00 Executive Summary 14.5MW Jul07 NEA

SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.
) LIMITED
Chapali, Bishnu VDC, G. P.O.Box. 19737 Kathmandu, Nepal
14.5 MW MAI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

FEASIBILITY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(COMMENTS FROM NEA INCORPORATED)
June, 2007
SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED.
Engineering Department
Chapali, Bishnu VDC; G. P.O.Box. 19737 Kathmandu, Nepal
SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED

Chapali, Bishnu VDC, G. P.O.Box. 19737 Kathmandu, Nepal
MAI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

FEASIBILITY STUDY
Quality control Prepared by: TPP Checked by: Approved by: HSS SDS
Signature
Date
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(COMMENTS FROM NEA INCORPORATED)
June 2007 Ashadh 2064
SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED.
Engineering Department
Chapali, Bishnu VDC; G. P.O.Box. 19737 Kathmandu, Nepal
Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited
Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)
Table of Contents:
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 SALIENT FEATURES ...................................................................................................................... 2 1. 2. 3. 4. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 4 THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................ 4 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 5 BASIC STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENT STUDY .................................................................................... 7 4.2 POWER MARKET ................................................................................................................. 8 4.3 GOVERNMENT POLICY ......................................................................................................... 8 4.4 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES ........................................................................ 9 4.5 SEISMICITY........................................................................................................................ 12 4.6 MASS WASTING STUDY ..................................................................................................... 12 PROJECT LAYOUT ............................................................................................................. 12 OPTIMIZATION .................................................................................................................... 13 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ................................................................. 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .............................................................. 18 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COST ........................................................................ 19 9.1 ACCESS ROAD .................................................................................................................. 19 9.2 CAMPS AND FACILITIES ..................................................................................................... 19 9.3 CONSTRUCTION POWER.................................................................................................... 20 9.4 CONTRACT PACKAGE ........................................................................................................ 20 9.5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................. 20 9.6 COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 20 9.7 DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 22 PROJECT OUTPUTS AND BENEFITS ............................................................................... 22 PROJECT EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 23
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11.
12. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 24 12.1 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 24 12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 25
List of figures:
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Project Location Map Project Area Map Project Layout Headworks General Arrangement Powerhouse General Arrangement Tailrace General Arrangement Single Line Diagram at Delivery Point Implementation Schedule
SUMMARY
Mai Hydropower Project (MHP) was identified by Sanima Hydropower (P.) Ltd. following a reconnaissance study under taken by the company in 2004. After obtaining the survey licence from Government of Nepal (GoN) a detail study was carried out to determine the feasibility of the project. This feasibility report is the outcome of the continuous and untiring efforts put up by the staff of the company spanning several years of experience. The project site is located at a distance of 30 km north from Birtamod in East-West Highway. Headworks of the project is located on the Mai Khola between the boarder of two Village Development Committees (VDCs) namely Chisapani and Soyak in Ilam District. Right bank of the diversion dam lies in Soyak VDC of Ilam district. The powerhouse site is located at Musekhop village approximately 4.5 km upstream from the confluence of the Lodhiya Khola and Mai Khola in Danabari VDC of Ilam district. Initially, in June 2006, MHP was proposed as a daily peaking run of river project with installed capacity of 20.1 MW (2x10.05 MW) with design discharge of 21.4 m3/s and net head of 108.9 m. As the NEAs requirement on peaking hour supply Project is of no significance at present (when the base dement is not met) and there is no adequate exercise neither from the Government nor from NEA side to propose the peak hour energy price, NEA side asked to propose the simple run-of-river plant. The optimization study carried out by the company showed that the least cost option for the simple run-of-river scheme at the proposed Mai Khola location is the 14.5 MW runof-river Project. This report summarizes the outcome of the study for the 14.5 MW simple run-ofriver scheme and further addresses the settled technical parameters, the cost and energy finalized by both NEA and SHPL side during the technical review of NEA and has been the basis for negotiating the energy rates for Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with NEA.
The 14.5MW MHP is technically feasible and posses characteristics very desirable for the INPS system by serving to reduce technical loss, improve the voltage profile and power supply scenario in the region. In addition, this Project will help to reduce the operation of the expensive thermal power to some extent and dependency on Indian system for the Eastern Nepal. The Projects proximity to the power-hungry Eastern load center of Nepal will be the biggest attraction of NEA. Headworks of MHP on the Mai river, located just downstream of the Soktim Tea State diverts water through a 2172 m long headrace tunnel and 474 m long exposed penstock pipe to the semi-surface powerhouse and generates 14.5 MW through two vertical axis Francis turbines then water will be discharged to Lodhiya khola through 1370 m long stone masonry tailrace canal and 225 m long tailrace pipe. The project cost on the basis of unit rates as applicable on March 2006 is NPR 1941.8 million before interest during construction. The gross energy production is 98.53GWh (Poush to Chaitra = 20.98 GWh and Baisakh to Marg = 77.55 GWh). At the delivery point of NEAs Anarmani substation, the net energy to be supplied is 88.440 GWh per annum with double circuit 33kV transmission line. The project is financially viable at an average energy rate of 4.48NPR/kWh (lower rates as compared to the existing energy rates of the private sector power plants with simple run-ofriver schemes of this range) in base year of 2006 and the escalation as described below. Base case financial evaluation shows that the NPV of the Project is 1283 million NPR, the internal rate of return is 17.52% and Benefit to Cost ratio is 1.54. Further, the NPV of government takes (as a royalty and tax takes) is also as high as NPR 761 million. The return on equity is 24.58%. These parameters are as presented below:
Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-1
Financial Parameters NPV, MNPR IRR% B/C-ratio RoE, % NPV-Govt takes, MNPR
Base-Case 1,283 17.52% 1.54 24.58% 761
At 110% cost and 90% revenue 862 14.87% 1.36 19.30% 641
Since the hydropower project involves many risk factors, return on equity less than 20% will be very risky for the investor to invest into hydropower projects. The above financial parameters are resulted from the average energy price as tabulated below:
Year2006 NPR4.48/kWh 07 4.75 08 5.02 09 5.29 10 5.56 11 5.82 12 5.97 13 6.12 14 6.26 15 6.41 16 6.55 17 6.70 18 6.84 19 6.99 202 0 7.13 202 1 7.28
Commercial operation is envisioned in the end of year 2010.
