbreaeL4Leal LLP2.A Loaf AL mente Tir ZL 7Xtba.fee Ge Ih Con biyles nL)ce:Zhe [Spinel LD,on0-rovove /Les,Ties $e ((Liaw he hil =:"per tLe/: me VY , co)Nefan _TELEPHONE RECORDEngineersWcarporored Project To Dei Mab xsaat vopNow Lp zePhoneNo.ors Ly 2Y-22Y0Ts<Ae ba , , 7 Jofrer_.,DateFrom2LewesTime Subject Paaswidecl Callan dat t.TadhrheaclaagucitelbudgitisaslcsAmateaadpastnenoutaLeeOGAidez HE Flow 72700 pyk :a i | "Llecs =fA/Sf/A_a Y-=phone Bra LP Ef/owr 2 BS,92°pachiuIp-ees "=IGF ©p2fta."w=s49 BraAb Bev dorzer (ress =<a "hte ft co:Gee OFlek TELEPHONE RECORD } ;ProjectLPQUCELSbearparated |JobNo.__798ToKCecBuat:Lure ofan Aa Sf 'L PhoneNo/374-264 Sof4,TE Lich, Dat /3 Jag f,7 ate_/y 2FromBLLewy'77 , Time SubjectLbbtw a Za Z,fe ntad Oe au Tpul,S.-Ze,wer GT _IZLEDessie"LA,eS LiL owe?en FLoid)=23,1 peu-Brus BLnO)MB BELBil- LP Fup =bS 97°pfablVafessSYnsfan : -ALPyA=yis4.9 BIWe Cond bara <28"ted OgocFife G@ JOWEf TELEPHONE RECORDCnaneershheorporored Project Cc z JobNo."WP 6-7 /. To £a =fot trlac hired Nes Phone No.uS/39@ -b65 SUL..7¢fe ts wtesd.Date ULL <2 >From Er Lels's Time Subject Ask abhor fow Lan Le eu of LureZl22kfLhian27Ade)ama churns)- Lhe.hese card car?tol fh reera22Zoneae /-2 It)AScfLheguachererondAA200tenathAvredLoYo2LindinnYeese0BeOGEn cc:JEL ©DOME TELEPHONE RECORD , Enaneers hcarporared Project To Btu Boy _LLPE-<3f ,Kudloes EE,oolucts one "/Le E-2/From BU Lecsris Pate 4 we £2 Time -Air fel Con Ad,re,Z MC.Ca,SyslenEwekedLoMosem5LiaoynePom71tienZtBoveoeLauhtox(Pour= Celio-L-soe goo Lee (on2So,g292 Ark,War.Spore2-7¢Ay ono hype p)f-Fran,a bu hosp oh Zr ole Soe)$7 hesiU-/jov cco hows Le begs GR tue cach *--- -_ ao Cpt nn Z "30 a.ry Lone corn che QQ4Hoe272LorNCGesantcc:Ee ee tot le.ape oy fon¥pion2,£272 aa vad sie te,Leste Cree f=AC oi pb fecasite, ©DOUCl TELEPHONE RECORDEngnecersIncorparaed To Kaw Chandra ae From Bil Leer Project JobNo._//98 Phone No.201/997 "J8/CDateLolaoffZ Time Subject ce pl a6 7 aby =| A lta Picton i hon feet -X aus,a,beL leurs Lee Pres |VadoA/i1824L (eile ee I 0Lid.ML ngam Gig Ieee Loa 2itse Anal boas BrL BS kik:Lf?)Dot Li-Both 55 |Zita Leencine Ex (Ro,=/S59/2 Spe}(rte/Nas4 =v22 gplg WontyiegaL Low of LE Borw Lh EaCosofBePPI=_2%"4A,Sata nee SZ =gvZp-AEE o °F Pant Efey =L222":Lind Yef =PA rath fADhb yeSTeanress=gu gsi aon DO S29,ren gphTaBesExKaw=a Le av ==YG x.Lor wn Zip LinjoT.cos ET Ve A7ohrvre SA fZfies =2a,PLAAMLoanvisuaOita z Og A TELEPHONE RECORD ”:ProjectCngneershcorporored .Job