Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix C-1Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX C-1 COAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DRAFT Prepared for Harza Engineering Company and the Alaska Power Authority by Marvin L.Feldman Glenn R.Cass of Dames &Moore San Francisco Draft April 1984 Chapter INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYI. Il. IIl. Iv. COAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose Scope Major Assumptions Summary of Coal Resources,Transportation and End-Use Facilities Results and Conclusions RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENT Alaskan Sources Imported Coal Sources Coal Requirements for Electrical Generation and Space Heating TRANSPORTATION OF COAL TO BETHEL AND COAL SURROUNDING VILLAGES Coal Transportation from Mine to Bethel Coal Transportation from Bethel Dock to Power Plant Distribution of Coal for Space Heating Requirements Cost Analysis Transportation of Coal from Bethel to Surrounding Villages FOR SPACE HEATING Coal Space Heating for Residences Coal Space Heating for Public and Commercial Buildings Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for Coal-Fired Space Heating TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section V.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COAL SUPPLY PLANS Air Quality Water Quality Land Use VI.ECONOMIC RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Results Conclusions REFERENCES EXHIBITS -ii- LIST OF TABLES Title A Comparison of Purchase Cost and Quality of Imported Coal Services for Bethel Barge Costs for Service to Bethel --Dillingham Maritime Estimated Installed Cost of a Residential Coal Stove Coal Stove Emission Factors Estimated Emission Rates Expected From Coal-Fired Convection Stoves in Bethel,Alaska iii- Page II-6 III-2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Schematic Diagram of Proposed Coal Handling and Distribution Systems in Bethel Summary of Coal Costs by End-Use Category and Sources Total Net Present Values of Coal Energy Supply Plans for Selected Coal Sources Physical and Economic Characteristics of Alaskan Coal Occurrences Demand Forecast of Coal Requirements by Community Proposed Coal Unloading System and Temporary Stockpile at Petroleum Products Dock in Bethel Cost of Transporting Coal to Bethel by Barge and Rail Daily Lease Rates for Crowley Maritime Tug and Barge Equipment Capital Costs for Alternative A Replacement Costs for Capital Equipment and Expected Useful Life Summary of Annual Equipment and Operator Requirements for Alternative A Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Levelized Annual Costs for Coal Trans- portation within Bethel Cost of Transporting Coal and Diesel from Bethel to Surrounding Communities Number of Residential,Public,and Commercial Buildings in the Bethel Area -iv- LIST OF EXHIBITS (Cont'd) Exhibit No.Title 16 Capital and Operating Costs for Coal-Fired Space Heating Systems 17 Alaska and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 18 Estimated Ambient Concentrations Under a Weak Lapse Rate Due to Coal-Fire Convection Stoves in Bethel, Alaska --V- Chapter I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of using coal to supply part or all of the electrical generation and space heating needs of the study area.*This information is developed as part oftheBethelAreaPowerPlan,a feasibility study conducted by Harza Engineering Company and sponsored by the Alaska Power Authority. The economic component of the analysis will provide input to one or more energy supply plans which are presented in the Regional Report.This will allow an economic comparison of coal energy supply plans with plans based on other energy sources. An energy supply plan is defined as one or more energy supply options which together meet a specified demand for electricity and space heat. Scope The scope of this study includes analysis of: 1.Coal resources available to the study area. 2 Costs to mine and transport coal from source. 3.Conceptual design and cost of coal handling facilities in Bethel. 4,Determination of end-use cost per ton of coal from each of the identified coal sources. 5.Determination of the net present value of the costs of the designated coal supply system over the life of the project. 6.A preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts and regulatory complexity of the proposed coal energy supply plan(s). *The study area comprises the City of Bethel plus 12 nearby villages. The cost analysis is economic rather than financial in nature.This means that costs are determined without considera- tion of the sources of revenue or ownership of capital facili- ties.This economic analysis,therefore,indicates the total cost to the State of Alaska and the citizens of the study areawithoutconsiderationofinstitutionalmechanismsor_ con- straints.Once the energy supply plan with the lowest economic cost is identified,the Alaska Power Authority can proceed to detailed feasibility studies. Major Assumptions Specific assumptions appear throughout this study.For convenience,the most basic economic and conceptual modeling assumptions are listed below. Economic Assumptions Key economic assumptions are as follows: l.Inflation rate:zero. 2.Inflation-free present value discount rate:3.5 per- cent. 3.Project life:58 years. 4.Profit or rate of return on capital investment:zero. Modeling Assumptions Key modeling assumptions are as follows: 1.Coal supplies all of the area's electrical require- ments by a central steam turbine power plant in Bethel with interties to all twelve villages in the study area.It was later found that it was not economically feasible to intertie some villages (see Appendix E). However,because of the small electrical requirements of these villages,it would affect the total coal demand by less than 1 percent,which is negligible. 2.Eighty percent of the space heating requirements are met by direct combustion of coal. 3.The electrical and space heating requirements are those specified by Darbyshire &Associates in their report of 10/15/82. 4.Of approximately 87,000*tons per year required under the above assumptions,23,000*tons per year are used for electric generation,36,000*tons are sacked and distributed for small space heat users,and an addi- tional 38,000*tons are distributed in bulk for the larger public and commercial buildings in Bethel. Summary of Coal Resources, Transportation and End-Use Facilities Bethel is a deep water port offering sufficient draft for ocean going barges.Therefore,coal sources for Bethel need not be restricted to nearby sources.The cost to imine coal from the existing Usibelli mine in Healy,Alaska and from 14 other unde- veloped Alaskan sources,and the types and availability of coal, are discussed in Chapter II.Chapter II also presents costs and quality of coal from Utah,Powder River Basin,Vancouver,and Prince Rupert. Coal requirements for the study area total approximately 87,000*tons per year.Of this amount,23,000*would be re- quired for electrical generation,and 64,000*tons for space heating requirements (see Chapter II). Coal from the mine source will be transported by barge to Bethel.The petroleum products (resources)dock presently under construction in Bethel can accommodate barges of up to 10,000 tons.However,for cost comparison purposes,6,900-ton barges are assumed.The cost per ton carried varies with distance, with costs ranging from $13 to $58 per ton.In a few cases, Alaska coal occurrences are not accessible to deep water.In these cases,500 to 2,000-ton barges are assumed,with costs ranging to $60 per ton. In addition to the barge costs,coal from Utah,Powder River Basin,Usibelli and Broad Pass would require rail trans- portation to tidewater.This adds from $15 to $44 per ton to the transportation costs (see Chapter III). Once coal is delivered to Bethel,it is unloaded at the new petroleum products (resources)dock.Exhibit 1 shows the coal handling facilities concept proposed for moving coal in Bethel. Coal handling in Bethel is estimated to cost: *Unless specified,requirement is expressed in terms of 10,000 Btu per pound ton equivalents. Pier to power plant stockpile:$10.69/ton Sacked 58.38/ton Bulk distribution 8.08/ton Power plant use 4.74/ton Coal for the space heat in the villages would be distrib- uted by the existing barge service provided by United Transpor- tation.On a weighted average basis,this transportation link would add $44.67 per ton to the cost of coal (see Chapter III). Burning coal for space heating requires the purchase of coal stoves or furnaces.All of the residences and most of the commercial and public buildings could be heated by simple con- vective coal stoves.The remaining medium size buildings and primary schools would require central furnaces.A few larye complexes in Bethel would require conversion of existing diesel- fired boilers or large forced-air furnaces to coal (see Chap- ter IV). Results and Conclusions The economic results of the analysis described above are summarized in Exhibits 2 and 3.Derivation of these exhibits is described in Chapter VI. The ultimate economic attractiveness of a coal energy sup- ply plan cannot be evaluated until the cost of the coal-fired generation system is factored in.Then the coal energy supply plan can be compared with alternative supply plans based on other energy sources.However,on the basis of the information developed to date,the following conclusions can be drawn: 1.It is technically and economically feasible to ship coal to the Bethel area from as far away as Utah. 2.Capital investment requirements for developing a coal handling infrastructure in Bethel total $3.4 million (1982 dollars). 3.The net present value of capital equipment replacement costs total $5.5 million (1982 dollars). 4.The capital investment required to replace the exist- ing diesel space heating system with coal-fired equip- ment is $26.0 million (1982 dollars). These capital expenditures,plus the annual operation, maintenance,and fuel purchase and transportation costs,result in a net present value of $227 million (1982 dollars)for Cape Beaufort coal,the least costly undeveloped coal occurrence. Prince Rupert,the least costly developed source,has a net present value of $318 million.These can be converted (see Chapter III)to levelized annual costs of $9.5 and $13.3 million (1982 dollars),respectively,for Utah and Cape Beaufort and Prince Rupert coal-fired energy supply plans. The cost of coal (including the levelized cost of capital equipment and operation and maintenance)can be compared to the cost of diesel fuel.Assuming Prince Rupert coal is used,costs can be compared as follows: Coal Diesel Assumed Cost Per Ton Cost Per Ton Diesel End-Use Equivalent Equivalent Cost (S$/gal.) Power plant $92.55 $197.0 @$1.35 Sacked/Bethel 136.64 204.0 @s1.40 Sacked/villages 172.66 226.0 @S1.55 Bulk/Bethel 95.22 197.0 @$1.35 These cost comparisons indicate that coal is a much less costly fuel than diesel,even when the high costs of transporta- tion and sacking are included.However,these results are pre- liminary.Again,final results must compare the net present value of the coal system with its diesel counterpart,including both capital and fuel costs. Assuming that development of coal energy sources are indi- cated,arrangements should be made to obtain a 5 to 10 year con- tract for Prince Rupert or Utah coal,and for transportation of that coal to Bethel.As the term of this contract draws to a close,the imported coal's costs should be compared with the least costly available Alaskan source.If the Alaskan source proves more economical than the Prince Rupert coal (as this report indicates it will),contracts can be negotiated to convert to this local source coal. Chapter II COAL RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENT Bethel offers sufficient draft for ocean-going barges of up to 10,000 tons;therefore,coal for Bethel need not be restrict- ed to nearby sources.This idea will be further developed in Chapter III which discusses transportation modes.This section evaluates all developed or potential coal sources for Bethel. Alaskan sources,sources from the Lower 48 and Canada,and es- timated Bethel coal requirements are discussed. Alaskan Sources With 1.9 trillion tons of indicated or inferred coal re- serves,Alaska has the majority of the U.S.coal resources (1). Only a tiny fraction of this potential resource has been developed or is under active consideration for development. Exhibit 4 summarizes the physical and economic characteristics of Alaska coal resources. Nenana District The Nenana coal field extends for about 80 miles along the north flank of the Alaska Range,between the headwaters of the Wood River on the east and the Kantishna River on the west. Tertiary coal-bearing rocks outcrop in a discontinuous belt generally ranging from 1 to 30 miles in width.The rocks have been folded and faulted into a series of basins,between which they are either eroded away or covered by younyer Tertiary or Quaternary deposits.The coal-bearing formations include a large number of subbituminous coal beds,ranging from a few inches to 60 feet in thickness.Total source figures based on a detailed survey indicate approximately 6,940 million tons. The structure of most of the individual basins is simple; the beds are broken by a few faults and compressed into open folds with moderate to low dips.At the east end of the Healy creek basin nearly vertical to slightly overturned beds were measured near the axis of a faulted syncline. The Nenana coal field is served by the Alaska Railroad, which follows the Nenana River across the center of the field. Principal development and coal production to date has been on Healy Creek,from an underground mine at Suntrana,and two strip mines farther upstream.A strip mine was operated for a few years during and after World War II on the western extension of *Numbers in parentheses refer to references at the end of this Appendix. II-1 the same beds about 4 miles southwest of Healy.A strip mine was opened in 1955 on Lignite Creek.All other parts of the field are remote from present transportation and are undeveloped. The Usibelli mine near Healy is the only operating coal mine in Alaska.This mine utilizes modern surface mining equip- ment to produce about 800,000 tons per year for use mainly in the Fairbanks area.Its subbituminous coal reserves are suffi- cient for large-scale export contracts under future consider- ation.Although no large scale exports have yet occurred,the Usibelli mine apparently contains ample reserves to meet the relatively