SALIENT FEATURES
Location: Purpose of Project: Hydrology: Catchment Area Average Flow Design Flow 90% Exceedance flow Design Flood (Q100) Diversion Dam: Type Slope Crest Elevation Crest Length Maximum height Danabari and Chisapani VDC, Ilam District, Eastern Development Region of Nepal To supply for domestic use by connecting to national grid 589.0 km2 32.66 m3/s (minimum monthly flow 7.22 m3/s) 15.40 m3/s (50.31% ecceedance flow) 7.48 m3/s 3590 m3/s Concrete gravity dam Ogee-profile 316.0 m above msl 133.0 m 7.0 m
River Diversion During Construction: Alignment Along the river channel Diversion flow Coffer dams Spillway: Type Crest Elevation Maximum Flood Level Length Design Discharge Intake: Type Side Intake, submerged orifice Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-2 250 m3/s Two cofferdams facilitating stage1 and stage2 concreting (Total coffer dam length=660m) Over-flow weir with under-sluice (2x8m width) 316.0 m above msl (undersluice 311.0 m above msl) 322.5 m above msl 133.0 m 3590 m3/s
Number of Orifices Bottom Elevation of Orifice Top Elevation of Orifice Length of Orifices Gravel Trap: Type Top elevation Average Height Average Width Side spillway crest elevation Spillway length Settling Basin: Type Number of Chamber Top elevation Normal Operation elvation Length of the basin Average Height Average Width per Chamber Headrace Canal: Type Length Height Bottom width Longitudinal slope Side slopes Headrace Tunnel: Length Dimensions Discharge Surge Tank dimensions: Type Height Diameter Penstock Length Diameter/thickness Power Facilities: Powerhouse Type Dimensions Gross Head Net Head Installed capacity
4 313.5 m above msl 315.5 m above msl 3.0 m Convensional flushing, Single chamber 317.75 m above msl 6.2 m 14.0 m 316.0 m above msl 20 m Convensional flushing 3 (Three) 316.30 m above msl 315.80 m above msl 70.3 m 5.25 m 8.25 m Trapezoidal, Stone masonary with concrete lining 775 m 2.5 m 2.5 m 1:1500 (Vertical:Horizontal) 1:1 (Vertical:Horizontal) 2172.0 m Inverted D 3.8x3.8m, (13 m2-finish) 15.40 m3/s Vertical, circular section 28.0m 6.0m (finish) 474m 2.35 m internal dimeter/10 mm to 28 mm thickness Semi-surface 27.0 m x 22 m 117.0 m (316.0 199.0 m above msl) 109.58 m 14.5 MW (2x7.25MW)
Annual Net Energy Output Tailrace Canal: Type Length Height Bottom width Longitudinal slope Side slopes Transmission Facilities: Transmission line length Voltage level Project Cost: Economic and Financial Indicators: Benefit cost ratio (B/C Ratio) Internal Rate of Return NPV Government takes (as a tax and royalty) Net Present Worth Cost per kW installed Capacity
88.44 GWh Trapezoidal, Stone masonary with concrete lining and steel pipe 1370 m canal and 1.5 dia pipe 225 m 1.5 m 1.5 m 1:100 (Vertical:Horizontal) 1:1 (Vertical:Horizontal) 24 km 33 kV, double circuit 2,125 million NPR (29.52 million USD), 1.54 17.52% 761 million NPR 1283 million NPR 2,036 USD/kW
1.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
On 14 May 2005 Sanima Hydropower (P) Ltd. (SHPL) obtained feasibility study licence for Mai Hydropower Project (MHP) from the Department of Electricity Development (DoED) of Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR), Government of Nepal. This study was then focused to assess the feasibility of the 13.4 MW Run-of-River project optimizing possibility for daily peaking arrangement to contribute to acute peak-load crisis in the National Grid during dry months. SHPL has submitted the complete techno-economic feasibility study of 20.1 MW daily peaking RoR to NEA on June 2006. The presentation of the feasibility study proposal to NEA was made on July 2006 at the NEA office, Ratnapark, Kathmandu. NEA side then responded that at present when NEA is facing difficulties to supply base load, adding the project with daily peaking capacity in the system will not be beneficial to NEA. Therefore, in accordance with the NEAs view, SHPL has made this revision for the simple run-of-river scheme with 14.5 MW installed capacity.