No.LA8ToByfheLewesPhoneNo.Zens.LetsG@YEFromKineCCLaanbran_Ae a :!mCoproreu5heatZosanston ° Subject lf:55 Tube 4a SkBatZ=Bot Pawn 2.6'-39"£.ara v725-804p fe -6G,Gut =AY runLilt she i4Linct,Ltn cc: GC IUE/TELEPHONE RECORDEnaneersIncorparared:Project Job No.LLIEToBYLLawssPhoneNo.ZDLNsFromKaeeetate5Le 2 TiAeroL me Subject VA ZaFE Cagaret .Deter£=3 -Feus”204, : .Has tween bor bat no ebecthralL\ont;ole | /|428 252 Jun t |©potzse Loar 2 we.'te [Dahirb==Fane 20 ypii"04 300 Law - NN =<Lala des Nc Gas ty sToenoC cc: Bie YuctmA|ss #2 Incorporated November 2,1987 Aerofin Attention:Mr.Kamal Moinzadeh Subject:Air-Cooled Condenser and NC Gas Removal System for Unalaska Geothermal Project -Budgetary Quotation Dear Mr.Moinzadeh: Per our telephone discussion,the following design data should be used whenpreparingthebudgetaryquotationfortheabovereferencedproject: Option 1- Turbine Exhaust Steam Flow -159,125 pphNon-Cond.Flow 238 pphNon-Cond.Molecular Weight 41 Condenser Heat Load 148,000,000 BTU/Hr.Summer Dry Bulb Design Temp.64°F Winter Dry Bulb Design Temp.0°F Plant Elevation 1100 Ft. Design Pressure 2.5in.HgAMaterialofConstruction .304LS85MotiveSteamPressure82psia Option2- Turbine Exhaust Steam Flow 50,000 pphCondenserHeatLoad46,000,000 BTU/Hr.Motive Steam Pressure 60 psiaAllOtherConditions- Same as Option 1 Please call if you have any questions on this information. Sincerely, POWER Engineers,Incorporated Lhlee-E Ko William E.Lewis WEL:dm cc:John McGrew (POWER) File 1198 om 1020 Airport Way *P.O.Box 1066 Hailey,Idaho 83333 »(208)788-3456 ©JOE'TELEPHONE RECORD | Lngneers beorparared Project JobNo._//98-7/-2 3ToZL.pple asad,: 4 Phone No.222 /25%-BLU/Deora vate G48 /B7jaFrom75¢ff Leeds an, Time Subject meLL A Anche gses DshowShall.Sa.Lag 7 LAG2.ror pvelly VDKLapneawesTtLcdLaoaGoaoeSheawitAIDcalfLaLELowexozaLeasedaly|np Fok,ZA eet Doe,TA ODOUCL TELEPHONE RECORD project Z/a weLeCngneershcarporared JobNo._//9 Phone No.7a./%54 -G/// Date__/ofrs /87 o "Bru Lied ye From Zug Ke pe eedOnnat Time Subject TOA cen SO (a LenCOALY Lor che rresd-_ :?L <4 Oo 'Y/Y [D2 1.)QL ; o 7 2.020,200 FOR Sez7ZL LaSpipace|WLEL at fe LL en SiHE Lo isweeCoarseantlfeTiarAlndnnPpineedAidaLeenAnFEety)aici'ae), Meal Lupply ing ttopeage fake oy-io oe.Het Zu com <¢PP Lhng wer EaLeifscefahig2;[0GQ-De be foo Kiel)tad hav Ze ls'Frets vapor ZefiucbanPossLorteerernSsLuvhe-|beala tinct anal LasdJttenn2s - TT,Condensers i CC:laf Ce Lut a Le Cet Li ws aneitn22CCKnrLatareeee!7Z,oaDoe Fe Ac.ore at Lee CcLoe en oe @ DOF -.TELEPHONE RECORD . ProjectLngneershicarparated Job No.To Don Boacbe,_PhoneNo.4%c Lee 9226oneNo.