small requirements of the Bethel area. Under long-term contract,coal could be obtained from Usi- belli for $28.35 per ton (2).The coal would be delivered by rail to Seward,and then barged to Bethel (see Chapter III). The analysis of the Usibelli coal is as follows: Heat Content 7850 Btu/lb Ash 6-7 percent Sulphur 0.2 percent Moisture 27 percent Fixed carbon 36 percent Volatiles 40 percent Grindability 29-45 hargrove Size 2 inch or smaller The Beluga coal field northwest of Anchorage is being con- sidered for development,either for methanol production or as a large-scale (multi-million ton)port for export to Pacific Rim countries.If Beluga is developed as a port,it would be an inexpensive source for Bethel. Bering River District The City of Cordova is considering the feasibility of de- veloping its nearby Bering River deposits.These coals are bituminous to anthracite,but occur in highly folded beds which will be expensive to mine.It is too early to accurately assess whether these coals would be an attractive source for Bethel. Apart from the Usibelli mine,and possibly Beluga,no Alas- kan coal sources will be available for Bethel use for at least ten years.Ten years is the minimum lead-time necessary to conduct feasibility studies,prepare a mine plan,acquire title,obtain the necessary permits,and bring the mine into production. II-2 The following briefly discusses some considerations for development of Alaska coal occurrences,in order of decreasing attractiveness for use in Bethel. Cape Beaufort/Corwin Bluff District Coal-bearing Cretaceous rocks are known or inferred to underlie this area.These rocks,consisting mainly of alternat- ing layers of sandstone and shale,have been folded into east- ward-trending anticlines and synclines.Because of differences in resistance of the rocks to erosion,the folds are expressed topographically by the general east-west alignment of the ridges and valleys.Near the mountains the folding and faulting has been more intense,and in places the strata stand nearly vertical.In the northern foothills,which include the southernmost coal-bearing rocks,deformation has been only moderate.Farther north under the Coastal plain the beds are nearly horizontal.Far to the west,along the coast south of Cape Lisburne,bituminous coal is exposed in several places in strongly folded and faulted Mississippian rocks. Cape Beaufort/Corwin Bluff District coals are attractive for use in Bethel because of their high quality and proximity to tidewater.Reconnaissance exploration is underway this summer by the Alaska Geological Survey to determine the extent and mineability of these coals.Assuming that these occurrences prove promising,these coals could be mined not only for Bethel, but also for the cities of Kotzebue,Nome,Wainwright,Dilling- ham and Barrow. A mine of several hundred thousand tons per year in this area could provide coal for Bethel at a very reasonable price. Even at a scale of mining of 80,000 tons per year,suitable for one or two of the above cities,coal could possibly be econo- mically mined.Stefano &Associates,in connection with APA's Kotzebue District Heating Study (3),developed the following preliminary estimates for opening an 80,000 tons per year mine at Cape Beaufort: $/ton Mine development &camp facilities $11.87 Road construction at mine 7.87 Construction of trans-loading and/or quay 2.10 Mining,hauling,loading 27.27 Royalty 1.00 TOTAL Cost F.O.B.Mine $50.11 II-3 To be conservative,the estimated cost (F.O.B.mine)used in this report is $60.00 per ton.Because of ice conditions,the shipping season for Cape Beaufort coals is limited to the three to four month summer season. Alaska Peninsula Although of lower rank,the Herendeen Bay and Chignik coal fields are attractive because of their fairly good quality and access to tidewater.Like the Cape Beaufort coals,however, these occurrences have the disadvantage of remote locations.In addition,very little is known about the mineability of these coals,apart from the fact that they occur in reasonably thick beds. Chicago Creek Area Significant coal deposits (late Cretaceous age)are known on the Kugruk River,about 15 miles west of Candle,where coal beds have been opened on the river about 4 miles south of Chicago Creek,and on Chicago Creek about a mile above its mouth.These coals are unattractive because of both their low rank and their shallow draft access. Kobuk River Area Coal-bearing rocks that are probably Late Cretaceous occur at several widely scattered localities in a belt that extends along the Kobuk River and eastward to the headwaters of the Koyukuk river.The westernmost locality is on the north side of the Kobuk between Trinity creek and the Kallarichuk river,where several thin coal beds,only a few of which are as much a 2 feet thick,are exposed in the river bluffs.Some of this coal was mined for use in the nearby placer gold fields.An analysis of a coal sample from this locality indicates that it is on the borderline between subbituminous and bituminous.Other reported coal localities in the Kobuk basin are on the Hunt,lower Ambler,and Kogoluktuk Rivers,and in the Lockwood Hills near the Pah River. Other Alaskan Sources The Matanuska coals were developed for use in the Anchorage area,primarily at Elmendorf Air Force Base.This mine is now closed.For Bethel use,these coals would require transport by truck to the Port of Anchorage.At present,Anchorage has no coal handling facilities,although development of such facili- ties is being considered by the Alaska Railroad. II-4 Despite their high quality,Nulato and Flat District coals are infeasible due to high transportation costs since they would be carried by shallow draft river barges of 500 tons or less. Similarly,because of transportation considerations,development of coal from the North Slope is very unlikely despite its very large extent. Coals from Broad Pass,Chignik and Susitna are impractical for use in Bethel because of their low rank.Coals from Nunivak and Nelson Islands are unsuitable for Bethel because of their questionable mineability,apparently small resources,and prob- able difficulties with land status. Imported Coal Sources Four major coal sources on the West Coast of the Lower 48 and Canada are:Utah,Powder River Basin (Wyoming/Montana),and Prince Rupert and Vancouver,B.C.(Roberts Bank).Each source could supply commercial quality thermal coal to a major port city for shipment to Bethel.Bethel's requirements are but a small fraction of the millions of tons these sources produce annually.The relative attractiveness of these coals for Bethel depends,therefore,on their quality,their cost F.0O.B.the mine,and their transportation costs.The latter factors are discussed in Chapters III and IV.The cost and quality of the four imported coals are compared in Table II-l. From Table II-l,it is apparent that any of these coals is of adequate quality for electrical generation.The Powder River Basin coal's relatively lower heat content is a disadvantage for space heating.As discussed in Chapters III and IV,this dis- advantage more than offsets the advantage of its relatively low cost F.O.B.mine.Utah coal and the B.C.coals are available in washed form (size 1-5/8 x 3/8 inches).This is an advantage in reducing coal dust nuisance and possible water pollution pro- blems (see Chapter V). Coal Requirements for Electrical Generation and Space Heating Coal can be used effectively to meet some or all of the electrical and space heating needs of Bethel and the surroundingvillages.Under alternative supply plans,different amounts of coal would be used.However,to bracket the maximum amount of coal required for the Bethel area,the entire projected energy requirements for electricity and space heating were converted to ton-equivalents of coal.The coal requirement by community is summarized on Exhibit 5. TI-5 Table II-1 A COMPARISON OF PURCHASE COST AND QUALITY OF IMPORTED COAL SERVICES FOR BETHEL Prince Powder River Vancouver Rupert Utah Coal Basin Coal Coal Coal Cost FOB mine $34.00 $12.00 $7.30 -- ($per ton) Rank Bituminous Subbituminous Bituminous Bituminous Heat Content 12,400 9,300 11,000 12,400 (Btu's per pound) Ash (percent)7 3.6 16.0 15.00 Sulphur (percent)0.7 0.3 0.25 0.4 Moisture (percent)7.0 24.5 10.0 1.2 Fixed Carbon (percent)46.0 40.0 55.50-58.5 61.00 Volatiles (percent)42.0 31.8 24.00-29.00 22.5 Grindability (Hargrove)45 N.A.N.A.85 Size (inches)1-5/8 x 3/16 1-5/8 x 0 2.0 x 0 1/8x2 For convenience,all tonnages are expressed on a 10,000 Btu per pound basis,since different coals have different heat va- lues.To determine the actual tonnages of a particular coal, multiply the indicated tonnage by a heat content factor of 10,000 divided by the Btu's per pound of the coal in question. For example,Cape Beaufort coal has a heat content of 13,000 Btu's per pound.The heat content factor is thus: Heat Content Factor =10,000 =0.7692 13,000 Thus,in 2002,the City of Bethel requires:53,660 x 0.7692 = 41,275 tons of Cape Beaufort coal to satisfy its space heating requirements (see Exhibit 5). II-6 In several of the supply plans,coal-fired steam turbines provide hot water for district heating.However,on Exhibit 5, the heat and electrical demand were treated independently.To calculate the coal needed for electrical generation,the esti- iated electrical requirements will be met by a coal-fired gene- rator with an assumed ultimate efficiency of 27 percent.This assumes a conversion efficiency of 33 percent at the power plant,with an additional 6 percent of the coal energy,or 18 percent of the electrical energy,lost in transmission and distribution. In converting space heating requirements to coal,it is assumed that coal is burned with the identical efficiency as existing space heating devices.This is conservative in that coal stoves regularly operate with combustion efficiencies in excess of the most commonly used existing stove oil furnaces. As seen on Exhibit 5,the vast majority of energy is used for space heating rather than electric generation (about 64,000 tons per year for 80 percent coal space heat versus about 23,000 tons for electrical generation).Of the 64,000 tons per year used for 80 percent of the space heating,54,000 tons are used in the City of Bethel,with the remaining 10,000 tons used in the villages.All electricity generation from coal is presumed to be generated within Bethel,because village-scale electric generation using coal is not economically feasible.Central generation in Bethel for the electrical requirements of all areas presumes that the villages will be intertied by an elec- tric grid. II-7 Chapter III TRANSPORTATION OF COAL TO BETHEL AND SURROUNDING VILLAGES The economic attractiveness of coal as an alternative fuel source for Bethel depends as much on transportation costs to the point of use as it does on the cost at its source.The trans- portation system can be divided into three components: 1.From the mine to Bethel 2.Coal transportation within Bethel 3.Coal transportation to surrounding villages These three components are discussed below. Coal Transportation from Mine to Bethel Bethel is favorably situated with respect to marine trans- portation.Its ability to handle oceangoing barge traffic up to 12-foot draft has made Bethel a major regional shipping center, with fuel and general cargo service to more than 50 communities on the Kuskokwim River and the nearby Bering Sea coast. Crowley Maritime and Foss Navigation each have three regu- larly scheduled barges per year with a combined tonnage of be- tween 75,000 and 11,000 tons per year,about half of which is bulk petroleum shipments (4).These annual tonnages make Bethel the largest port in southwest Alaska.The port and harbor facilities,especially with the new petroleum resources dock currently under construction (see Exhibit 6),place Bethel in an excellent position to receive and distribute coal shipments,if coal proves to be an economical energy source. On the basis of correspondence with Crowley and Foss,it is concluded that open existing oceangoing barges containing up to 10,000 tons of coal could be safely and economically landed at Bethel.This relatively high tonnage is important because it makes coal importation from any western Lower 48 or Canadian source a viable option.Costs to transport coal from Alaska, Canadian,and Lower 48 sources are summarized on Exhibit 7. Crowley Maritime (5)provided the daily rates shown on Exhibit 8.These data indicate that although day rates increase with tonnage capacity,the cost per ton decreases.Thus,larger tug/barge combinations are decidedly more economical than smaller ones.The cost per ton for various trip lengths ranges from $9.80 for a 250-mile haul distance (e.g.,Nelson Island)to $53.00 for 3,170 miles (e.g.,Long Beach,California),assuming III-1 a 6,900-ton barge.Note that these costs assume that the equipment is available and can be used in other service during periods closed to navigation.Note also that no allowance is made for annual mobilization,which would be an added cost for any service from sources north of Anchorage. A second set of barge cost data,obtained from Dillingham Maritime,a subsidiary of Foss,is presented in Table III-1: Table III-1 BARGE COSTS FOR SERVICE TO BETHEL --DILLINGHAM MARITIME Duration of R-T Origin Voyage (Days)Cost Per Ton,$ Los Angeles 35 59 Portland 23 39 Vancouver 22 35 Seward/Whittier 16 23 Unalakleet il 17 Anchorage 16.5 26 Herendeen Bay 7.5 li Sources (6) Except as noted,the costs indicated on Exhibit 7 are based on an average of the costs for 6,900-ton equipment from Exhib- it 8 and Table III-l.For all undeveloped coal sources except Usibelli,Powder River,Utah,and Vancouver,access for the indicated size oceangoing barge is assumed,except where marine charts indicate shallow surrounding waters. Exceptions include barge costs for Vancouver,Kuskokwim, Unalakleet,and Nulato coals.Vancouver barge costs are based on costs obtained from Sea Span (7)and include a $2.00 per ton loading charge at Roberts'Bank.Costs for Kuskokwim and Unalakleet coals assume that port facilities and draft limita- tion restrict barge size to 3,000 tons.For WNulato coals,a 500-ton river barge would be needed to navigate the Iditarod River.Costs for such barges are developed in Dames &Moore, 1981 (8). Coal from Utah,Usibelli,Powder River and Broad Pass would require rail transportation from mine to tidewater.Matanuska III-2 would require transportation by truck from the mine to the port of Anchorage at an estimated cost of $15.00 per ton (see Exhibit 7).Powder River coal would move some 1100 miles over Bur- lington Northern Lines at a cost of $42.00 per ton (9).There would be a $2.00 per ton tipping fee at Portland.