2.
THE PROJECT AREA
The projects headworks is situated on the Mai Khola between the boarder of two Village Development Committees (VDCs) namely Chisapani and Soyak in Ilam District. Right bank of the diversion dam lies in Soyak VDC of Ilam district. The powerhouse site is located at Musekhop approximately 4.5 km upstream from the confluence of the Lodhiya Khola and Mai Khola in Danabari VDC of Ilam district. The intake structures, gravel excluder, headrace canal, settling basin and balancing pond are placed on the left bank of the river at Gunmune village just downstream of the Soktim Tea Garden of Chisapani VDCs. From Gunmune, headrace tunnel starts and runs across the hill passing the boarder of Chisapani and Danabari VDC. The surge shaft area, penstock, powerhouse and outdoor switchyard are located in Danabari VDC. Tailrace canal is placed along right bank of Muse Kholsa and water will be discharged into Lodhiya Khola from where it drains into Mai river. Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-4
Mai river is one of the tributaries of the Kankai Mai River. The proposed intake of the project lies at approximately 875333.64 E longitude and 26 49 11.9 N latitude and at an elevation of 315 m. The powerhouse is located at approximately 87 53' 2.01 E Longitude and 26 47 30.0 N Latitude and at an elevation of 200 m. The catchments area of this project is 589 sq. km. The major tributaries of Mai river upto the location of headworks are Mai, Jog Mai and Puwa Mai. Deo Mai is also one of the major tributaries which meets Mai river at approximately 8 km downstream of the proposed headworks area. After the confluence of Deo Mai, Mai river is named as Kankaimai Nadi. The area lies in the Siwalik Zone, immediately south from the boundary with the Lesser Himalaya. The predominant rock types are sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. The area is mostly covered with forest and cultivated land and tea gardens in the surrounding. The weathered depth of Siwalik rock provides necessary environment for forest and plants. The proposed MHP lies in sub-tropical & temperate climate zone. The average annual temperature varies from 5.50C in winter to 290C in summer. The average annual rainfall in this region is about 1545 mm. The main access point to the area is at Birtamod of Jhapa district along the East-West Highway. District headquarters are located in Ilam Municipality, some 77 km north-east from Birtamod along the Mechi Highway. The primary means of access to MHP site is the fair weather road from Birtamod (Jhapa), via Sanischare, khudunabari, Shukhani jungle, Garuwa Sukrabare, Sitali to Musekhop (Danabari VDC) at powerhouseabout 25 km long. This road is black-topped up to Khudunabari (approximately 9 km) and rest of the portion is earthen. The access to headworks site is along the same road up to Soktim Village and another 1.5 km downhill along the existing road. There are two tea processing industries in the project area. One is located at Soktim, the other is at Chilinkot. No electricity supply system exist in the area. But at some places of project surrounding, an 11 KV transmission line from Phikkal Bazar of Ilam district comes primarily to provide energy for tea processing factory. Regulated and well managed system of infrastructures for water supply has not been noted in the area. The area is relatively accessible. No communication system does exist in the area. The nearest town with communication facility is Khudunabari. However, the mobile telephones provided by the Nepal Telecommunications Corporation do work in the project area. Most families in the project area are subsistence farmers, growing crops and rearing mostly pigs, goats, chickens, cows and buffaloes. Some people specially living in Soktim, Kanchhi Kaman, Lebartol and Chilingkot work as unskilled and semi skilled workers in the tea estates around the project area. In the recent a large number of young people from the project area are going to the overseas, specially Malasiya and Arab nations searching for employment opportunities. Settlements in the project area are mostly clustered. Banana, broomgrass (Amriso), gingers (Aduwa) are the most common agro-products which are widely collected in the area and supplied to Silgadi, India. Kerosene, rice, sugar, soap, cloth, medicine, stationary goods, iron products, fast food (Chau-chau / biscuits), spices, cigarettes, chewing tobacco and Gutkha are the major commodities being imported into the villages of the area from Birtamod. The average literacy of the area is 50% out of which around 60% are male and 40% are female.