=<Bex chen Le o/(fi soe From Bull.Ly ol vf Date LZ,VA xs /e2 Time Subject Mj|Scpeae tonjad)=959,000 Ufo.ar Paes ca ES sin.Let Leece =f FO Ye!HP Sten =53 1-0 /b/p.HPP?Brine =£24,85o/b Ze 7cee ,Dow.Ze _-2g LS 0 lbh. LP Seqleaster ;| 'Led =B26,aso /,LY.Cz Frese =="1h.e fica Desig wees 2 Sd,LP Stim BS,"G2AhoLPBice:740,C25 Lh Lub LP Dern 's Ten =2S,92 TonThoesFRELoteTT/Y6>=L227YMLAWaaihohinassrsrent,ets LFcc:x.Le TELEPHONE RECORD Project NameTo:TREW.fochorage fhosds.1D?EF 2-,CY, -Job Ph.Sve.=Task Sub.Burts INCSS tts evt /Jualastz .File Namet)From:Lo ARY Kan ick //: Date Time (702)392.257/on Telephone NumberSubject:Zabor Rates Sot Untlaska Lyne Man)96.10 Ka +bento,Oohr 220A : OPERATOR SOHO ke -__-_7MNECACQo!he GR OUND MAY)(2.957 We io *700 =BYy9sy,. ZDxsiofe VYoypueymer LWepemen =OS 2afn tJ 32M 2S 3 =BB0N4/ Midymum howes of Show SAP OM tN clem ect wrth ca, hays.Phe om YO KA awesk 38 yy 4 .cc:KKL AP,s FEN CE NUATIIING IRIAN e770QUEL TELEPHONE RECORD ProjectEngineershcorporored - JobNo._K<GFI10BYeZ '-Phone No. SL -LLB LEFrom/o pw en 2)ys vate /Le 2 ,)bes T epee Sefer Caeken "me 7 Z VASubject LoP Sa ie#2s,ooo 4 Lox a (Fe. wo FO 1000 gab Fe.&i or DonadWAL.at,a L<AL Se LZ Oy Qvtf LZAaPPDeickecidekeSLs.LZ LLLLE.alow VA | ce:pha tin tle)Gi . DOUCT TELEPHONE RECORD:NGNCLS NCOPARHET Project 'Job No, PhoneNo.20K-323-0820 Date A WeeD2LB 2 Time To Tox HaeoisLdnePous npaFromExULashVA Subject Cgusstel Lrthae Tc ayiela oes Posmea|A 222.02G Ley s1 Age LA Pe Genet Loy|wt bres fox.Loa Za athh,BurnGitasZeKatsant'Via stay eT nae gp KeZcencetL)Lukt,ZJZ aek Vee |omniRacthaePZLoewsaclLlpatesLasteloxtorecoFenBetsLoLace.L Lak:4x.oeeengsharwatsPhased!7CIEPA-98 Geccttc tang!ne atoneALLJorckcantedLivaltonps', JOB NO. SHEET NO._ZOFEekeCK.BY.DATE Adjust /(re GAL Lia Dol Cos Xe elarer ,"nw aS to Larvaned peat:ihReferencesimetytog4EeBe FacG]ase nn te Wann §pect by Paw ev t where ad +o wvAescemptinns+Cos ts will ke ie,came>'s /,A vwTO te fseck]OMeanThe Scatiha bhnyn Fo DFM Case,xwe \.NéWwNaNA}WyNNWw8©Ls [ad so the amo b é ema got om aHtes ches'shank s Base Cane A djushreng- SEATTLE TO LNALASEA ISLAND MOBILISATION AND DCEMOBRILISATION CrsT ESTIMATE Two 23 3/78"Freductiom Wells and Cre Madify Evia for Helicopter Transport Ria Mobilization to Unalazka ITeland F40.000 37.000 Shapeira to Unalaska Island (Driftwood Bay; Barge & Loadirrs md Twa 1, Terming Dutch Harbor Warehouse (4 months) Treezkirea oon Una lazka Ria Demobrvlizatacn Landima Craft Shipping fe Seathls Spot Charaez 14 caontatoers @ $125.40 per comtainer Shipeirs SO0,000 Tb @ $0.1093/71b Terminal Tatad 100,000 Te @ FO.01/To Unleading 1,100,000 Tb @ £0.01/1b 14,500 14.50 350 2m.mnt 47,000 30.C0 1,756 4,eS B/E"Ingectiorn Weld 1So0,900 Powe Alten nate SEATTLE TO UNALASKEA ISLANE MOBILISATION AND CEMOBILISATION COST ESTIMATE scerarie 3 13 3/5"Production Welle and Ore i3 3/75" Modify Eva for Helicopter Transport. Ria Mebilization to Unalazka ;Boca d BaTelaredpanifiedetpgemeem ry Ie @ £O.01/1b lb @ $0.02/176 Shapeara te Unialaska Barae amd Tua Loadirrva 1,200.0008 WUrloadira t,200.000 Terminal Dutch Harter Warehouse (4 momthie) Treackidrra oon Lirnalacka Ria Demabalizcataier Landirna Craft Stei me-Sezath le Spat Char ae IFcamtatrrer =@ $125.40percontainer SkhoirprainaSuo,000 Te @ 0.190%3/1b Terminal Total Eave>30 @ bSu/enPie 24,a ho vou hve os sper Injectacr Weld Cust teed,seedotveraSHONRelicopterCt tery 20,cen (As44 *F3acludesshee 4"a te).e 4,069 a eres 14,500 14,500 a ee FO2rDatte .Assanwsca ta eldsaah)Z9,009 aL OCs ee CLU¢Cagneers eaporared pvpJ)-=-Z pate SUBJECT. La eev + jE ITT s LK _ 7 Mud = =Mwy) 7 Mi 746,LT [o/uw 1,114,437 [bfha STEAM JOB NO. SHEET NO.OF CK.BY.DATE DOJ CLE FLASH 659,202 (b/w 7/0,297 Ib Jw FLIy)a 13,241 [ShoCr4PBKTur Ln) (205,537 Ib /roe(24 pss Tarb L.) 4 : 59,266 off.Si+54 874 thpre (ro ays ob -_-70,092 Ih une 3)Pe >ef.82,337 be (4,495K ae \ySUBJECT.JOB NO.C20ler SHEET NO._..OFAEEoarefoCostEstParecoilPRsAOE 1.CL,KL?(FOY,f?zO-20-7W7. Alf ow rte A Pesce "7 Efe fev elle sed Egy +4,8 St,534 40 6,806,004 Eauap Las pllhabinn |,S/o,43?=12S,BT Last,F Con Peo(p Costllt)363,G43 2.0 S/d,SSO Cush tled)606,595 -50 850,750 Efeclere Vinstehled )7036 27 5.8 786 E70 Bld.2 Cone loclig Sevvrees )727),890 6,0 7 020,700 ard Trap roceneF 5 8s,772 is 2 $5 225 SereZrecl hres 981,650 8)1,378,21S Land [21,315 10 170,15°ee aed 5 3 /.oenoPSHGoe%s 19 287,ol'£4,105,ys Prob fiajecbimm Lime 243,703 z,524,608 Enjv %Fp 7.0 Cost rf Ex pen re 9,1 Chptre pees Fee,OH 3.0 , .Zz Pers Lk \_>-_-/1ethod LD bene lev s Z Ti nan thn ee .2+Ed yp MeGruy Hi YG68,rod*Chan;cabh Eveineers''phan book ,cEd.,° big dhe,Cand Afptoach =Foo p L257CGa .Cond¢Tet |Hf A?'Li?LP N-C Eres ---Dents Soy DEm Tc Gas A/C Cvars 'Ge'< :Q Ena?Zt ey ee 7D 3 (31 a NN Pips 13 7 (8 +7 378 -7 --5 iSGoncveheymz3Ss3302/6 ¢13 3 N >gsteel---a Inst a z ¢Ss zee 14 3 2 i+Ele f _+--¢Lo 28¢b z/f Ln sul //z Z &3 oY --- Cant -oa -_---==-_- Totel Mat,45397 40 24 57 ey 4,4o/250 oS {7S 3¢ Erection f 2,52)20 if 29 4%[,600 bf 20 76 (s av<¢pre --------a----_-_--aee Total 44678 be 43 Ble )(ed 600}S186 75 2S5/4?aesLtant)?24 53 oO |BSul og DOME SUBJECT.JOB NO. Engreas Iaperared SHEET NO._/_OFaLiZZpare1/7 CK.BY.DATE Tro Lickin Lene V8 ace Conse Fram Bute Con pe ke tt a ol 72x ,)Aave 1se,'of te pl;4 : ; vf S200"v bath Si Cem an Zee i zoAoneFran=eakrn p>plow .I VY£x Par rien nt.Assan ia /.LAs neha Le|Asseuree weet bead eo cf sopacadar vey ine,ane epee eleewhurd,frrom hl To (Piney Space Foy + 15-43 24°$TO OT 2S09 OF #4447)...25.3 MA 5 5/ A -¢3 (vo welding)-"4 153,678 6322.5 MH Assume 3 I E</Loop atery 400"10°Pipe Lan sth Need 7 lou ps )LB-Jo”?Elb our Hove nS Pipe welds nl E fbous 2B ea 41126 few I1.c Me lek Cinch welding[s-73 24”Go'LR #31 584 $37.6 mr Fi -29%Yea 4 775fer 4.6 Mit fox Gel:tucld ed15-43 iso#RE WN : 4 Zoo 38.4 MIH ___ Boft u S-ry”zea 93/en 8.3 Jen(5-72 isu wfges ket2sted'set #Se (6.6 Me 1 S-44 Freld evection [Tr Fenw a IF.MewJjeiathaHweldsz400MH/ew24"ste wt AY 08,s4S Mah le 36475\M1H @I 33:10 /w a Nha 941+otal .w/o Sappots ,Pipe Cs5t 7 F#ao8,S36 1S-4344 [3-76 CDOS SUBJECT.JOB NO. SHEET NO..ZOF CK.BY.OATEBylZZ_pare 1/2. 2"Prize Suppoede -Span 3%"(Conk)A)ssUwe dvclhaf pin Sap ports hace 728 support Each PT Per P-a Aurcvete =«VSG Cu yd .lor,Stay [VWinwwb Fr4ot4wtPrpe=9”Ct!embeded )Jou" 4"x 1”x16"plate >Law tA ea (209 rd steel) .Curse /w fdsoo)Exncave ted Heber ial =Bley 3 ty 8 434 +Std wt Aeszyo fros' No.b Yo Pige 4+7,41B/oo Stride Plate AcsacnlTyet»,10"Trayel Hara (7 s-5 1H Shaft epeavatinn Fofey Lemerete Vt my 3644 IH [eyyp7FE fadaeAeDeitinsPdacecontvece %or40 96-3 Zam tettls =Fuses +#4439 4 Fay 776 +(+401 +175,05 +76.3 +23)'23,, =B sey Me-” fr w]id et Prge enbeldil £.U lena thaefraeterafo 36 ey 6 mid [iceo'+.6 my Loetd "42 MH 3569 Mt =4eoI1MN(f 2U$moe Cael veldiny ) ry C DUE SUBJECT.JOB NO. Engrees reonporared SHEET NO.72_OFBYL2Z7__DATE uf , CK.BY.DATE Lnsalath yon -VS $ume 3°boll sof wt EO jpacbehrsCG T WyFonret-3 3-04 /,(4 mit [erforv4"Pics 3000 MHtnthAlTact982,bow sl 1US Boe Summary -747%Liw -t/4 >2 peeling 7 ifLAabr-¢Mote ale On vA Cas asf ”306,526SappretsCosFSH11 Zausuf C27 ts,ese .4478,+98 CLUS SUBJECT.JOB NO.SHEET NO."ZOFBY_Z2YF4 DATE wtfo CK.BY DATE (Crimacg Sap seater (>Flt: ieZO shenn Line }Sro0v ”std uw ¢-}30°spa,eles etn Su ofS,te (Lon sfLs (t60 wel;t Evy tovg Evry You'Crs Loops,SrelbousFheFuppet.as Lv.2¢"|Ad ao po-43 20”std wt G20 af #sors froo!DUI MHf,1/99 MH42641%#38039 (5-93 El re"sth?Steg 4aay fem 16.4 MH fe (afese/t)LRwHN f E527,681 tfYO,OF Fre 228 sau fF lamsys 7 Golt-reps ww plat cectiinn 1S-44 Krell Evetian 260 ea 14 HeeTepatRattus-20"32¢0 Mi A l20,48Y Su poet?