(New coal loading facilities are under construction at Portland).Coal from Utah would be shipped 850 miles by rail to the existing coal loading facilities at Long Beach at a cost of $25.00 per ton for shipping,tipping,and loading. Coal from the Usibelli Mine and Broad Pass would be shipped via the Alaska Railroad at Seward or to the proposed coal han- dling facility at Whittier.The current rail tarriff is $12.60 per ton (10)Tipping and handling charges would be about $8.50 per ton (ll).These charges might prove lower at the proposed Whittier facility. Coal Transporation from Bethel Dock to Power Plant Once the coal barges arrive at Bethel,the coal most be unloaded and transported to the proposed coal-fired power plant site.At the power plant site (assumed to be located at the site of the existing diesel plant),the coal will be used either for electrical generation (8 Megawatts)or distributed for space heating.The entire proposed coal handling system is diagrammed on Exhibit 1. The petroleum products dock currently under construction (see Exhibit 6)is suitable for unloading coal with few modifi- cations,according to Harold Galliet,its designer.Use of this dock avoids the congestion prevailing at Bethel's general cargo dock.However,use of the petroleum dock requires rapid unload- ing of the barge to avoid conflicts with the petroleum barge operations.According to Dan Boyette,Bethel's City Engineer, petroleum loading and unloading operations utilize about 70 to 80 percent of the available docking time during the 5-month ice- free shipping season. As a first approximation,coal handling facilities dis- cussed in this section are designed to provide coal for all of the study area's electrical generation and 80 percent of the space heating requirements.These requirements,as shown on Exhibit 5,total about 87,000 tons per year (in year 2002)and are broken down as follows:a central coal-fired power plant in Bethel will require about 23,000 tons per year;bulk coal deliveries to non-residential buildings in Bethel will require some 38,000 tons per year;and residences in Bethel and all space heating needs in the villages will require 26,000 tons per III-3 year.The latter category is assumed to use coal in 100-pound sacks.Costs for each of these uses are calculated separately. Fixed and variable costs are distinguished to permit costs for other tonnages to be estimated. Selection of Coal Unloading Equipment Dames &Moore's initial evaluation included three alterna- tive coal unloading scenarios,identified as follows: Alternative A:Unload barges with a Manitowoc Model 3900 Vicon crawler crane with a six-cubic-yard clam bucket and an average unloading rate of 273 tons/hour,or equivalent. Alternative B:Unload barges with a Paceco stationary crane permanently mounted to the mooring and capable of handling an average of 500 tons per hour,or equivalent. Alternative C:Use of a self-unloading barge,designated for coal unloading use and custom-designed with a hopper and self-enclosed conveyor with 400 tons/hour average feed rate. Alternative A has the lowest capital cost of the three systems,with crane costs estimated at $500,000 (F.O.B.Wiscon- sin)for the Manitowoc 3900 Vicon crawler-type crane (12). Costs of the Erie Strayer 6-cubic-yard clam bucket plus one spare are $20,000 each (12).Operating time for this crane system is 13.3 days/year,based on a 24-hour/day operating schedule. Capital expenditures for Alternative B are substantially higher,although the annual operating time of the Paceco sta- tionary crane is 7.3 days.Capital costs of the crane and single clam shell are estimated to be about $2 million F.O.B. Wisconsin (13). Capital costs of the Alternative C self-unloading barge with conveyor system are estimated at over $3 million,excluding the costs of the designated barge (14,15).Operating time for the Alternative C barge conveyor system is estimated at 9.1 days annually. Since maintenance and insurance costs are estimated as a percentage of capital cost and are a constant percentage for the three alternatives,Alternative A has the lowest expected cost. Net savings in barge standby time for Alternatives B and C do III-4 not justify the additional capital costs of these two alterna- tives.Therefore,only Alternative A has been considered for further evaluation. Moving the Coal from Barge to Power Plant A small dozer (Caterpiller D-6,or equal)would be used on the barge to move coal for clam bucket pickup.Operating time for this dozer is estimated to be 310 hours/year based on an average annual tonnage of 87,000 and a barge size of 10,000 tons. Due to the need to minimize tie-up of the petroleum dock, unloading coal directly to haul trucks on the pier is infeasi- ble.Unloading in this manner would require a large number of vehicles to handle the expected feed rates and to make the esti- mated 5,800 annual truck trips from the pier to the plant,with- out causing excessive barge tie-up time.To avoid this problem it is proposed that coal be fed through a pier-mounted hopper (surge-bin)to a conveyor leading to an on-shore temporary stockpile area,an estimated distance of about 300 feet.A seven-acre parcel of land adjacent to the upriver side of the pier is being acquired as a staging area for the dock.A four- acre portion of this area would be ideally suited for use as a temporary coal storage area.The storage pile would then be gradually transported to the permanent storage area adjacent to the power plant.To control airborne dust in the temporary stockpile,the coal would be washed down periodically,and run- off from the pile would be diverted by low earth berms to a small settling pond to prevent coal dust from entering the river. A front-end loader (Caterpillar 977 with 10-cubic-yard bucket,or equal)is needed to load coal onto a 20-ton truck for hauling to the power plant.At the plant,a small dozer (Cater- pillar D-6,or equal)is required to compact the coal and push it into a payload hopper elevator for use in the plant.Dozer operations at the plant during temporary stockpiling are ex- pected to take 930 hours per year.At a 70 percent load factor and 1.8 tons/load capacity,the front-end loader will operate 1,450 hours annually to load coal for shipment to the power plant.The power plant stockpile,together with distribution and handling operations,will occupy an area of about 6 acres. Conveyor construction would consist of a 36-inch deep truss and a 30-to 36-inch wide belt.Supports would run about 40 feet on center for the horizontal conveyor run.Thirty-two timber piles are expected to be needed:2 per truss and 8 each for the front and back-end terminals.Cost per pile is estimated at $15/foot installed with a typical length of 30 feet IITI-5 each,for a total of $14,400.Estimated motor size is 150 horsepower.Three workers are anticipated per shift for running the conveyor:one at each hopper (terminal),and one for main- tenance,cleanup of fallen coal,etc. Based on the Bureau of Mines'projected average loading and waiting times (16)and a travel rate of 15 mph,each vehicle's roundtrip time to the plant,a distance of about 2 miles,is estimated at .267 hours.To adjust for lower efficiencies than projected by the Bureau of Mines and inclement weather condi- tions,the average roundtrip time per 20-ton truck to the plant is estimated at one-half hour. Distribution of Coal for Space Heating Requirements From the plant storage area,coal will be distributed in bulk loads to large commercial and institutional users,and in 100-pound sacks loaded 20 to a pallet for barging customers. Annual tonnages are estimated at 38,000 tons for bulk delivery, 23,000 tons for plant usage,and 26,000 tons for sack delivery. Bulk deliveries from the plant stockpile will be made by the two 20-ton dump trucks when not in use transporting coal from the pier to the plant.Once loading operations are completed at the temporary pier stockpile area,the plant site for loading will be either driven or hauled on a flat-bed truck to the plant site for loading of the trucks.Front-end loader operations at the plant site are estimated to take 507 hours for truck loading and 347 hours for loading a bag feed device (surge hopper). One-hundred pound burlap sacks will be filled from a feed- hopper and loaded by hand onto 4-foot by 4-foot wooden pallets. These pallets will be loaded by a fork-lift onto flat-bed trucks for delivery to Bethel's existing cargo dock and to local small- er customers.Each truck is estimated to carry 10 pallets of 20 sacks each. Average roundtrip length is estimated at 2.5 miles and will require about 10 minutes travel time,10 minutes to load,and 20 minutes to unload.Allowing for delays and rest periods,each truck can deliver an average 80 pallets,or 120-bulk tons,in an 8-hour workday.Operation times for trucking are estimated at 2,600 hours and 2,533 hours annually for the flat-bed and dump trucks,respectively. Cost Analysis Assumptions In determining operating costs,the following assumptions were made: III-6 Average cycle time for the Manitowoc Model 3900 Vicon crawler crane with 6 cubic yard bucket is 45 seconds. Average operating time of cranes is estimated at 50 minutes per hour. The bucket fill factor is estimated at 70 percent. Haul truck capacity is 15 tons because of axle load limits. Of the estimated 87,000-ton annual coal consumption, 77,000 tons are needed in Bethel and 10,000 tons are for use in outlying villages.An estimated 26,000 tons annually will be sacked and placed on pallets for shipment to local small users and to surrounding vil- lages.About 38,000 tons will be delivered in bulk from the plant storage area to large commercial and institutional users in Bethel.The remaining 23,000 tons will be used at the plant. Average crane life is 7 years. Average truck life is 8 years. Average conveyor life is 1-6 months for initial belts, 2-5 years thereafter for rollers,drive heads,belting and idlers,and 20 years for conveyor structure. Motor fuel costs $1.75 per gallon. Annual fuel usage and cost for gasoline engines is 0.067 gallons per horsepower--hour. Annual fuel usage and cost for diesel engines is 0.058 gallons per horsepower-hour. Annual fuel usage and cost for electric motors is $0.11 per horsepower-hour. Labor rates of operational employees include: $50/hour-foreman;$29/hour -assistant foreman; $20/hour -clerical;$28/hour -crane and heavy equip- ment operations;$25/hour -laborers;and $23/hour - truck drivers,based on hourly wage scales published by McGraw Hill for Anchorage (17),and Dames &Moore's estimates. III-7 The Bureau of Mines Report 14677 (16)estimates that main- tenance and insurance each cost two percent of capital costs for various coal transportation means,including conveyor,trucking, and barge transport.Because these percentages represent Lower 48 State values,maintenance costs have been escalated to four percent for our evaluation while insurance costs have been pro- jected at two percent. Capital Investment in Coal Handling In addition to the cost (plus equipment)for the crawler crane,capital investments for a conveyor system and for mobile equipment are required.These costs are summarized on Exhibit 9 and discussed below. Total capital investment for the coal conveyor between the pier and on-shore stockpile is estimated at about $2.11 million/ mile of conveyor based on published data from the Bureau of Mines (16).Escalated from 1976 to 1982 dollars at an index of 3.41 (18)and further escalated by a factor of 1.69 to reflect the increase in labor rate in Alaska versus the Lower 48,the capital investment for the 300-foot conveyor system is estimated at $0.69 million.To supplement the Bureau of Mines data, estimates were obtained from Tabor Mining Manufacturing Company (19)for a typical coal conveyor system.Material costs were estimated as follows: -belting:$20/lineal ft.x 300 ft.=$6,000 -rollers:$170/fevery 2 lineal ft.x 300 ft.=$25,500 -Two front-end and back-end stackers:$10-15,000/each -36"deep truss:$11,000/100 ft.span (3 needed) -timber piles:$15/lineal ft.x 30 ft./fea.x 32 piles =$14,400 (labor and material costs) -$0.819 million capital costs every 20 years. -$13,200 excess maintenance costs in first year for belt replacement. -$69,300 excess maintenance costs every third year for belt,roller,and idler replacement. For a 150-horsepower conveyor motor,electric consumption was projected at $.15/kilowatt-hour and 310 operating hours per year for a total annual fuel cost of about $5,115. III-8 Capital costs of the two (2)D-6 Caterpillar dozers are estimated at $150,000 each F.O.B.Anchorage (20).Capital costs of the Caterpiller 977 front-end loader are estimated at $190,000 F.O.B.Anchorage (20).Costs of a 20-ton truck were estimated to range between $96,500 to $106,200 F.O.B.Anchorage based on U.S.Bureau of Mines data (16)escalated to 1982 dol- lars using a Bureau of Labor Statistics equipment price index of 1.93 (21).Costs of a flat-bed truck are similarly estimated at $100,000 F.O.B.Anchorage. Shipping costs have been estimated at 5 percent of capital material costs for shipments F.O.B.Anchorage to Bethel and at 10 percent of capital material costs for those items F.O.B.the Lower 48.An additional capital investment of $0.5 million has been estimated to cover road and dock improvements. Capital Replacement Costs The schedule for replacement of capital equipment is shown on Exhibit 10.The equipment replacement is based on a normal industrial-use life expectancy for the listed equipment,rather than on the extent to which the equipment is utilized.Since much of the equipment,most notably the conveyor system,is utilized to only a fraction of its capacity,these calculations yield a conservatively high estimate of the cost for capital replacement. To compute the levelized annual cost of capital replace- ment,first the present value of the future expenditures was calculated.Then this present value was converted to an annualannuitypayment.This process is described later in this Chap- ter.The net present value of equipment replacement totals $5.5 million (1982).This results in levelized annual payments of $148,500;$31,600;$20,800;and $15,600 for dock,sacking,bulk delivery and power plant equipment. Operation and Maintenance Costs Since operation of the coal-unloading facility could be completed by a different contractor from the power plant,over- head and administrative costs have been included in the annual operating costs.Labor,maintenance,insurance and fuel costs have been escalated by 27-1/4 percent to cover overhead andadministrativecharges.No profitis included in the analysis. A summary of annual equipment and operator requirements for facility operation is presented on Exhibit 11.Annual manhours have been escalated by 25 percent to account for downtime during equipment maintenance and/or delivery delays.The cost of III-9 operator labor,fuel,consumables,maintenance insurance and administrative labor is summarized on Exhibit 12. Levelized Costs To obtain a levelized annual cost per ton for coal handling equipment,costs incurred in the future for replacement of capi- tal equipment were reduced to their net present value using the formula: k . PVcapital &replacement cost Yo?