3.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
Surveying
The topographic survey work covering headworks area, tunnel portal and surge tank area, penstock pipe alignment, powerhouse and switchyard locations, tailrace and approximately 4km length of the tail-water escape corridor upto Mai Khola was performed. Hydrological Investigations The daily climatological/precipitation data as well as hydrological data (daily flow records and sediment data) were collected from the existing stations of Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, GoN. Rajduwali and Mainachuli (Gauging Station no. 728 and 795) were used for the hydrological analysis. Further to this Revision A, the mean monthly flow was derived from the direct catchment correlation of Rajduwali station. This was adopted because of the following two reasons: The catchment area at Rajduwali station is 377 km2 (Elev. Approx. 350m amsl) and that of Puwa Khola at Puwa intake is 107 km2 which is together 484 km2 and is more by 80% of the catchment area at proposed Mai intake at Elevation 310m amsl, The proposed intake is close to and at lower elevation and has similar catchment characteristics. A staff-gauge was installed at the intake location and gauge height readings are taken continuously from May 2005. The established gauging station at the intake site is being calibrated by using current meter to derive the rating curve of this location. Being the short measurement period, the observed data were not interpreted. Observed data are in the lower side. Sediment Investigations Available data and sediment records were collected. The data were compared with other similar catchments and river basin. No major mass-wasting and big land slides were observed. Field sediment gauging program was carried out to supplement the available information on sediment. The sediment samples were collected from May 2005. The sediment analysis has been carried out for the collected samples in laboratories in Kathmandu. Geological and Geotechnical Investigations Geological and geotechnical investigations were carried out to establish geological settings, determine detailed geological and geotechnical conditions of the project area as well as foundation conditions of the weir and the powerhouse area. The tunnel support and tunnel construction cost is highly dependable on geological conditions of the proposed alignment. To predict the costs and support works the investigations along the tunnel portal area, surge shaft and critical tunnel section area were also carried out. The data and maps were collected to initiate geological and geotechnical investigations. The surface geological mapping was first carried out and two dimensional Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) survey was carried out to assess the depth, extent and quality of subsurface material types present in the project area. A total of 13 nos. of 2D ERT profiles summing to approximately 3 km length were investigated. Electrical resistivity using mise-a-la-masse method was employed to find out the velocity and flow direction of the ground water around two boreholes in diversion weir. All together 8 test pits were dug at the location of proposed structures. In-situ condition of the materials was logged, samples were collected and analysed to assess material property for foundation and construction suitability. The assessment of rock types found in the area were made in relation to their strength and mineral contents. For this several samples of sandstone, mudstone and siltstone were collected from the field and tested in the laboratories in Kathmandu.
Surveys for Coarse Aggregate, Sand and Impervious Materials The construction material investigation included identification of borrow areas, test pitting, sample collection and laboratory testing. Different locations for construction materials such as cohesive soil (red clay), fine and coarse aggregates were identified within the permissible haulage distance from the project area. There are vast alluvial plains of Mai Khola and Lodhiya Khola. Several patches of red clay are also found within reasonable lead distance. The quantity of available material far exceeds than actually needed for MHP implementation. The collected materials were checked at laboratory in Kathmandu and satisfactory results were obtained.
4. 4.1
BASIC STUDIES Hydrology and Sediment Study
The flow duration data has been correlated from the Rajduwali station-Station No. 728 of DHM in Kankaimai River. The design discharge of 15.4 m3/s falls on 50.31% exceedance flow and is presented in the flow duration curve below:
Flow duration curve
100 90 80
Discharge (m /s)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Exceedence of time (%)
The mean monthly flow was derived from the Rajduwali station-Station No. 728 of DHM in Mai River. The average long-term mean monthly flow is as follows:
Sept May July Oct Nov Month Discharge , m3/s June Dec 10.86 Feb Jan Aug 80.90 Mar 7.22 Apr 9.16
8.95
7.56
15.64
38.14
85.16
76.94
33.14
16.20
The average minimum monthly flow is 7.22 m3/s. The flood frequency analysis gives the following magnitude of floods with corresponding return period: Return period: years 5 10 50 100 1000 Maximum Floods, m3/s 1411 1932 3100 3598 5247 90% exceedance flow = 7.48 m3/s 65% exceedance flow = 10.69 m3/s 50.31% exceedance flow = 15.40 m3/s Daily Maximum Discharge (October to May) =248.83 m3/s
The design discharge has been adopted as 15.4 m3/s which is 50.31 percentile exceedance flow. The construction flood for coffer dam has been adopted as 250m3/s which is maximum daily flow during the period of October to May for the recorded interval. The design flood has been taken as 3590m3/s. The ecological flow release from diversion dam to preserve the ecosystem of Mai Khola is determined to be 0.722 m3/sec (10% of the minimum monthly flow (the minimum monthly flow shall be verified by observing the low flow in the coming years at this intake location). This is considered satisfactory because it is augmented by the discharge of Deomai river after 8 km from the intake, which is about 1.2 m3 /sec in dry season. This will keep the project ecofriendly. This flow has been deducted from the mean monthly flows for power and energy estimation when the flow in the river is less in the dry months to ensure this flow at all the time through the river. The specific sediment yield value adopted for Mai Khola is 2670 tonnes/Km2/year. The annual sediment transportation through the weir is 1566740 tonnes. The average sediment concentration is around 5600 ppm. The sediment concentration adopted for the design of the settling basin is 8,000 ppm. Field sediment gauging program was carried out to supplement the available information on sediment. The sediment sampling result shows that maximum sediment concentration observed was 1052 ppm in August 2005 for this study year. The distribution is such that the sediment is consisted about 90% of silt and 10% of silty clay. The specific gravity of sediment is about 2.73 and the percentage of hard mineral is 57%. Further sediment study is being carried out in year 2006, results have not yet been adjusted.