(Lev ton)-#600 .$3 4294 Jew #106,(Ered=r)Jo Press wpe”staelsw phate+fie rhe Lasultion St00o er AY aya he 1-3 MH)geal Sif -G76o MH ufatl Teef #147,636 x 223,956 Sum ward -ro"-Sepav eon A Ph# , Pipe Cort a 436 033 Pap pen 7 Gs7 708,18% Zr gnlehin alt 374 57 tel F 965,8/3 CLUMG SUBJECT.JOB NO. SHEET NO-_OFsyiJZZ_pate iL.2 CK.BY.DATE Feinnacg Sop A Fi.f Conzt 'L)| ya ped Ts Plase Liaw -Stov"std wt,Ln25°"span (Assure 46,wake 4a,nt Yn 19%ft vO”fi sr Wes ty y Wom t wma Kee hae:of d v-KuenceastrapresaveCnareedCommunTupot zLT<ex foo ever Wom'a [eoss,Srel7apoorewaltrpoflawmatsFbPieghed is-3 14 sth of SloolF 1333 3fooe (7 MH...(w/o weld in)Foy.Berit4173,36 Y24,949 15-43 E/b "19's kf Se ea #30 9.51 fem /L.%pir}fe w fave hens )LR wn 4 ott BMtt ; /6,095 421 343 (5 -4¢Fie lef Erect Lb0uebd>[2.7 rr few 7 302MFointBul/welds.we” £04246 Cs<e previous est Low to”) /5-@r Ln pealeFioc Supp wats S2tvvlF Sse FS mH /LFZB"caee 5//vfal Sucker i &SIFELMIH129,376 (6S,23 Sum may -/¢-Suparotin A FL Pipe Coal 44999 suppon ty GQeF -(06,/8e La paleHin Oa __28 5,563 Total T4744 bYCd. [5- CDOS SUBJECT.JOB NO. SHEET NO.OFBYA/ZZ pare 4 CK.BY DATE Fox Can y y Pog maMeComereteoeefractavelseefst gal hes proved:GLe re -feprow.des spon lee lera HH."CoeeCP lh C2")ot ehess/,The bev'Ane thd iy "/Jrieo'spn =p AML o Lt ey aeheel= S-S7 Ase Largest Truss AVA:lel Ce.)Qspune 4 ro"eae”ip amTK46-zee So'TR 46°Aor 50 /ee 3.55 r1f/en bassenble) Nag /fr fv Torrapn spans Addu =(29)(se)=/0,750 Ts tal '(S660 +C3.JG)367 =77,937 eat Fo East.r oo'spay 7)nv jm a o4S beng at =C4315 # Pipe UA whweter Ft =Its LEP atto"=204,38#LK' Tott wt=63,We fro!of uy'!4AAsSte3felwtDressoweys£V¥Ze4s2,Pr Comino aA ?'_af ff A 5 +std c/7 Sige (uv 4633fe0'10M Hay'Fin +6 16/2X%BIS*S 23WpriaeWelds:vees ©.971 em SI,UMT(gla 96%Starrs =63203 422,069 - Tree Add 1-0 °G fov oO 4 Male (Eber ) C20 SUBJECT JOB NO. SHEET NO.27_OFeviZZZ2oneLa"ey mae Totd Wealbs 85000PappodoroYpleces Astunn tees (hfexr 55,/ Need 177 ff*+ear Capac"or Sd "O°app oF _-'a /,," :a meee LN "2 5 _F - | |: -po ' aa OF Topel oF 5 S26 Gu Y bY 66 jr Sup Z3607s?