|l C3/(1+i)Jj=where: Vo =the initial capital expenditure C.=the replacement cost expenditure in year_j75(see previous section for summary of replacementcos i =3.5%real discount rate k =the economic life of the project (58 years) (Underlying inflation rate is zero) Once the capital costs have been converted to their level- ized annual equivalents,they can be added to the annual opera- tion and maintenance cost from Exhibit 12.Exhibit 13 shows the resulting levelized annual costs.Fixed costs,defined as costs independent of tonnage handled,are shown separately from va- riable costs to accurately reflect the cost of handling coal from different sources.(As previously noted,different ton- nages are required to achieve the same end-use energy require- ments from coals with differing heat contents).Exhibit 13 also segregates costs of coal for electric generation,for bulk deli- veries,and for sacked coal. Finally,the nominal tonnage requirements (using 10,000 Btu/pound)of 26,000 tons per year for sacking,38,000 tons per year for bulk delivery and 23,000 tons per year for electricgenerationwereusedtoobtainanominalcostpertonineach coal form.These are: Pier to power plant stockpile:$10.69/ton Sacked 58.38/ton Bulk 8.08/ton Power plant use 4.74/ton The costs from pier to power plant stockpile should be added to the last three costs to obtain the total handling costs (e.g., $69.05 from barge to sacks). III-10 Note that the following costs have not been included: -cost of acquistion of right-of-way for the conveyor or lease costs of land; -cost of acquisition of stockpile site or lease of land; -barge stand-by costs (these are included in landed cost of coal); -tax expenses; -salvage value (assumed to be equal to the cost of disposal). Transportation of Coal fromBetheltoSurroundingVillages As noted previously,Bethel is already the transportation center for the communities along the Kuskokwim River and the nearby Bering Sea coast.Although the study area includes only 12 of the 50 communities served from Bethel,there is no reason why all 50 communities cannot receive coal from Bethel,just as they currently receive petroleum products.However,this ana- lysis presents capacities only for Bethel and the 12 villages in the study area. United Transportation is the major barge operator for dis- tibution from Bethel to surrounding communities.It operates from the general cargo dock on Brown's Slough in Bethel,using 500-ton barges with bulk petroleum tanks,as well as general cargo (break-bulk)capacities. United Transportation (22)indicated that they would have little difficulty in handling sacked coal if it were shipped on pallets.Palletized coal could probably be off-loaded more quickly than bulk petroleum shipments,especially in villageswherethetanksarea"long hose pull"from the barge docking site.Based on existing rates for bulk shipments,United provided the data contained on Exhibit 14.For comparison,thecostofbulkdieselshipmentonagallonat10,000 Btu/pound coal equipment basis are shown on this exhibit. Exhibit 14 shows that shipping costs for moving a ton of coal (one 20-sack pallet)to the villages would range between $24.00 and $57.00.The cost range is roughly proportional to distance.Diesel fuel transportation,by comparison,is lessdependentondistance.Thus,for such nearby communities as Napaskiak and Oscarville,transporting an amount of diesel III-11 energy equivalent to a ton of coal (10,000 Btu/pound)is more costly than shipping coal,while for distant villages,diesel is cheaper.Using higher heat value coal (14,000 Btu/pound)makes coal shipment more economical even for distances of up to 25 miles. A weighted average transportation cost can be calculated by multiplying the coal transportation costs shown on Exhibit 14 by the tonnages shown on Exhibit 5,summing the products,then dividing by the total tonnage.This averages out to $44.67 per ton. In the villages,coal could be stored on fairly well- drained land.As with oil,coal for the winter would have to be stockpiled during the summer navigation.Since no special faci- lities are needed,as much coal as is desired could be stored, unlike oil storage which is limited by tank availability. For distribution within the villages,coal sacks can be moved to buildings by snow machine sled in much the same way as drums of diesel are now moved.Empty pallets and possibly sacks could be returned to Bethel for re-use. III-12 Chapter IV COAL FOR SPACE HEATING In this section,the costs of converting the space heating facilities in the Bethel area to coal are estimated,and some considerations for coal use are briefly discussed.In addition to direct combustion space heating,coal can be used in district heating or cogeneration systems;however,such systems are dis- cussed with electrical generation.This section is restricted to direct combustion space heating.Residential space heat,and space heat for public or commercial buildings,are discussed. Capital costs for coal-fired space heating are also presented. Coal Space Heating for Residences Modern design coal stoves are highly efficient,clean burn- ing,and safe.They offer an economical alternative to the existing diesel-fired stoves currently in use.However,despite the long burning time and even self-stoking features which are available on some stoves,they require more attention than die- sel stoves. The majority of the residences in the Bethel area use a single convective heat source rather than a central furnace with a distribution system,such as forced hot air.This simpler single-source system is more functional because most homes have an open floor plan,with smaller rooms opening onto a larger central room.In almost all cases,the heat source is a stove- oil (diesel)convective furnace.Some households have both wood stoves and stove-oil furnaces and use the wood stove during the day to save money. Bethel residents can easily convert to coal heating by replacing their stove-oil furnaces with simple coal stoves con- sisting of a cast iron or fire brick-lined fire box,a grate, and an ash box.The flue is usually thermostatically controlled to permit long-buring time and adjustable heat output.Modern coal stoves are completely airtight with the draft designed to provide air for combustion of the hot coals as well as the vola- tile gases. An adequately sized stove should need stoking only twice a day.During stoking,the ashes and clinkers are removed from the ash box and a new charge of coal is added.Sufficient hot coals should remain so that there is no need to relight the stove.Coal,in 100 pound sacks,would be obtained from the central stockpile about as often as a drum of diesel fuel is Iv-1 needed.(Five to seven sacks of coal equal 55 gallons of diesel.)*In the villages,the sacks would be moved by snow- machine sled;in Bethel,they could be delivered by truck.The coal sacks could be stored under or beside the house and brought in by bucket as needed. While not as convenient as diesel stoves,which need atten- tion only every few days,the inconvenience of coal-burning stoves is minimal.People who are used to wood fuel,which requires cutting and frequent stoking,will probably accept the minimal inconvenience in exchange for lower heating bills. Coal could augment wood by stoking the wood stove with one part coal to three or four parts wood.Using straight coal in stoves designed for wood could produce a dangerous leak of car- bon monoxide into the house.Furthermore,coal produces more intense heat and could burn out a wood firebox or corrode metal chimneys designed only for wood. To install a coal stove,the existing diesel stove chimney would be replaced by a specially designed,prefabricated, insulated coal-stove chimney made of special heat and corrosion resistant sheet metal surrounded by insulation and an outer sheet metal layer.Where the chimney passes through the ceiling a hoist shield is needed.At the roof,a flashing roof assembly is required.The chimney is capped with a ""round-top"to prevent rain or down-drafts from entering the chimney. Most of the modern design coal stoves are manufactured in Europe where coal is used extensively for home heating.These stoves are available for less than $1,000.For example,the West German Budarus-Juno stove,which produces up to 52,000 Btu's/hour,is available in Anchorage for $650,complete with thermostat and metal floor pan.Group orders could significant- ly reduce this price.The installed cost of residential coal stoves is estimated to be $1,200 as illustrated in Table IV-l. *At 10,000 BTU's/pound,seven sacks equal one drum,while at 14,000 BTU/pound,five sacks equal one drum. IV-2 Table IV-1l ESTIMATED INSTALLED COST OF A RESIDENTIAL COAL STOVE Stove (Delivered)$700 Chimney and Hardware 400 Installation (4 hours @ $25/hour)100 $1,200 Coal Space Heating for Public and Commercial Buildings The applicability and cost of converting public and commer- cial buildings to coal-fired space heating depend on the size and configuration of the building involved.In the Bethel area, these buildings range from single rooms (e.g.,village post offices and clinics,small stores in Bethel)to large office complexes (like the BNC Complex or PHS Hospital in Bethel). It is beyond the scope of this study to assess the specific heating systems and costs for conversion for each building. Therefore,as a first approximation,the existing stock of public and commercial buildings are grouped into three types as follows: Type I -Single-room structures (less than 1,000 squarefeet)which are presently heated by a single convective stove-oil furnace such as those used in residences. Type II -Larger multi-room buildings (such as large storesandvillageschools)which are presently heated by central forced-air furnaces. Type III -Large buildings or complexes which are heated byboiler-type systems or large-scale forced-air furnaces. Of the estimated 332 commercial and public buildings in the study area,219 are located in Bethel and 113 in the 12 sur- rounding villages as shown on Exhibit 15.The breakdown among the existing building types can be estimated as follows: Type III -The buildings of this type are unique structuresandarealllocatedinBethel.They include: 1.Bethel High School 2.Two elementary schools 3.Federal Aviation Administration Complex 4.The Bethel Airport IV-3 5.BNC Complex 6.Kuskokwim Inn 7.National Guard Armory 8.PHS Hospital 9.The old PHS Hospital 10.BIA Compound ll.AVCP Housing Complex TOTAL:12 systems Type II -In Bethel,an estimated 20 additional largerbuildingsfallintotheTypeIIcategory,including the larger stores,the city offices,police station,and the remaining schools.In the villages there are about 19 schools which fall into Type II. A total of 52 Type II and Type III buildings are found in the study area. Type I -The remaining 280 public and commercial buildings(small stores and offices in Bethel and the villages,vil- lage halls,police stations,churches,clinics,armories and post offices,etc.)have convective type heating sys- tems.About 197 of these Type I buildings are in Bethel and the remaining 93 are in the villages. Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for Coal-Fired Space Heating The estimated cost for converting to coal space heat is shown on Exhibit 16.In addition to the initial capital cost for conversion,a capital replacement factor of three percent allows provision for a sinking fund for the entire system every 20 years.*In the case of non-residential systems,an annual cost of 7 percent of the capital cost is used to estimate the cost for operating and maintaining the system (exclusive of fuel costs). *For a complete discussion of economic assumptions,see Chapter VI. Iv--4 Capital costs are estimated as follows: Residential systems $1,200 (see Table IV-1) Type I systems 2,500 Type II systems 50,000 Type III systems 200,000 The residential system costs are from Table IV-l.The Type I systems are estimated at $2,500 to allow for larger sizes or automatic stoking stoves.The Type II and Type III system cost estimates are order-of-magnitude estimates only.However,since there are relatively few of these systems (compared to Type I and residential systems),this number is not critical. Iv-5 Chapter V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS All plans for supplying Bethel with coal for space heating and electrical generation involve bringing coal in from outside the study area.Environmental impacts from mining are thus not part of this study.However,the storage,transportation,and combustion of coal have the potential to influence air quality, water quality and land use in the study area.These three im- pact areas are discussed in the following section. In evaluating environmental impacts,it is assumed that 87,000 ton equivalents of coal per year will be used in the study area.This level of use is sufficient for meeting 80 percent of the space heating needs of the area by direct combustion,and for providing all of the electrical generation needs by a central steam turbine located in Bethel,with interties to the twelve surrounding villages.Where possible, the levels of impact from coal use in other energy supply plans will be extrapolated. Air Quality Using coal as the principal space heating fuel is without modern precedent in the U.S.