4.2
Power Market
In Nepal, the growth in electricity generation capacity has not been adequate enough to meet the ever increasing demand. The gap between demand and supply is widened even further during the dry season of each year when flow of rivers plummet down to the lowest level giving rise to desperate measures of long hours of load shedding as is the case at this time. The demand for electricity is fueled by rapid urbanization particularly in the Terai belt and lower hills, expansion of distribution network, enhancement in living standard catalyzed by flow of remittance, and other factors. On the other hand, the ongoing political instability coupled with financing and other problems has hindered the development of hydropower so that hardly few Mega Watts gets added per 23 years period, whereas, about 60-70 MW addition is required each year to keep pace with the demand. According to load forecast of NEA, the capacity demand is expected to grow by about 8% each year. With the changes in political situation and approaching peaceful environment ahead, the demand of electricity will rise even by 100MW per year. The Eastern region has many promising load centers. Ilam is a burgeoning town with tea estates and bright prospects for tourism industry. The district headquarters of Eastern zone have already been connected to the grid with 33 kV lines. Rural distribution lines are being expanded to the hinterlands each year thereby increasing the electricity demand of the region. The network size already developed in the region supports additions in generating capacity in the region without requiring the power to be transported to farther load centers for consumption. That means Mai Project is very desirable also from the perspective of loss reduction for NEA. This Project will replace the expensive thermal power to some extent and even reduce dependency on Indian system for the Eastern Nepal. Realization of Mai hydropower project will help rapid industrialization of the power hungry eastern Terai belt of Nepal. Hence this project is very important for the national economy as well.
4.3
Government Policy
Export of hydropower has been stated to be one of the objectives of development in the Hydropower Development Policy 2001 of Nepal. The Policy provides for both the bilateral and regional cooperation in such development efforts with a view to lend support to the growth of the region's economy. The private sector is highly encouraged to participate in such regional projects. The approach paper of the current Tenth Plan (Fiscal Year 2003 -2007) reiterates the above policies of developing regional projects and encouraging private sector in such efforts. The Water Resources Development Strategy 2002 projects that by 2027 under high growth scenario the country will have developed a total hydropower capacity of 22000 MW including 15000 MW for export. Repatriation Facility As per the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act,1992, a foreign investor making investment in foreign currency shall be entitled to repatriate the following amounts outside Nepal: The amount received by the sale of the share of foreign investment as a whole or any part thereof, The amount received as profit or dividend from foreign investment, The amount received as the payment of principal and interest on any foreign loan, The foreign investor or a foreign technology supplier is also entitled to repatriate the amount received under the agreement for the technology transfer in such currency as set forth in the concerned agreement as approved by the Department of Industries of HMGN. Concession (License) Period The license is provided to the hydropower developer on BOOT (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer) basis. Study License is provided first (if the developer intends to carry out the feasibility study) for maximum 5 years period then the generation licence is issued after the developer concludes the Financial Closing of the Project. The license period for BOOT projects is as follows: For hydropower projects supplying the internal demand, the concession period is 35 years, For export-oriented hydropower projects, the concession period is 30 years from the date of issuance of the generation license, For storage projects, the term of the generation license may be extended for a maximum period of five years on the basis of the construction period. Royalties The government royalty-take for this scale of project to connect to national grid for domestic supply is NPR 150.00 per year per kW installed capacity and 2% on energy sales up to 15 years of operation. After 15 years of operation these values are NPR 1200.00 and 10% respectively. Taxes The prevailing taxes are 20% on the net income earned. The taxes imposed on hydropower projects from the start of the operation has limited the attractiveness of such power plants from the financing point of view. In most of the cases, since royalty takes and tax-takes of the government are high, with the existing energy tariff, the net takes of the developers are very low to make the project financially viable.
4.4
Geological and Geotechnical Studies
The project area consists of sedimentary rocks of the Siwalik locally named as Soktim Formation. It comprises loosely cemented, medium bedded to massive, medium to coarse grained, irregular blocky, strong, micaceous, grey 'salt and pepper' sandstone with intercalation of mudstone, siltstone and calcrete beds. The siltstones are blue, fine grained, medium bedded, medium strong to strong, irregular blocky. The mudstones are light brown,
fine grained, medium bedded, medium strong, irregular blocky with botroidal weathering pattern. In general all rock types are slightly to moderately weathered. Sandstone covers about 40% whereas mudstone and siltstone cover 30% and 30% in the project area. The MBT is present at about 400 m upstream from the weir axis. The MBT is characterized by about 25-30 m wide zone of alternate of sheared/jointed rock and fault gauge/breccias. However, shearing effects were not observed in and around the proposed weir axis area. Hence, the effect of MBT is likely to be less in the weir site. In addition two major shear zones are present in the area; one downstream of the headworks and the other near powerhouse area. They are characterised by crushed rock and fault breccias with seepage. The shear zone in powerhouse site is more active than that of the headworks. Apart from major shear zone six minor shear/weak zones of 10 to 25 m thick were identified along tunnel alignment. The weir axis and sluice structure areas are proposed on alluvial deposit consisting of rounded to well rounded boulders, cobbles, pebbles and gravels (60%) in sand matrix (40%). The slope of the area is stable but clay lining is proposed to stop water leaking through the weir. Rock outcrop was not observed in and around the proposed Inlet tunnel portal. The geophysical survey shows that the thickness of alluvial is less than 10 m. Therefore open excavation is necessary to construct the tunnel portal. In general, tunnel alignment is almost perpendicular to the bedding plane with moderately dipping (60-35) which is favourable excavation condition. The proposed headrace tunnel alignment will pass through the sandstone (34%), siltstone (26%), mudstone (36%) and shear zones (4%) The rock mass along the tunnel alignment is rated and classified both by Q system and RMR. The observations were taken along and around the proposed tunnel alignment in the area though difficult topographical features, soil cover, and dense vegetation as well as very poor rock outcrop. The rated parameters of Q value and RMR in the field is given in Volume 4 Appendix C1. According to the surface observation the quality of rock mass distribution at the level of the proposed tunnel alignment was estimated (Table below). This estimated quality of rock mass distribution is mainly based on rock mass rating at different rock exposures. The rock mass is divided according to rock support class (next Table below). Rock mass distribution along the headrace tunnel Rock class Q- value I Fair to very good rock >2 II Very poor to poor rock 0.6 2 III Very poor rock 0.2 0.6 IV Very poor to Extremely poor rock 0.04 0.2 V Extremely poor rock 0.04 0.01 VI Exceptionally poor rock < 0.01
Percentages 51% 29% 14 % 1% 1% 4%
Hence in the tunnel about 51% is expected to fair to very good rock and about 49% is expected to very poor to exceptionally poor rock. The rock support design is carried out by empirical design criteria based on rock mass classification system entirely depending on previous case studies in similar ground conditions. The rock support design is mainly based on the NGI Q-system rock support chart and experience taken from similar diameter tunnels of different hydroelectric projects of Nepal. According to the rock mass properties and size of a tunnel the rock support is divided into six classes to optimise rock support. A combination of grouted rock bolts in different spacing and fibre reinforced shotcrete in varying thickness are recommended from class I to VI. Reinforced ribs of shotcrete with pattern of bolting and concrete lining are also included in VI specially in squeezing section. Shotcrete is recommended throughout tunnel due to slaking nature of rock.