[So USxXB*S/ Bhemo& ;577,OPOTALptSaoOre A Aro /,_746 y2retfSa aa Me°o /C t/fn Siyp act Las Wa BI /ey ia-_S3oto gs? @ DOMWEl SUBJECT JOB NO.Enger s Meaperaed SHEET NO.2_OFBY.1 2-.DATE CK.BY.DATE st 3 Sle nw joo ft Lela.Loh aad €tu¢y so'OG EE.Yn a "faisCoremconebh(40 Fr Loup 7 4,i)tr Fy yg BsustataLSHYer©=°4Om CAweve.ati SIP (s 956 bsArnelBolts(002°Guess te 4 foe at Tota B33/°Lahbe Crved ;/3,0°47'es Lay id Brhkt af 27"thrk 1M,-47,05 Mi a a A ; Counce FeF0 69s /q fo,o4t/ Ebr zito SO78 S795 Even wow k /54%57 SB %Fo AnebhuBel +s serv 23/0 4.3/0 Geen 2970 6256 4,22 -- A 26,516 C20Uer SUBJECT 108 NO. A.ae SHEET NO.OFpate128CK.BY DATE--x Car yAHijieBerd sg fern y Tres Ses 4 Tose SHee/ Sua wets Ma fled baler Z1f,otfssst 54,3887 Big33,e¢3 764/86 Bua sel GC DOWE SUBJECT.JOB NO. Crngneers incorporated SHEET no.OFBYLLZZpare11/7 CK.BY.DATE (Char dlen- Zin pebrer Line Alt Case - =/j _14”Os std wt rr ."7 Ast -Geh |Or"?2x9 of -Assn rar lan ths,wel Js ={LoRrekanLeon15-43 5 A-Lripecosts %S333./0 11:ff,=/7.%Cerec fre.2 Aarlline,) (eebard sn--MH =lv.7 tvs ld ne "o vat IT-44,pr Cpe PF J. 500'0.4.04 fer,Torf 2,350x: .oak,DG %rap ¢7, |aL))-6dbat/ra Eve Lite leben Pi pe Cos 7 33,324 437 MTF (Spe Me Lab Kate wd [vereti ts Ass ys fr Tul lL:Gos fF wfso =E38 328 Tt 66 Gy/J LL bec LU '/ f ticll Laan S valves )=4 SO 2 69 ° A wreldeny Other s0ts;oor CS Han 5 2 237 a Z25.$MH y Cate Visl vu S SES 4,8 Hu yy?ia 1 Carty Valve 4 3900 en 7 pinot, |Check /elve 2000 om 4,4 Kit weld, 30.Fo'FIb 3 OUW Ion 2.)mit weld-y|How avlre Slain Wa Fisve en 2 Me well |Keck 300 en GP.44 5 Bolf-ags 13UB7 7,3 CD00 = Sarrma vq -pe sult La;(aoe w/e Exe 7 SHEET NO.2 OF DATE JOB NO. eiclZA _pate fa CK.BY 72"Natl LaborSich,Flanges 42370 Food |Goa Ke SAS 1Lo av 080 364 \COL Vow Leooo 1L0 3 oO qo°E 728s 7050 ;Peli Sk /5¢0°265 !Pe af Sov get Be/f-ups 48h 208 24639 (3,7 +RecEhUf __ 7'Ge 83,§23 Caaf san t Lea p perValvesminedGpee'alhie ¢29,639 Add jo lo Ly Mrse dugin yalye VenValvesOA,'eke Exe g Rech Mat/L#¢"7 bend rs Pe! bb 96/150,787 "3s 12,72 43,30) Zos,oc0a 20,$00 Totl =ztSeoo0 (7,29% at \\sé DOWE!SUBJECT.JOB NO. cngriees heaporred SHEET NO-_OF BY_2.)£Z_DATE _&%CK.BY.DATE Cy cave.te z Back hef Lersoo”Dap th 2 #Lud her'Execevehe tL er =pws FF?(for L =566 ? Use Rickard sen c-ke Pa 1 peek 2 ede -Use 4%"Cove ereavetaExec(2seq 2 Lue7 ,0/09 (ace sof fol.)( =89SS Cy yds. elt Aaseme Siete (ta Pu'33°7]-wiph 214"Lit Buchek Pee22 fee Labere W247 @ 40.5 0h oy. aT Aes)2 Ay Lahey =4s ys feyExe(ube ant,)=83,089 Fo $4 beorTraLhehTbeAvetlyah?)=Fo448 Pnckholl fd Copa tiemvatnmy=Pasp(2,ae =A x20 BAe AA (ot!|8 yeasSubeetraclBarret4(pecs -f.BY-4/0,r155 A Ba