(although many European communities use coal extensively).It is therefore important to determine whether coal will cause any severe air quality problems.To this end,a preliminary calculation was made to determine the impact of coal burning on ambient air quality standards under worst-case conditions.It was determined that even under these conditions,coal space heating alone will not violate ambient air quality standards.Although emissions from an electricl generating plant were not directly analyzed,by extrapolation, it is possible to determine that,even if those emissions were included,coal use alone would probably not cause ambient standards to be exceeded. Bethel is currently classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants though no air quality data are available for Bethel from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva- tion.Alaska has adopted the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards as its primary standards.Hence, this report addresses the air quality standards summarized on Exhibit 17.These standards are upper limit concentrations of pollutants allowed by law.The standards have various averaging times and can be classified as either long-term (3 month and annual),or short-term (24-hour and shorter)averages.The long-term standards are average concentrations that cannot be v-1 exceeded at any location,any year,within Alaska.The short- term standards are upper limit concentrations that cannot be exceeded more than once per year at any location in Alaska, averaged over a specific time frame. Emissions Estimates Pollutant emissions from space heating were estimated for Carbon Monoxide (CO),Particulate Matter (PM),Hydrocarbons (HC),Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),and Sulfur Dioxide (S09).To estimate the maximum amount of pollutants,it was assumed that space heating requirements for Bethel are met by convection stoves.This is a worst-case assumption,since such stoves have more emissions per ton of coal than boilers,furnaces or central district heating plants,which are likely to provide at least part of the heat under a more realistic scenario.Thus,it is assumed that 80 percent of Bethel's space heat is provided by 2,919 coal-fired convection stoves,each burning 18.5 ton equivalents per year of low sulfur coal,for a total of 54,000 ton equivalents per year.For this analysis,it is assumed that Prince Rupert Coal is used,resulting in an actual tonnage of 43,548 per year. An even more pessimistic emissions estimate is based on the assumption that,in addition to the 54,000 ton equivalents used for space heating,all of the 23,000 ton equivalents (18,548 actual)of coal used for electrical generation is burned in convective stoves.Since power plants can burn fuels in a much more controlled manner than stoves,this is a very conservative estimate of emissions. The emission factors for coal stoves vary with the type of coal,the type of stove,burning technique,(i.e.,amount of draft,closed or open system)and the way the test studies were conducted.Three sources of literature provided the emission factors given in Table V-l.The Hall and DeAngelis (23)factors were chosen for this study because they are the most recent and the studies were conducted near sea level.These factors indicate the quantity of pollutant emitted per quantity of coal burned. Table V-1l COAL STOVE EMISSION FACTORS (gm pollutant/kg coal) Pollutant Reference co PM HC NO2 _SO2_ 62.9 16.0 56.3 --PEDCo,(24) 97.5 15.0 -1.5 25.2*EPA,(25) 42.9 9.6 9.6 1.5 6.2 Wall et al,(23) *Assumes 0.7%sulfur content in coal,slightly higher than that to be used in Bethel. Based on the Hall and DeAngelis emissions data,burning 54,000 tons of coal in convective stoves will produce the following total annual emissions: Tons per year Kilograms per year Carbon Monoxide 1,868 1,669,000 Particulate Matter 417 372,577 Nitrogen Dioxide 65 58,064 Sulfur Dioxide 270 240,724 Hyddrocarbons 65 58,064 The month requiring the most heating is December (with 1,879 heating degree days)based on a thirty year norn.The normal total heating degree days in a year is 13,203 (26). Using the ratio of December to annual degree days,the amount of coal to be consumed in the coldest month is calculated to be about 2.6 ton equivalents (2.1 actual)per convective stove,or 7,586 ton equivalents (6,117 actual)throughout the city in an average December.The maximum emissions produced from_burningcoalduringanaverageDecemberwillbeabout2.35 x 10°kg CO,5.24 x 104 kg each particulate matter and hydrocarbons,8.19 x103kgnitrogendioxideand3.39 x 104 kg sulfur dioxide.The estimated coal-fired convection stove emissions rates are sum- marized in Table V-2. Table V-2 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES EXPECTED FROM COAL-FIRED CONVECTION STOVES IN BETHEL,ALASKA Emission Rate (kg/hr) Pollutants Averaging Time 54,000 T.E.?77,000 T.E.P co Annual 190.3 271.3 8-hour 314.9 449.0 Particulate Matter Annual 42.6 60.7 24-hour 70.5 100.6 Hydrocarbons 3-hour 70.5 100.6 NOQ Annual 6.7 9.5 l-hour 11 15.7 SO2 Annual 27.5 39.1 24-hour 45.5 64.9 Source:Dames &Moore calculations. a/Based on a monthly space heat requirement of 7,586 ton equivalents (6,117 actual tons of Prince Rupert coal)per month,which is the December consumption on a 54,000 ton equivalent annual basis. b/Based on a monthly electrical generation and space heat requirement of 10,816 ton equivalents (8,723 actual tons of Prince Rupert coal)per month,which is the December consumption on a 77,000 ton equivalent annual basis. The Dispersion Model Having estimated the emissions rates by pollutant,it is necessary to determine how the pollutants are dispersed under the climatic and topographic conditions in Bethel in order to predict ground level concentrations. In the absence of specific meteorologic data on the fre- quency of combinations of conditions resulting in poor disper- sion,a series of worst case stagnant conditions was assumed. The stagnant conditions occur less frequently and less dramati- v-4 cally in Bethel than in lower latitude cities with similarterrainbecausethedurationandintensityofsunshineisless in Bethel than lower latitude locations.Ordinarily,Bethel experiences winds parallel to the river averaging about 12.9 mph year round.For the purpose of this assessment,the worst case dispersion conditions are assumed.Worst case conditions occur most often when little wind disturbs the air and change of tem- perature with height is slight.The following assumptions are used to define the dispersion model: fe)Temperature change as a function of height:0.00 to 0.40°C/100m. oO Little lateral dispersion takes place. fo)Winds are drainage winds of 1 meter per second which flow toward the Kuskokwim River. fe)Emissions of pollutants mix uniformly in the vertical only to a height of the approximate top of the fog layer,assumed to be 60 meters.Plume rise from the chimneys is so small,it is neglected. fe)The cross-flow distance within which the pollutants will be emitted is 3660 meters.This is effectively the width of the northeast southwest oriented city of Bethel. fe)The total emissions from convection stoves are assumed to be distributed equally across the city in the mixing layer. fe)The highest pollution month is defined by the coldest month,thus requiring the greatest amount of fuel to be burned.Short-term emissions were based on this month (December). This model can be transformed to the following equation for calculating ambient concentrations of each of the emissions: where X =pollutant concentration (g/m?) =constant to make units consistent =2.778 x 10°-hr pollutant emission rate (kg/hr) =wind speed rate (1 m/s)KGODORKIt=cross-flow distance (3,660 m) Z =mixed depth (60 m).y-5 Estimated Pollutant Concentrations Ambient concentrations for each pollutant emitted from coal-fired convection stoves were estimated by inserting the emission rates from Table V-2 into the equation given in Chap- ter III.The resulting concentrations are listed on Exhibit 18. The Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards are listed on the exhibit for comparison. As shown on Exhibit 18,pollutant concentrations due to Space heating are all less than 50 percent of the standards, with the exception of the annual particulate concentrations. However,the conditions assumed for estimating the concen- trations will not occur on an annual basis.An average wind speed of 1 m/s is not likely when the 30-year average wind speed is about 5.8 m/s.Such mild winds (1 m/s)may occur in theshort-term (24-hour),but only about 16 percent of the time,orfivedaysinanaveragewintermonth.The long-term hydrocarbon and sulfur dioxide concentrations are shown to a significant percent of the standards,also.Again,this is because the worst case conditions have assumed the December load occurs year round,as do worst case dispersion conditions. Conclusions of the Air Quality Analysis The foregoing calculations indicate that even under very pessimistic assumptions,burning coal to provide 80 percent of Bethel's space heat will not,in the absence of other pollution sources,cause the ambient air quality standards to be exceeded. Even the addition of coal-fired electric generation for all of the year 2002 requirements of the study area is unlikely to cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded.However, this observation must be qualified because no air quality data are available for Bethel,hence the background concentrations of the criteria pollutants are unknown.It is assumed that back- ground concentrations are small because of the lack of many major stationary sources in Bethel. If and when definite plans for coal use are made,a PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)permit may be re- quired.In connection with a PSD permit,the regulatory agency will likely require monitoring of ambient conditions and quanti- tative modeling of the new source. Adding additional coal fired space heating (up to 120 per- cent of existing requirements)still,by itself,will not cause any ambient air quality standards to be violated.Some coal energy supply plans include centralized space heating from co- generation or district heating.Such systems reduce the load left for direct combustion stoves.Since emissions from the V-6 central systems are more readily controlled than stove emis- sions,such systems can be designed to avoid ambient air quality problems in Bethel.Coal-fired steam electric generators can also be designed to emit pollutants within the percentage of the Standards not consumed by coal space heating. The results of the Bethel coal burning study can be direct- ly translated to other villages which wish to convert from fuel oil to coal-fired stoves knowing the number of stoves and the village area.For example,a village with 200 convection stoves,covering about 35 acres (i.e.,about 2,900 meters square)will result in less than 15 percent of the worst case concentrations predicted for Bethel.Because of the strong winds and flat terrain in southwestern Alaska,it appears that there will be no adverse impacts on the air quality. The above air quality discussion has not addressed the problem of fugitive dust emissions from coal handling.Measures such as spraying water on the coal during handling,and covering trucks and even stockpiles with tarps can also be used to reduce fugitive dust emissions.In addition all coal should be pur- chased washed to remove coal particles smaller than about one quarter inch.(All developed coal sources discussed can meet this criterion). Water Quality The water quality impacts of coal use in Bethel are pri- marily restricted to the coal stockpile areas.Rain water fall- ing on the pile picks up fine particles and may dissolve sub- stances on the surface of the coal.Runoff from the stockpiles, if discharged,might be required to meet state water quality criteria for growth of fish,shellfish and other aquatic life (27). If control of runoff were required,an earth berm could be built on the downslope side of the stockpile.This would create a small pond which would gradually infiltrate or evaporate. In the villages,coal will be stored in sacks on pallets. No water quality impact should result from this activity. Acid rain from coal combustion and its impacts on water quality has provoked concern elsewhere in the U.S.However,it is not a cause for concern in the Bethel area.There are no sources of acid rain west of Bethel (the direction from which prevailing winds come).The amount of coal to be burned in the area (less than 110,000 tons per year under any of the energy supply plans)is quite small compared to the amounts burned in Lower 48 areas where acid rain has been a problem.Finally,the high average wind speeds prevalent in the Bethel areas insures wide dispersal and dilution of whatever acids may form. Land Use Land use impacts,like water quality impacts,will result from the need to store approximately a one year supply of coal. As noted in Chapter III,there will be two stockpiles,a tempo- rary storage area north of the petroleum dock in Bethel,and a second area adjacent to the proposed coal-fired power (and pos- sibly district heating)plant.Assuming that 87,000 tons of coal are used annually,each of these stockpiles would occupy less than 4 acres,if the coal piles are 40 feet thick.Since coal can easily be stored more compactly by using piles up to 60 feet thick,the 4 acres is a high estimate of the land requirement. The City of Bethel is currently negotiating for the lease of a seven-acre parcel adjacent to the petroleum dock.This land could be made available for a coal stockpile (28).The proposed coal-fired power plant site (the existing diesel power plant site)is surrounded by vacant dry land.This land is owned either by the village corporation or by the PHS.The availability of this land for a coal stockpile has not been determined.Coal storage would not conflict with any known proposed development plans for the area. Once the coal is sacked for residential use in Bethel,or for use in the villages,the coal will be stored on pallets at the power plant site.Since coal is assumed to be sacked on an as needed basis,only a relatively small land area will be need- ed for sacked coal storage.Coal for village use will be dis- tributed from the city cargo dock.To avoid congestion in the cargo dock area,it is recommended that coal be moved to the dock area just before the loading of each village-bound barge. Another land use impact involves disposal of ash.If 77,000 tons of 10 percent ash coal is used in Bethel,7,700 tons of ash will be disposed of each year.This ash could possibly be mixed in with the earth cover of the landfill,used in road paving,or used in construction fill operations.Before select- ing a coal for use in Bethel,test burns should be conducted to insure that the ash does not contain any significant quantities of toxic materials. Chapter VI ECONOMIC RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Results The cost of providing coal to the communities in the study area equals the costs to purchase the coal at the mine,trans- port and handle it in Bethel,and distribute it to the villages. These costs,developed in previous chapters,constitute part of a total energy supply plan