A 2.3 m long, 25 mm diameter grouted rock bolt of tor steel is recommended. Invert concrete lining is included in class I to VI throughout headrace tunnel due to slaking nature of rock. Isolated wedge failures will not be significant and this designed rock support will control the failure. Wedge failure will be more prominent in Class II & III. This support design also covers for rock squeezing. Squeezing sections need heavy rock support. Therefore concrete lining or reinforced ribs of shotcrete are recommended in rock squeezing section. However, for rock squeezing excavation method and support should have to be modified according to the rock behaviour and existing ground condition during course of construction. This proposed rock support classes require modification during tunnel excavation according to local ground condition. Recommended rock support for the headrace tunnel, (Width = 4.25 m, ESR = 1.6)
ROCK CLASS I FAIR TO GOOD ROCK II VERY POOR TO POOR ROCK III VERY ROCK POOR Q-VALUE RMR Q>2 RMR>50 SUPPORT TYPE AND AMOUNT Bolts in pattern 2 x 2 m at crown 5 cm plain shotcrete at crown and wall. Invert = Concrete lining. Bolts in pattern 1.6 x 1.8 m 5 cm fibre reinforced shotcrete at crown and wall. Invert = Concrete lining. Bolts in pattern 1.4 x 1.6 m Fibre reinforced shotcrete: Crown = 8 cm Walls = 5 cm Invert = Concrete lining. Bolts in pattern 1.2 x 1.4 m Fibre reinforced shotcrete: Crown = 10 cm Walls = 8 cm Invert = Concrete lining. Bolts in pattern 1.1 x 1.2 m Fibre reinforced shotcrete: Crown = 15 cm Walls = 10 cm Invert = Concrete slabs or concrete lining. Bolts in pattern 1 x 1m Fibre reinforced shotcrete: Crown = 20 cm Walls = 15 cm Invert = Concrete slabs or concrete lining. Concrete lining or Reinforced Ribs of shotcrete (6 nos. of T16 bars in 10cm spacing and spacing between each set is 1m) in squeezing section. ROCK DESCRIPTION/ RECOMMENDATION Massive to blocky, very interlocked, moderately strong, stable rock. Very blocky, interlocked, moderately strong rock with thin clay layers and locally fractured. Local rock falls. Jointed and fractured rock with few clay gouge bands. Loosening of the rock mass.
Q=0.6 2 RMR=40 - 50
Q=0.2 0.6 RMR=30 40
IV VERY POOR TO EXTREMELY POOR ROCK V EXTREMELY POOR ROCK
Q=0.04 0.2 RMR=15 30
Q=0.04 0.01 RMR< 15
Heavily jointed/fractured rock with few thicker clay gouge bands. Progressive relaxation of rock mass. Alternating of jointed/ fractured rock (40%) and thicker clay gouge bands (60%). Local roof falls and squeezing problem. Shear zone containing >60% clay gouge and sheared/fractured rock. No selfsupporting capacity and zero stand up time. Squeezing problem i.e. time dependent deformation.
VI EXCEPTIONALY POOR ROCK
Q<0.01
For the purpose of cost calculation of the headrace tunnel, the above basis and the recommendation of the experts view of NEA has been integrated. 100% length of the tunnel invert has been recommended for concrete lining (150mm to 300mm thickness), The wall and crown has been lined with rock-bolting of size 25mm dia. 2.4 to 4m length tore steel in a pattern of 1x1m to 2x2m spacing, plain shotcrete and fibre-shotcrete of 50mm to 200mm thickness. It is suggested that the fibre shotcrete lining with appropriate thickness recommended above is both strengthwise and timewise suitable for the rock-support. In addition to this 4% length of the tunnel (weak-zones) is suggested for concrete lining over the shotcreted surface of wall and crown with steel ribs.