cost. An energy supply plan is a total energy system,including electric generation and space heating.The systems costed in this coal feasibility analysis do not include cost of power generation.Electric generating system costs are presented in Appendix C. The cost of coal from alternative sources is summarized on Exhibit 2.Heat content and costs F.O.B.mine are obtained from Table II-l1 and Exhibit 4.Where there are a range of values, the arithmetic mean of the extreme values was used.Costs for transportation to Bethel are derived from Exhibit 7.In column 4 of Exhibit 2,the sum of the mine and transport costs are corrected for heat content to yield a comparable cost per ton- equivalent of 10,000 Btu/pound coal,F.O.B.Bethel. (These costs can easily be converted to cost per million Btu by dividing by 20.) To calculate the cost of coal for electric generation, sacking,and bulk delivery,the fixed costs of Exhibit 14 were divided by the actual tonnage of each type of coal required to yield 23,000*;26,000*;and 38,000*ton-equivalents,respective- ly.The cost to move coal from the pier to the power plant stockpile is added to each of these costs in proportion to ton- nage in each form. Finally,in column 8 of Exhibit 2,the cost of coal delivered to the villages surrounding Bethel is shown.Rather than dealing with each village,the weighted average local barge delivery cost ($44.67/ton)was corrected for heat content and added to the cost of sacked coal in Bethel. *10,000 Btu ton equivalents.These tonnages are based on the year 2002 requirements shown on Exhibit 5. VI-1 It is interesting to note that the coals with the lowest cost*are those from undeveloped occurrences.Unless estimates of mined costs (see Exhibit 4)are very low,Alaskan sources are attractive. The Beluga coal,although of fairly low heat content,is estimated to be inexpensive to mine,if this large-scale proposed export market mine develops.Further,Beluga coal benefits from a fairly low-cost transportation link to Bethel. The second lowest F.0O.B.cost coal is from Cape Beaufort. While mining costs are assumed to be high,transport costs are moderate.The high heat content of Cape Beaufort coal is an additional advantage for sack delivery.When high handling cost per sack is divided over its greater heat content,this coal Surpasses Beluga as the lowest cost coal for use in sacked form. Prince Rupert coal is an immediately available source with costs 45 percent higher F.O.B.Bethel than Beluga coal.Once the high handling costs of Bethel distribution operations are added,the cost penalty for availability is reduced.Sacked in Bethel,Prince Rupert coal only 7 percent more costly than Cape Beaufort coal,the least costly coal in sacked form. Vancouver coal is a close second to Prince Rupert coal, with an F.O.B.Bethel cost only 5 percent higher.The cost difference widens,however,as more handling steps are added. This is due to the Vancouver coal's slightly lower heat content per ton. Powder River and Usibelli coals compare unfavorably to the Prince Rupert and Vancouver coals.Despite its fairly low transport cost,Usibelli coal is expensive on a ton-equivalent basis because of its low heat content.This disadvantage is further emphasized by its high distribution costs,as more actual tonnage must be handled.Powder River coal suffers from high transportation costs. In addition to Beluga and Cape Beaufort coals,the undevel- oped Alaskan occurrences at Matanuska,Herendeen Bay and Bering River appear promising.Matanuska's proximity to Anchorage results in a reasonable mining cost and moderate transport costs to Bethel.Herendeen Bay benefits from an existing deepwater port and its proximity to Bethel.Bering River coals benefit from their high heat content and low transport costs.Kuskokwim coal resources,despite their proximity to Bethel,are not cost efficient due to their high mining cost. *10,000 Btu ton equivalents.These tonnages are based on the year 2002 requirements shown on Exhibit 5. ViI-2 Exhibit 3 summarizes the components of the net present worth of a coal-fired energy supply plan that provides 80 percent of the space heating in the study area (by direct combustion)and all of the study area's electrical requirements. The annual fuel costs of Exhibit 3 were obtained by taking the year 2002 tonnage requirements from Exhibit 5 (at 80 percent direct combustion coal space-heat)and dividing them into: 1.Electrical energy (23,000 ton-equivalents); 2.Bulk delivery:coinmercial space-heat in Bethel (38,000 ton-equivalents); 3.Sacked for Bethel:coal for small business and resi- dential space heating (estimated at 26,000 ton- equivalents); 4.Sacked for village space heating (estimated at 10,000 ton-equivalents). These tonnage requirements for each form of coal were multiplied by the cost per ton equivalent shown on Exhibit 2.Exhibit 2 presents the cost of coal in 1982 dollars.To determine the cost of coal over the life of the proposed project,the real cost escalation for coal must be projected into the future. There are two bases for estimating cost escalation:market price escalation and production cost escalation.These two rates are related but by no means identical.The market pvrice is the value of a coal on the world market.This price depends on the cost of coal from competing sources,world demand,cost of production,duration of contract,and coal quality,to list just a few of the factors. At present,coal prices are depressed because of low demand due to a world-wide recession and temporarily low oil prices. For the next few years real market prices will escalate very slowly.In the longer term,rapidly decreased demands, especially in the Pacific Rim countries,can be expected to drive up prices by calling forth increasingly expensive sources. The Railbelt Alternatives Study (29)estimates that coal landed in Japan will escalate at a real (constant dollar)1.6 percent per year between 1985 and 1990 and at 2.4 percent thereafter. The market cost,in the long run at least,is affected by the long run marginal cost of production.Long term coal contracts frequently contain clauses tying price to escalations in capital,labor,and energy costs.A representative for a VI-3 Canadian mining firm estimated that those costs will escalate at about 2 percent per year (real)(30).This rate agrees with the market price escalation rate.However,by APA's assumption, inflation is zero except for petroleum fuels.There is no basis for assuming that labor or equipment cost will escalate faster than the underlying inflation rate.This suggests that a cost- based escalation rate should be about 20 percent (the petroleum energy component)of the overall 2 percent escalation,or about 0.4 percent. Therefore,two real escalation rates were used for increasing the cost of coal over time.For coal sources which serve a world market,the escalation rate should be 2 percent to reflect the opportunity cost on the world market.For coal mines developed for Alaska use only,real cost escalation factor of 0.4 percent was used,which reflects only the petroleum fuel related cost run-up. The 1982 present value of fuel costs for the coal energy supply plan is obtained by supplying the 2002 requirement over the period from 1985-2038.As noted above,coal costs are assumed to escalate (at either 0.4 or 2 percent per year)from 1982 to 2002.Thereafter price is constant.All costs must be discounted back to 1982 dollars at a 3.5 percent discount rate. The following formula can be used to calculate the discounted present value of a cost stream growing at a constant annual amount: 4 +sy'Initial value x (i-+-2)4 +eg where:e =esclation rate =0.02 or 0.004 r =discount rate =0.035 n =years =36 Thus,the 1985 present value of coal from 1985 to 2002 is 14.95 times its 1985 cost for coal which escalates at 2 percent per year;and 13.07 times 1985 cost for coal which escalates at 0.4 percent per year. Coal which costs $1.00 in 1982 and escalates at 2%per year costs $1.0612 in 1985,which has a 1982 present value of $0.957. To get the 1982 present value of the fuel costs from 1985 to 2002,for a 2 percent escalation,$14.95 is multiplied by 0.957 to obtain $14.31.Thus coal which cost $1.00 in 1982 costs $14.31 to supply from 1985 to 2002.Similarly,coal which escalates at 0.4 percent per year costs $1.012 in 1985 has a 1982 present value of $0.91.Thus the 1982 value of fuel costs from 1985 to 2002 is 0.91 times $13.07,or $11.93 times the 1982 fuel cost. By APA's assumption,there is no cost escalation between 2002 and 2039 (the end point of the project analysis period). Thus to get the value of the coal from 2003 to 2039: 1.Find the 2003 cost of coal. 2.Find the 2003 value of a 36 year cost stream using the cost of coal in Item 1. 3.Take the 1982 present value of the 2003 value. Escalated at 2 percent per year,coal which costs $1.00 in 1982 costs $1.52 in 2003.The 2003 present value of a $1.52 cost stream for 36 years is $31.92,which has a 1982 present value of $15.50.Similarly,for coal which escalates at 0.4 percent per year,coal which costs $1.00 in 1982 costs $1.09 in 2003.A 36-year $1.09 cost stream has a 2003 present value of $22.89,and a 1982 present value of $11.12. To find the 1982 value of the cost stream for coal from 1985 to 2038,the two 1982 present values are added.Thus coal which escalates from $1.00 in 1982 at 2 percent has a 1982 cost stream value of $14.31 plus $15.50 or $29.81.Thus to find the 1982 discounted cost of coal over the project life,the 1982 cost (Exhibit 2)is multiplied by 29.81.Similarly,for coal which escalates at 0.4 percent,the 1982 cost is multiplied by 23.05 (the sum of $11.93 and $11.12). The fuel costs which result from this analysis appear on Exhibit 3. In addition to fuel costs,the coal energy supply plan cost includes capital cost for retrofitting,existing space heating facilities to burn coal,and the operation maintenance and replacement costs for all existing and future heating facil- ities.Assuming that 80 percent of existing facilities convert to coal,the cost of this conversion (from Exhibit 16)will be $1,662,000 for residential buildings and $4,128,000 for public and commercial buildings,for a total of $5,800,000.If the conversion to coal is done in 1985,the 1982 present value is $5,142,000. The operation,maintenance and replacement (OM&R)is based on the new and existing system needed to provide 80 percent of vI-5 the 2002 projected space heating demand.Exhibit 16 shows that OM&R totals $87,000 per year for residential systems and $446,000 per year for commercial and public systems.The present (1982)value of this annual flow is $11,517,000. Comparing the total system costs of different coal sources, undeveloped Alaska coal sources again appear most attractive. Cape Beaufort coal is the lowest cost source,closely followed by Herendeen Bay.At the level of accuracy of this study,the three sources are essentially equal. Only slightly more costly than the top three sources are the Bering River and Matanuska occurrences.Beluga coal,while inexpensive in the early years,escalates at the higher (2 percent)rate of i ternational market sources.Therefore,it is somewhat more expensive than the above-mentioned Alaska sources. Distinction among the top five undeveloped occurrences awaits refinement of their comparative costs to mine.Although Kuskokwim coal is the closest source,it is clearly inferior due to its high cost to mine. Comparing the net present value (NPV)cost of developed sources,Prince Rupert coal is again least costly,closely followed by Vancouver coal.Unless more favorable long-term delivery contracts can be obtained for Utah or Vancouver coal, or if the barge cost to Bethel is more expensive than assumed here,Prince Rupert coal should remain the preferred developed source.Usibelli coal is a poor fourth choice because of its much higher costs in sacked form. Conclusions The ultimate economic attractiveness of a coal energy sup- ply plan cannot be evaluated until factoring in the cost of thecoal-fired electrical generation system.Then the coal energy supply plan can be compared with alternative supply plans based on other energy sources.However,on the basis of the informa- tion developed to date,the following conclusions can be drawn: l.It is technically and economically feasible to ship coal to the Bethel area from as far away as Utah. 2.Capital investment requirements for developing a coal handling infrastructure in Bethel total 3.4 million (1982 dollars). 3.The net present value of capital equipment replacement costs total $5.5 million (1982). VI-6 A.The capital investment required to replace the exist- ing diesel space heating system with coal-fired equip- ment is $26.0 million (1982 dollars). These capital expenditures,plus the annual operation and Maintenance costs,and fuel purchase and transportation costs, result in an NPV of $227 million (1982 dollars)for Cape Beaufort coal,the least costly undeveloped coal occurrence. Prince Rupert,the least costly developed source,has an NPV of $318 million.These expenditures can be converted to levelized annual costs of $9.5 and $13.3 million (1982 dollars),respec- tively for Cape Beaufort and Prince Rupert coal energy supply plans. The 1982 cost of coal (including the levelized cost of capital equipment and operation and maintenance)can be compared to the cost of diesel fuel.Assuming Prince Rupert coal is used,costs can be compared as follows: Coal Diesel Assumed Cost Per Ton Cost Per Ton Diesel End-Use Equivalent?Equivalent Cost ($/gal.) Power Plant $92.55 $197.0 $1.35 Sacked/Bethel 136.64 204.0 $1.40 Sacked/Villages 172.66 226.0 $1.55 Bulk/Bethel 95.22 197.0 $1.35 4 Prom Exhibit 2. These cost comparisons indicate that coal is a much less costly fuel than diesel,even when the high costs of transporta- tion and sacking are included.However,these results are pre- liminary.Again,final comparison must compare the NPV of the coal system with its diesel counterpart,including both capital and fuel costs. Assuming that development of coal energy sources is indi- cated,arrangements should be made to obtain a 5-to 10-year contract for Prince Rupert coal,and to transport that coal to Bethel.As the term of this contract draws to a close,the imported coal's costs should be compared with the least costly available Alaskan source.If the Alaskan source proves more economical than Prince Rupert coal (as this report indicates it will),contracts can be negotiated to convert to this local source coal. Vi-7 ll. 12. 13. 14, 15. REFERENCES Alaska Information Service,Alaska Coal Development,Alaska Series,1981,Anchorage,AK. Denton,Steve:Personal communication,August,1982. Arctic Slope Technical Services,"Kotzebue Coal-Fired Cogeneration,District Heating and Other Energy Alterna- tives Feasibility Assessment",Vols.1 and 2;for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,AK,October,1982. ISER,Alaska's Unique Transportation System,Vol.XVII,No. 2,Anchorage,AK,1980. Crowley Maritime,Dave Schuyler:Personal communication, Seattle,WA,April 28,1982. Dillingham Maritime,Tim O'Leary:Personal communication, Seattle,WA,May 1,1982. Sea Span,Captain Ed Taylor:Personal communication, Vancouver,August 4,1982. Dames &Moore,"Assessment of the Feasiblity of Utilization of Coal Resources of Northwestern Alaska for Space Heating and Electricity,Phase II",for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,AK,December,1981. BNA,Policy and Practice Series,Washington,D.C. September,1982. Alaska Railroad,John Grey:Personal communication, Anchorage,AK,April 28,1982. Northern Stevedore,Gail Shingleton:Personal communica- tion,April 28,1982. Manitou Equipment,Telecommunication,16 June 1982,Redwood City,CA. Paceco Crane Co.,Telecommunication with Mr.Tom Venator, 16 June 1982,Portland Oregon. Zidell Corporation,Telecommunication with Mr.Andy Canulett,9 June 1982,Portland,Oregon. Swan &Wooster Engineers,Telecommunication with Mr.John Tabor,23 June 1982. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. REFERENCES (Cont'd) U.S.Bureau of Mines,1976,Report 14677,Pittsburgh,PA, Volume 1:Summary and Volume IV:Barge Transportation (PB 274-382/AS). McGraw Hill,17 September 1981,"Hourly Wage Scales in Construction,August 1,1981",Engineering News Record,New York,NY. McGraw Hill,25 March 1982,"Construction Cost Escalation Indices,October 1982",Engineering News Record,New York, NY. Tabor Mining Manufacturing Co.,Telecommunication with Mr. John Tabor,23 June 1982. N.C.Machinery Co.,Telecommunication with Mr.Dale Warren, 9 June 1982,Seattle,WA. U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics,17 June 1982,Re:FEquip- ment Price Index published by Engineering News Record,"2nd Quarterly Cost Roundup:Machinery,"McGraw Hill,New York, NY. United Transportation,Jack Turner:Personal comnunica- tion,Bethel,AK,August 6,1982. Hall,Robert,and DeAngelis:"EPA's research program for controlling residential wood combustion emissions",JAPCA, Vol.30,No.8 p.862,1980. PEDCo-Environmental,Inc.,"Source Testing for Fireplaces, Stoves,and Restaurant Grills in Vail,Colorado",prepared for the USEPA,Region VIII,1977. Environmental Protection Agency:"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors",Report AP-42,Second Edition, Supplements 7 &8,1977. National Climatic Center,Local Climatological Data,1980. Alaska Department of Conservation,Ellen Fritts:Personal communication,November 2,1982,Juneau,AK. Boyette,Dan,City of Bethel Engineer:Personnel communi- cations. 29. 30. REFERENCES (Cont'd) Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,"Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study:Fossil Fuel Availability and Price Forecasts",Vol.VII;for the Office of the Governor, Juneau,AK,March,1982. Drozd,Richard,Bullmoose Mine:Personal communication, October 28,1982. wAA7BUCKET CRANE UNLOADING OFPARGE fAJeOm EuirrterT:-CRAKILER.CRANE KI/&CL.TO.BUCKET -POLER ON BARGE-COAL CONVETOR -FEL AT PIER SfakpiePeo| 90000 ToS ANNUALLY TRUCK SHIPMENTToPLANT MAIOR.Eauiprteny: (2)20-ToN GAPACITY DUMP TRUCKS -FEL AT PIER STOCKPILE -Dozer AT PLANT SITE 30000 TONS ANNUALLY EXHIBIT 1 -FRoT END LoApeR -(2)FLAT BED Trucks -SACK FEED HOPPER -BURLAP SACKS -PALLETS 10,000 Tons:||6,000 Toke"ANNU ALL T AWMEEELT.[ ]2-ToeVILLAGES |DETHEL -(2)20-Tou CAPACITYPUMPTRucKs |SACK SHIPMENT BULK SHIPMENT PLANT Use tAJom EQUIPMENT:MAJOR EQUIPMENT:PIiAJoR EQUIPMENT:-FRONT ENO LOADER -pozerR 328,000 TONS ANNUALLT |23000 Tons ANNUALLY =+" 7 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Dames &Moore SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED COAL HANDLING AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS IN BETHEL HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANYSanFrancisco December 1982 EXHIBIT 2 SUMMARY OF COAL COSTS BY END-USE CATEGORY AND SOURCES (Based on 2002 Demands) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cost Bethel:Bethel:Bethel:villages: per 10,000 Power Plant Sacked Cost Bulk Cost Sacked Cost Heat Cost Transport Btu/lb Ton-Cost Per Ton Per Ton-Per Ton-Per Ton Content F.O.B.Mine Cost Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Source (Btu/ib)1 ($/ton)1 ($/ton)2 FOB Bethel3 ($/t.e.)4 ($/t.e.)($/t.e.)($/t.e.) Developed Sources l.Usibelli 7,850 28.35 44 92.16 107.87 175.27 112.14 232.17 2.Powder River 9,300 12.00 86 105.38 120.80 178.20 124.39 226.23 3.Utah 12,400 34.00 83 94.35 110.29 154.38 112.96 190.40 4.Vancouver 11,000 47.30 41 80.27 95.83 144.96 98.86 185.57 5.Prince Rupert 12,400 54.00 41 76.61 92.55 136.64 95.22 172.66 Undeveloped Sources 6.Kuskokwim 10,000 80.00 23 103.00 118.43 172.07 121.77 216.74 7.Unalakleet 6,500 60.00 34 144.61 161.18 242.00 166.35 310.73 8.Nulato 10,000 60.00 60 120.00 135.43 189.07 138.77 233.74 9.Broad Pass 6,200 40.00 38 125.81 142.68 227.30 148.11 299.35 10.Susitna (Beluga)8,300 20.00 24 53.00 68.56 132.47 72.60 186.29 11.Matanuska 11,500 40.00 39 68.69 84.37 131.55 87.26 170.39 12.Kenai 6,500 40.00 23 96.92 113.49 194.31 118.66 263.04 13.Herendeen Bay 11,500 60.00 13 63.47 79.15 126.33 82.04 165.17 14.Bering River 12,500 60.00 30 72.00 87.97 131.74 90.63 167.48 15.Chicago Creek 6,500 60.00 44 160.00 176.57 257.39 181.74 326.12 16.Cape Beaufort 13,000 60.00 19 60.77 76.92 119.20 79.47 153.56 Source:Dames &Moore calculations 1.See Table II-1 and Exhibit 4.Where there is a range,the mean value is used. 2.See Exhibit 7. 3.Column 2 plus Column 3 times 10,000/Column 1. 4.Total demand -87,000 T.E.,of which electric demand is 23,000 T.E.,bulk demand in Bethel is 38,000 T.E.,sacked demand in Bethel is 16,000 T.E.,and sacked demand in villages is 10,000 T.F. EXHIBIT 3 TOTAL NET PRESENT VALUES OF COAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR SELECTED COAL SOURCES ($Thousand,1982) Capital Cost P.V.of Total P.V.(1982) Present Value (1982)Fuel Costl for Retrofit Annual of Coal Use Sacked for Sacked for Total of O&M Energy Source Electricity?Bethel 3 Bethel Use4 Village Use?Fuel Cost Space Heaters®1985-20386 Supply Plan Developed Usibel1i®77,041 131,774 84,241 69,414 362,470 .5,142 11,517 379,129 Utah8 78,986 134,270 75,894 58,048 347,198 5,142 11,517 363,857 vancouver®69,032 118,284 71,015 56,348 314,679 5,142 11,517 331,338 Prince Rupert8 66,965 114,411 67,531 52,822 301,730 5,142 11,517 318,389 Undeveloped Kuskokwim?68,092 117,549 67,640 52,799 305,900 5,142 11,517 322,559 Beluga®50,385 87,622 64,228 55,998 258,232 5,142 11,517 274,891 Mt uska?49,555 84,968 52,412 42,008 228,943 5,142 11,517 245,602 Herendeen?46,696 80,245 50,424 40,765 218,130 5,142 11,517 234,789 Cape Beaufort?45,629 78,048 48,085 38,236 210,358 5,142 11,517 227,017 Bering River?51,625 88,343 52,740 41,472 234,180 5,142 11,517 250,839 1.See Exhibit 2 for costs per ton-equivalents. 2.Based on 23,000 T-E per year. 3.Based on 38,000 T-E per year. 4.Based on 16,000 T-E per year. 5.Based on 10,000 T-F per year. 6.See Exhibit 16. 7.Values based on 1982 P.V.of annuity of $553,000 for years 1985 to 2038. 8.Escalates at 2 percent real rate (world market supplier) 9.Escalates at 0.4 percent real rate (domestic supplier) Source:Dames &Moore Calculations EXHIBIT 3 TOTAL NET PRESENT VALUES OF COAL ENFRGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR SFLECTED COAL SOURCES (S Thousand,1982) Capital Cost P.V.of Total P.V.(1982) Present Value (1982)Fuel Cost!for Retrofit Annual of Coal Bethel Sacked for Bulk Use Sacked for Total of O&M Energy Source Power Plant?Bethel Use?in Rethel4 Village Use?Fuel Cost Space Heaters®1985-20386 Supply Plan Developed Usibelli?73,9592/83,597 127,030 69,2190 353,796 5,142 11,517 370,455 Utah?75,618 73,633 127,951 56,758 333,960 5,142 11,517 350,619Vancouver?65,704 69,140 111,987 55,318 392,149 5,142 11,517 318,808 Prince Rupert'63,455 65,172 107,863 51,470 287,960 5,142 11,517 304,619 Undeveloped Kuskokwim8 62,786 63,459 106,658 49,959 282,862 5,142 11,517 299,52) Beluga'47,007 63,183 82,240 55,533 247,963 5,142 11,517 264,622 Matanuska®44,729 48,516 76,431 39,275 208,951 5,142 11,517 225,610 Herendeen®41,961 46,591 71,859 38,972 198,483 5,142 11,517 215,142 Cape Reaufort8 40,779 43,961 69,608 35,396 189,744 5,142 11,517 206,403 Bering River8 46,637 48,586 79,383 38,604 213,219 5,142 11,517 229,869 1.See Exhibit 2 for costs per ton-equivalents. 2.Based on 23,000 T-E per year. 3.Based on 16,000 T-E per year. 4.Based on 38,000 T-E per year. 5.Based on 10,000 T-E per year. 6.See Exhibit 16, 7.Escalates at 2 percent real rate (world market supplier).PV factor =29,81 8.Escalates at 0.4 percent real rate (domestic supplier).PV factor =23.05 9.Example Calculation:$107.87/te x 23,000 te x 29.81 (PV factor)=$73,959,000, Source:Dames &Moore Calculations EXHIBIT 4 PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALASKAN COAL OCCURRENCES Estimated Cost Distance Factors to Mine to Development Source and Location Rank and/or Heat Content Affecting Mineability or Purchase Bethel Status (Btu/1b.)(§7Ton-FOB Mine)(Miles) Nenana District Usibelli Mine,Subbituminous Existing surface mine $28.35 1575 Developed Healy,AK 7,850 with capacity to meet Bethel's requirements. Kuskokwim District Nunivak and Nelson Islands Bituminous Thin beds (2 feet or $80.00 250-270 Very unlikely 10,000 less),high ash,remote location,occurrences probably on native lands, no port facilities. Unalakleet District various locations near Lignite Low grade coal,acces by $60.00 550 Unlikely Unalakleet and up to 6,500 river barge,no developed 40 miles upriver infrastructure.History of small scale mining. Nulato District Various occurrences on Yukon Bituminous Mostly thin beds and $60.00 600-900 Unlikely River between Ruby and Anvik 10,000 limited extent.Access only by shallow draft river barges. Flat District Iditarod River Deposits Anthracite Very limited resources.Ac-$60.00 800 Unlikely 14,000 cess by shallow draft river barge,remot location. Cape Beaufort/ Corwin Bluff District Various occurrences Bituminous to Probably extensive resources,$60.00 860 Good long Anthracite some in thick gently dipping term prospect 12,000 -14,000 beds.Access to tidewater, but no developed infra- structure. Source and Location Cook Inlet/Susitna Broad Pass Susitna (Beluga) Matanuska Kenai (Homer) Alaska Peninsula Herendeen Bay Unga Island Chignik Coal Field Bering River District EXHIBIT 4 (cont'd) PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALASKAN COAL OCCURRENCES Bering River Coal Seward Peninsula Chicago Creek Estimated Cost Distance Factors to Mine to Rank and/or Heat Content Affecting Mineability or Purchase Bethel (Btu/ib.)($7Ton-FOB Mine)(Miles) Lignite Extensive resources but $40.00 1,200 5410 7040 development contingent on Beluga.Low rank. Lignite-sub-bituminous Mineable by large-scale $20.00 1,320 7030 =-9520 surface techniques on tidewater,but low rank Bituminous Previously developed mine,$40.00 1,370 9,000 -14,000 could be reopened. Lignite Mineable by large-scale $40.00 1,230 6,500 surface techniques on tidewater,but low rank. Bituminous Moderate folding,but some $60.00 420 11,500 thick beds.Near tidewater. Remote location. Lignite Remote location,very low $80.00 960 5,800 rank. Bituminous Fairly extensive deposits $60.00 880 9,600 -11,200 with some 3-foot beds,but surface mineability unknown. Bituminous-Highly folded occurrence $60.00 ? Anthracite with extensive deposits. 10,000 -15,000 Lignite Steep dips,but thick $60.00 840 6,500 bed.Shallow access. Development Status Possible in long term Under active consideration Possible medium term Possible in long term Possible in long term very unlikely Possible in long term Under considera- tion by City of Cordova Unlikely (1) Electricity Demands EXHIBIT 5 DEMAND FORECAST OF COAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BY COMMUNITY1 (2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Million Community Btu Tons2,3 Bethel 104,848 19,416 Akiachak 2,236 414 Akiak 1,147 213 Atmautluak 1,141 211 Eek 1,667 309 Kasigluk 2,412 447 Kweth1luk 1,937 359 Napakiak 2,249 416 Napaskiak 1,497 277 Nunapitchuk 1,482 274 Oscarville 400 74 Tuluksak 1,381 256 Tuntutuliak 1,052 195 TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA 123,451 22,861 1 Demand forecasts based on Darbyshire &Associates,10/15/82. (7)(8) Total Total Space Heating Demands4 Electric Electric +50%Coal +80%CoalMillionBtuTons2Tons2SpaceHeatSpaceHeat @ 100%@ 803%@ 50% 1,341,500 53,600 33,538 52,954 73,076 34,000 1,360 850 1,264 1,774 10,500 420 263 475 633 18,500 740 463 674 951 25,000 1,000 625 934 1,309 38,000 1,520 950 1,397 1,867 27,000 1,080 675 1,034 1,039 21,000 840 525 941 1,256 16,500 660 413 690 1,274 25,000 1,000 625 899 937 5,000 200 125 199 274 17,500 700 438 693 756 20,500 820 513 707 1,015 1,600,000 64,000 40,000 62,861 86,761 2 All coal tonnages are based on 10,000 Btu per pound ton-equivalents. 3 Coal is assumed to be converted to electricity at a 27%end-use efficiency. 4 For purposes of heating demand,the space heat demands from Darbyshire (10/15/82)were This assumes that coal can be burned with the sameconverteddirectlyintocoal. efficiency as existing sources. ere 'EXHIBIT 6 jen Sfoene are oFRULES-FIAD - CIAL 200 FT.LeNGTit .goo .° -_--en :.'Hd '2 FEET ; Lone 50 )50 100 .3 h +-1 t ___|: ;:; ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY r :!BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN a i .FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT :-PROPOSED COAL UNLOADING SYSTEM oo.a ._p.-TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AT i ao,ole 'PETROLEUM DOCK IN BETHEL ;-41 .Dames &Moore : }, ;Fo _HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY. :San Francisco,sy - ee 2 -..December 1982 on LCOAL.HorreR - rae ' t :eS the t tom pT:---4alpey/COAL DYOCKPILE Sypeene AREA PERIMETER.APT HIGH Perm.CUTANOFit.Te sulTOPogRAPHicCONDITION. I | #,be= 'ot +2 apes \ {| me } i - EXHIBIT 7 COST OF TRANSPORTING COAL TO BETHEL BY BARGE AND RAIL (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Rail Total Assumed Round Trip Transport Cost of Barge Barge Cost Per Rail &Handling Transport Source .Distance Size Tonl Distance Cost2 to Bethel Port of Embarcation (Miles)(Tons)($/Ton) (Miles)(§/7Ton)(§/ton) Developed Sources 1.Usibelli Mine 1,320 6,000+24 375 20 44 Seward,AK? 2.Powder River,MT 2,430 6,000+42 1,100 44 86 Portland,OR 3.Utah 3,170 6,000+57 850 25 83 Long Beach,CA 4.Vancouver 2,280 6,000+415 --41 Roberts Bank,BC 5.Prince Rupert 1,830 6,000+41 --41 Prince Rupert,BC Undeveloped Sources 6.Kuskokwim District 250-270 2,000 233 --23 Mine 7.Unalakleet District 550 2,000 343 --34 Mine 8.Nulato District 600-9004 500 604 --60 Mine 9.Broad Pass 1,200 6,000+23 150 15 38 Seward? 