A surge shaft is proposed in about 20 m deep from the outlet portal in mudstone. The thickness of residual soil ranges from 3 to 5 m and weathering depth of mudstone varies from 5 to 7m. The shaft axis will be vertically down to the bedding plane, which is favourable condition for tunnel excavation. Expected rock mass quality is fair to good condition. A 4 m long grouted rock bolts in pattern and 10 cm thick fibre reinforced shotcrete is adequate for temporary support in the surge shaft. The penstock alignment is proposed along the moderately dipping ridges. The area is covered mainly by residual soil. The expected thickness of residual soil ranges from 5 to 6 m and weathering depth of mudstone varies from 5 to 15 m. The anchor block of penstock pipe is proposed about 20 m upslope from the shear zone in the bent of pipe to avoid the shear zones. The surface powerhouse site is proposed on the right bank of Muse Khola on the flat alluvial terrace. The deposit is non-cohesive, low to medium compact and pervious in nature. It contains about 30-40% sub rounded to rounded gravels, pebbles, cobbles and boulders of siltstone, mudstone and supported in 60-70% sand matrix. The fine material is non-cohesive and contains sand. The shear zone is present near to powerhouse and follows towards slope of powerhouse. There is no evidence of slope failure however activeness of the shear zone during construction phase might induce slope failure. Therefore powerhouse is proposed further downstream from the location of shear zone to minimise effect.
4.5
Seismicity
The seismicity study of other hydroelectric projects in Nepal is based on seismic-technonic features of the project area and data on historical earthquakes of the region. The specific project related seismic studies were not carried out so far. The records of seismic activities are limited in the Nepal Himalayas and hence correlation of seismic events with adjacent Himalayan Region would be a useful source of information for designing the major components of project. Seismic coefficient for Mai Hydropower project is evaluated based on Nepalese and Indian Standards and compare and derived from Tamur-Mew project at this stage. Seismic coefficient evaluated by Nepalese and Indian Standards is 0.10. Similarly recommended OBE of Tamur-Mewa project is 0.16 g 0.15 g. Hence, it is recommended that OBE value of 0.16 g and MDE value of 0.2 g be used for the Mai project (MHP is far from the epicentres of the historic past earthquake events in Nepal and the project is a simple low-height structure run-ofriver scheme).
4.6
Mass Wasting Study
Only two landslides are observed in the upstream vicinity of Mai Khola. One is located near Malbase village at about 200m downstream from the confluence of Thade Khola and Mai Khola, which is about 3 km upstream from the headworks site. The landslide is shallow, with planar failure mechanism in green phyllite. The estimated average length, breadth and height of the slide is about 60m 50m 100m respectively. The landslide is located above Mai Khola and debris were not found to reach the Mai Khola. According to local people, this landslide is more than 5 years old and is still active. The other landslide is situated at Ragapani village. It is located at about 4 km upstream from the headworks site and 200m downstream from the confluence of Thade Khola and Mai Khola. The estimated size of the landslide is 350 m x 125 m x 260 m. The slide is active though feeding very little amount of debris to Mai Khola. It can be concluded that chances of debris flow is very low from the field evidences and geological condition.
5.
PROJECT LAYOUT
The project configuration has been selected after a study of alternatives. The alternatives for the arrangement of the headworks were limited because of the site condition and topographic constraints. The alternatives for both water conveyance and powerhouse locations were thoroughly analyzed with respect to geological, topographical and power benefit analysis. The adopted layout is as follows: Headworks The arrangement of headworks location was best selected some 200m downstream from the Soktim Tea Garden. The diversion weir height was selected in a way to allow the 100 year flood without any damage to the Tea Garden in consideration with the flushing head requirement. This is the best location allowing accommodation space for other headworks structures. Similarly this location provides the shortest possible water conveyance length with the maximum head gain on the other side of the watershed area (powerhouse area). Tunnel and Penstock Pipe The headrace tunnel starts from the Gunmune village and ends at Muse Kholsa at elevation of 300 metres above msl. It is 2172 m long. At the end of the headrace tunnel a surge shaft will be made. After the surge shaft about 474 m long exposed penstock pipe will convey water to the power house. It passes along the ridge of the area. Geology of this alignment is favourable for the exposed penstock alignment. Powerhouse The powerhouse is located on the right bank of the Muse Kholsa just upstream of the confluence of the Dhade and Muse Kholsa. The powerhouse will be a semi surface type. The generator floor elevation in the Powerhouse will be 203 meters above msl and Tailrace water level for normal operation will be 199.0 metres above msl. This location avoids the shear-zone extending from Muse kholsa towards Dhade kholsa. Tailrace The Muse Kholsa is not wide and deep enough to accomodate the design discharge of the project if water is discharged into it. Therefore about a 1600 m tailrace system will be required from powerhouse to the Lodiya Khola for safe release of designed discharge of the project. Some river training works will be required to protect the agriculture land along Lodiya Khola. The open canal from powerhouse to Lodiaya khola along the left bank is considered as the one alternative to discharge the designed flow. Buried concrete pipe is considered as the second alternative.The preliminary cost estimate of both options suggests that the choice of stone masonry open canal option is more feasible. Hence the stone masonry trapezoidal open canal option has been recommended for detail study. Transmission Line The route follows from the powerhouse to Danabari-3 upstream of Sukhani Khola and passes through Danabari-1, Khudanabari-7 and Khudanabari-8. Then it crosses near the boarder of Khudanabari-8 and Arjundhara-5 and enters Arjundhara VDC via Danabari-1, Khudanabari-7, Khudanabari-8. It crosses the Birin Khola near the boarder of Arjundhara-5 and Arjundhara-6. The line crosses the district road near the boarder of Arjundhara-6 and Arjundhara-3 and joins at Charpani-3, Jhapa to the proposed route as described above. The total length of this route is 24 km.