10..Susitna (Beluga)1,280 6,000+24 --24 Mine ll.Matanuska 1,320 6,000+24 -156 39 Anchorage? 12.Kenai 1,230 6,000+23 --23 Homer 13.Herendeen Bay 420 6,000+13 --13 Herendeen Bay 14.Bering River 1,500 2,000+_30 --30 Mine 15.Chicago Creek 840 6,000+44 --44 Mine 16.Cape Beaufort 840 6,000+19 --19 Mine * 1 Barge transport costs are based on an average of Exhibit 8 and Table III-l,except as noted.See text for underlying assumptions. 2 Rail cost based on coal tariffs for long-term contract,but not unit train shipments.Costs include aloading/unloading charge of $5.00 per ton at Portland and Long Beach,and $8.00 per ton at Seward. 3 Based on estimated costs from Crowley for 2,000-ton barge (2 times 5,000-ton barge cost on Exhibit 8). 4 Based on costs for 500-ton river barges reported. 5 Based on estimated from Sea Span,1982.Includes,$2.00 per ton loading charge at Roberts Bank. 6 A very approximate estimate of the cost of trucking,stockpiling and loading coal on barges in Anchorage. 7 No coal loading facilities now exist at Anchorage or Seward,but facilities will likely be built at atleastoneoftheseports. EXHIBIT 8 DAILY LEASE RATES FOR CROWLEY MARITIME TUG AND BARGE EQUIPMENT1 Cost2 Cost2 Maximum Barge Tug Per Day Per Day Cost Per Ton at One-Way Distance of 3 Coal Tonnage Dimension Horsepower Underway Standby 250 500 1000 2000 2500 @ 12-Inch Draft (feet)(HP)(Dollars)(Dollars)(Miles)(Miles)(Miles)(Miles)(Miles) 5,000 250 2,800 11,000 9,000 11.60 16.00 24.80 42.40 51.20 5,400 312 2,800 11,500 9,500 11.20 15.50 24.10 41.10 49.60 6,900 400x76 5,000 13,800 10,000 9.80 13.80 21.80 37.80 45.80 9,100 400x100 7,000 17,500 12,500 9.30 13.20 20.94 36.30 44.00 1 Based on personal communication,Dave Schyler,Crowley Maritime,Seattle,4/28/82. 2 Costs assume no back-haul cargo,but that the barge could be used in other service during the winter months. 3 Costs assume 4 days total loading/unloading (standby)time per trip and 250 miles per day headway.No allowance is included for annual mobilization from the Lower 48 in the case of remote Alaskan ports. CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE A EXHIBIT 9 Includes 10%add-on for shipping charges. Includes 5%add-on for shipping charges. Capital Allocated Capital Item (Fixed Costs)(Fixed)Costs ($1000)($1000) Material Dock Sack Bulk Plant Manitowoc Model 3900 Vicon crawler crane $550.01 550.0 -- 6 cy.yd.Erie Strayer clam buckets (plus spare)44.01 44.0 --- (2)D-6 Caterpillar dozers 315.02 157.5 --123.5 (1)300 ft.coal conveyor 429.02 429.0 --- (2)20-ton dump trucks 223.02 74.4 -148.6 - (1)Caterpillar 977 front-end loader 199.52 121.7 38.9 38.9 - (1)Caterpillar v-30C fork lifts 54.62 -54.6 - (2)Flat-bed trucks 210.02 -210 -- (1)Sack feed hopper 16.51 -16.5 -- (320)Timber piles 4.8 4.8 --- Miscellaneous road and dock improvements 500.0 500.0 --- TOTAL $2546.4 1915.4 320 187.5 123.5 Installation Labor Timber pile installation $9.6 9.6 --- Conveyor construction labor 390.0 390.0 --- Miscellaneous road and dock improvements 500.0 500.0 --- TOTAL INSTALLATION 899.6 899.6 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $3,446 2789.4 $30.1 $196.9 $148.6 LEVELIZED ANNUAL COST $139.59 113.0 12.6 8.0 6.0 REPLACEMENT COSTS (1) EXHIBIT 10 FOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE (2)(3) Cost (in thousands (4) Capital (Fixed)Costs (Thousands 1982S) (5)(6)(7) Item Replacement Time of 1982 dollars)Dock Sack Bulk Plant Crane and 2 buckets every 8 years $594.01 594.0 --- (2)D-6 Carterpillar dozers every 8 years 315.02 166.4 --148.6 Conveyor belt (labor and materials)years,1 21 &4l 13.21 13.2 --- Conveyor belt,idlers and rollers (labor and materials)every 3 years 69.31 69.3 -- Conveyor structure,belt,idlers,rol- lers &hoppers (labor &materials)years 21 &41 819.01 819.0 --- (2)20-ton dump trucks every 8 years 223.02 70.0 -153.0 (1)Caterpillar 977 front-end loader every 8 years 199.52 125.6 30.0 43.9 - (2)Caterpillar vV-30C fork lifts every 8 years 54.62 -54.6 -- (2)Flat-bed trucks every 8 years 210.02 -210.0 -- (1)Sack feed hopper every 21 &41 16.51 -16.5 -- LEVELIZED ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 148.5 31.6 20.8 15.6 Source:Dames and Moore calculations. 1 Includes 10 percent add-on for shipping charges. Includes 5 percent add-onfor shipping charges. EXHIBIT 11 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE A No.of Equipment --Annuall No.of Annual Manhours Units Type Operating Hrs/Unit Operators per Operator At Pier 1 Crane 310 1 392 1 D-6 Cat,on barge 310 1]392 1 Conveyor 310 3 392 2 20-ton dump trucks 580 4 906 1 Front-end loader 1,450 2 906 At Plant 1 D-6 Cat,grading stockpiles 1,760 1 2,080 2 20-ton dump trucks 1,267 4 792 1 Fork-1lift 867 1 1,084 1 Sack-hopper "me 1l 1,970 2 Flat-bed trucks 650 2 1,300 1 Front-end loader 854 1 1,066 At Cargo Dock 1 Fork-lift 778 --2 -- Source:Dames &Moore calculations 1 Projections are for fuel consumption only.Various items such as trucks will be in use during loading activities,but are not expected to be consuming fuel during these periods. 2 Operated by truck driver. EXHIBIT 12 ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (in thousand of 1982 dollars) Hours Hourly Total Cost Pier Sack Bulk Plant Labor Annually Wage Fixed Variable Fixed Var Fixed Var Fixed Var Fixed Var Operator Supervising Foreman 2080 $50 $104.0 52 20.8 20.8 10.4 Assistant Foreman 2080 29 60.3 30.1 12.1 12.1 6.0 Clerical 2080 20 41.6 20.8 8.3 8.3 4.2 Crane Operator 392 28 $11.0 11.6 --- (4)Conveyor Laborers 392 ea.25 29.4 29.4 --- Dozer Operator at Pier 392 28 11.0 11.0 --- Dozer Operator at Plant 2080 ea.28 58.2 30.8 --277.4 (2)Dump Truck Drivers 169§ea.23 156.2 83.4 -72.8 - Front-end Loader Operator 2878 28 80.6 -50.8 12.1 17.7 - Fork-lift Operator at Plant 1084 28 30.4 -30.4 -- (2)FPlat-bed Truck Drivers 1300 ea.23 59.8 -59.8 -- (8)Sack Hopper Laborers 1970 ea.25 514.8 541.8 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $205.9 $978.4 102.9 216.4 41.2 644.1 41.2 66.8 90.5 27.4 Fuel and Electric Consumption Hours Equipment Total Cost Variable Costs Item Annually Unit Size Fixed Variable Pier Sack Bulk _Plant Crane 310 310 hp --$9.8 9.8 --- Conveyor 310 150 hp - 4.8 4.8 --- Dozer @ Pier 310 140 hp --4.4 4.4 --- Dozer @ Plant 1760 140 hp --25.2 13.3 --11.9 (2)Dump Trucks 3694 250 hp -- 94.4 29.6 -64.8 - (1)Front-end Loader 2304 200 hp --47.1 29.6 7.1 10.4 - (2)Fork lifts,gasoline 1645 125 hp --24.0 -24.0 -- (2)Flat-bed Trucks 1300 250 hp 33.2 -33.2 $o $242.9 91.5 64.3 75.2 11.9 Miscellaneous Materials Total Cost Variable Costs Item Quantity Cost/Unit Fixed Variable Pier Sack Bulk Plant Pallets 4,333 $30 -$130 -130.0 -- Burlap Sacks 520,000 $.50 --260 -260.0 -- $390 390.0 ; Total Cost Pier Sack Bulk Plant Maintenance Fixed Variable Fixed Var Fixed Var Fixed Var Fixed Var 4 percent of capital material costs $50.9 $50.9 37.8 37.8 6.2 6.2 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 Insurance 2 percent of capital material costs $50.9 $0 37.8 -6.2 -3.9 -3.0 - Overhead and Administration 27-1/4 percent of total operating and $83.8 $452.9 48.6 94.2 14.6 301 13.4 46.2 7.2 11.5 maintenance costs TT TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING &MAINTENANCE COSTS $391.5 $2115.1 227.1 439.9 68.2 1405.6 62.4 215.8 33.8 53.8 EXHIBIT 13 LEVELIZED ANNUAL COSTS FOR COAL TRANSPORTATION WITHIN BETHEL ($Thousand 1982) Pier to Power Plant Sacked Coal Bulk Delivery Coal for Power Plant Component Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Levelized Initial Capital Investment!113 -13 -8 -6 - Levelized Annual Replacement Costs2 149 -32 -21 -16 - Annual Operation &Maintenance Costs3 Labor 103 216 41 644 41 91 21 27 Fuel -92 -64 -75 -12 Sacks &Pallets ---390 ---- Maintenance 38 38 6 6 4 4 3 2 Insurance 38 -6 -4 -3 3 Overhead 49 94 15 301 13 46 7 ll TOTAL ANNUAL O&M 228 440 68 1405 62 216 34 53 TOTAL ANNUAL LEVELIZED COST 490 5.065 113 54.035 91 5.68>56 2.305 LEVELIZED COST PER TON4 10.69 58.38 8.08 4.74 LEVELIZED COST PER TON 69.07 18.77 15.43 _CINCLUDING PIER COSTS) Source:Dames &Moore calculations 1 See Exhibit 10 2 See Exhibit 11 3 See Exhibit 10 4 Assume 50,000 tons across dock,of which 20,000 tons are sacked,20,000 delivered in bulk,and 10,000 used in electrical gengration.5 variable costs expressed in $/ton,not $1000. EXHIBIT 14 COST OF TRANSPORTATING COAL AND DIESEL FROM BETHEL TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Diesel Cost/Diesel Cost/ Distance 10,000 Btu 14,000 Btu From Cost/Gallon Ton Equiv Ton Equiv Bethel Cost/Ton of Diesel of Coalt of Coal2 Village (Miles)(S/Ton)($/Gal)(S/TE1)($/TE1) Akiachak 28 36.60 0.180 25.96 36.34 Akiak 30 40.80 0.185 26.68 37.35 Amaut luak 28 36,80 0.190 27.40 38.36 Eek 653 64,40 0.190 27.40 38.36 Kasigluk 68 56.80 0.190 27.40 38.36 Kwethluk 20 32.20 0.175 25.23 35.33 Napakiak 12 28.60 0.175 25.23 35.33 Napaskiak 6 24.20 0.165 23.79 33.31 Nunapitchuk 68 56.80 0.190 27.40 38.36 Oscarville 6 24,20 0.165 23.79 33.31 Tuluksak 60 48.60 0.185 26.68 37.35 Tuntutuliak 62 56.80 0.185 26.68 37.35 Source:United Transportation,Jack,Turner,personal communication, 8/16/82,and Dames &Moore calculations. This column compares the cost of transporting diesel to the cost of transporting an equivalent amount of energy from coal,assuming that the coal is 10,000 Btu/pound. 2 Same as Note 1,but assuming coal at 14,000 Btu/pound,. Distance is river mileage as quoted by United Transportation, EXHIBIT 15 NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL,PUBLIC,AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE BETHEL AREA Number of Public Number of and Commercial Community Residences!Buildings 1981 2002 1981 2002 Bethel 1,084 1,821 219 3684 Akiachak 88 176 11 23 Akiak 36 71 11 22 Amaut luak 47 81 9 16 Eek 56 94 7 12 Kasigluk>69 130 133 25 Kwethluk 87 168 8 16 Napakiak 60 102 15 25 Napaskiak 49 88 9 16 Nunapitchuk?60 119 123 23 Oscarville 12 25 4 8 Tuluksak 42 72 73 12 Tuntituliak 42 87 _7._14 TOTAL 1,732 3,034 332 580 1 The number of residences as reported by Darbyshire,6/17/82; scaled up to match projected heating demands in year 2002 (Darbyshire,10/15/82). Except as noted,the number of commercial/public buildings are as reported in P.E.,1982;scaled up as in Footnote 1. 3 Public buildings count from maps contained in P.E.,1982; scaled up as in Footnote l. Obtained from Bethel Utilities for number of commercial customers in Bethel;scaled up as in Footnote 1. Estimated breakdown between Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk is in proportion to the 2002 heating demand. EXHIBIT 16 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST FOR COAL FIRED SPACE HEATING systems! ($Thousand,1982) Annual Number of Total Capital Number of Total Residential Capital Cost Replacement Type I Capital Cost Location Systems!@ $1,200 ea @ 3%Systems!@ $2,500 ea Bethel 1,821 2,185 66 332 830 Akiachak 176 211 6.3 21 52.5 Akiak .71 85 2.6 20 50 Amautluak 81 97 2.9 14 35 Eek 94 113 3.4 10 25 Kasigluk 130 156 4.7 23 57.5 Kwethluk 168 202 6.1 14 35 Napakiak 102 122 3.7 24 60 Napaskiak 119 143 4.3 14 35 Nunapitchuk 119 143 4.3 21 52.5 Oscarville 25 30 0.9 6 15 Tuluksak 72 86 2.6 10 25 Tuntutuliak 87 104 3.1 12 30 TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA 3,065 3,677 110.9 521 1,303 TOTAL AT 80% COAL SPACE HEAT 2,427 2,912 87.4 417 1,042 TOTAL AT 80% SPACE HEAT YEAR 19823 1,386 1,662 49.9 231 578 Total 'Capital Cost Total Annual Number of Total Number of Total Commercial O&M and Type II Capital Cost Type III Capital Cost &Public ReplacementLocationSystems!@ $50,000 ea Systemsl @ $200,000 ea Systems @ 10% Bethel 34 1,700 12 2,400 4,930.0 493 Akiachak 2 100 --152.5 15.2 Akiak 2 100 --150.0 15.0 Amaut luak 2 100 -135.0 13.5 Eek 2 100 --125.0 12.5 Kasigluk 1 50 --107.5 10.7 Kwethluk 2 100 --135.0 13.5 Napakiak 1 50 --110.0 11.0 Napaskiak 2 100 --135.0 13.5Nunapitchuk150--102.5 10.2 Oscarville 2 100 --115.0 11.5 Tuluksak 2 100 --125.0 12.5 Tuntutuliak 2 100 --130.0 13.0 TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA 53 2,650 12 2,400 6,353 635 TOTAL AT 80% COAL SPACE HEAT 42 2,100 9.6 1,920 4,457 446 TOTAL AT 80% COAL SPACE HEAT YEAR 1982 33 1,640 9.6 1,920 4,138 414 Source:Dames &Moore calculations 1 From Exhibit 15.Based on year 2002 energy requirements 2 Operating costs do not include fuel cost. 3 Based on energy requirements for 1982 from Darbyshire &Associates,(6/17/82). ALASKA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS EXHIBIT 17 Primary Secondary Pollutant Averaging Time Standards Standards Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 g/m3 - 24-Hourl 365 g/m3 - 3-Hourl -1,300 g/m? Particulate Matter Annual Geometric Mean 75 g/m3 - 24-Hourl 260 g/m?150 g/m? Carbon Monoxide 8-Hourl 10,000 g/m?- 1-Hourl 40,000 g/m?- Ozone 1-Hour2 235 g/m3 - Hydrocarbons 3-Hour!(6-9 a.m.)160 g/m3 - Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 g/m3 - Lead Calendar Quarter Average 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3 Source:BNA Policy and Practice Series,Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,State Air Laws:306.0501,Alaska,Sept.1982. 1 Maximum concentrations not to be exceeded more than once per year. 2 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 12 ppm is equal to or less than one. EXHIBIT 18 ESTIMATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS UNDER A WEAK LAPSE RATE DUE TO COAL-FIRED CONVECTION STOVES IN BETHEL,ALASKA Concentrations Adjusted to StandardConditions*g/m Alaska &National Percentage of the Standard Consumed Averaging @36,000 tons @54,000 Tons 677,000 Tons Ambient Air Quality @36,000 Tons @54,000 Tons @77,000 Tons Pollutant Time per Year per Year per Year Standards g/m?per Year per Year per Year Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 295 443 631 10,000 3 1-hour 295 443 631 40,000 1 1 2 Particulate Matter Annual 44 443 94 75 59 98 125 24-hour 66 66 141 260 25 38 54 150 44 66 94 (secondary) Hydrocarbons 3-hour 66 99 144 160 41 62 88 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 7 11 15 100 7 11 15 Sulfur Dioxide Annual 29 44 62 80 :36 55 78 24-hour 42 63 90 365 12 17 25 3-hour 42 62 90 1,300 3 5 7 (secondary) Source =Dame &Moore'Calculations *Standard conditions are an ambient temperature of 25°C and an atmospheric pressure of 760 torr.The adjustment factor for wintertime conditions of 4°C and 750 torr at Bethel is 4 +273 x 760 2 0.9 25 +273 750