Access Road The existing motor-able roads from Lodiya Khola to the powerhouse area and from Soktim tea garden to Gunmune, with upgrading shall be used for the Project.
6.
OPTIMIZATION
The optimized dimensions of the major project components are as follows: 13 m2 Tunnel cross section area(m2): Penstock diameter (mm): 2350 mm Installed Capacity(MW): 14.5 MW Design Discharge(m3/s): 15.4 m3/s Number of generating units: 2 (Francis) The average energy benefit rates for the optimization of the waterway was adopted USD 0.06/ kWh. The installed capacity was optimized on the basis of levelized specific energy cost. The head-water level was determined on the basis of flushing requirements during normal floods. The weir crest height was not optimized due to its very little cushion on head to pass the 100 year flood without causing damage to Soktim Tea Garden. The normal water level at tailrace was determined to avoid submergence due to proposed future Kankai Mai Multipurpose Project and fixed at 199.0m above msl. The gross head thus obtained is 117 m.
7.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The general arrangement of MHP is shown in figure 3 The arrangement comprises of Headworks on the Mai river, located just downstream of the Soktim Tea State. The headworks diverts water through a 2172 m long headrace tunnel and a 474 m long exposed penstock pipe to the semi-surface powerhouse and generates 14.5 MW through two vertical axis turbines. Then water will be discharged to Lodhiya khola through a 1370 m long stone masonry tailrace canal and a 225 m long tailrace pipe. Headworks The headworks of MHP comprises of a 7.0 m high and a 133.0 m long free overflow weir, which diverts water into a 70.30 m long three chambered settling basin through orifice intake and gravel trap. Sediment deposited in the settling basin will be flushed back to the river through a 2.0 m wide, 2.0 m high and 225 m long flushing culvert. Then water from settling basin will be conveyed to tunnel intake by a 775 m long trapezoidal headrace canal. Further refinement of geometry and design of the headworks components shall be finalised during detail design stage after conducting the physical hydraulic model test. Weir The location of the weir is selected at the rock outcrop about 20 m upstream from the open large barren flat field area. The overflow weir is 133 m long and 7.0 m high from the foundation level. The weir is Ogee shaped and crest level is 316.0 m above msl. The calculated water elevation for 100 and 1000 years flood are 321.150 m and 322.75 m above msl respectively. Adopted top level of flood and head wall is 322.75 m above msl with free board of 1.6 m for 100 yrs flood. Stilling Basin The stilling basin consists of three stilling ponds and two baffle walls. The length of the first stilling basin is 17.8 m and the invert level is 311.50 m above msl. The first baffle wall is 2.0 m high and the top level of the wall is 313.50 m above msl. The second and third stilling ponds are 14 and 12.65 metres long respectively. And their floor levels are 309.75 m and 309.00 m above msl respectively. The calculated water level at the end of the stilling basin is 314.73 m and 316.0 m above msl for 100 years and 1000 years flood respectively. Undersluice About 100 m long and 17.5 m width at weir axis (width gently increases in the upstream) approach canal is designed to maintain a clear and well defined river channel towards the intake and to flush the bedload build up in front of the intake. The invert surface are lined with hardstone and the wall up to 1.0 m high are lined with 16 mm thick steel lining to protect their surface from erosion and abrasion from the bed load. A 100 m long and 5.5 m high divide wall
separates the weir area and the undersluice. Two radial gates of 8 m wide and 5.5 m high are proposed to flush the bedload sediments which will be accumulated in front of the Intake. A fish ladder is placed along the side of the left wall of the undersluice. The fish ladder passes from the intake area to the stilling basin area along the undersluices left wall. Intake The side orifice intake is located about 5 m upstream of the weir crest axis on the left bank of the river. A low concrete sill, with a structure to prevent passage of large boulders, will allow water to enter the intake area. The intake consists of 4 orifices of 3.0 m wide by 2.0 m high to draw the water from river in the intake headwall. It is aligned parallel to river flow. The invert level of opening is set at an elevation of 313.5 m above msl. Bedload up to 100 mm diameter and suspended sediment will pass through intake orifice and will be conveyed to gravel flushing arrangement along the intake culvert. Intake gate will be fixed at inner side of the intake headwall to control the flow into the intake culvert during high flood. An intake platform will be designed for the gate operation. The level is fixed at 322.75 m above msl for 1000 years flood without free board and 1.6 m free board for 100 years flood. The water level inside the intake will be 317.50 m above msl for 20 years flood. The wall level inside the intake is adopted at 317.75 m with a free board of 25 cm. When flood is higher than that, the intake stoplog gates will be closed. A coarse trash-rack of 100mm opening shall be provided at the intake. Details of trash-rack and cleaning arrangements shall be decided during detail design and model testing. Gravel Trap A gravel trap is located about 15 m downstream of the Intake and designed with a single hopper bottom for conventional hydraulic flushing. The size of the gravel trap is designed to settle the particle size of 5 mm. The gravel trap is 10 m long, 14 m wide and 6 m high. The longitudinal slope is 1 in 60. The most vulnerable areas in gravel trap as well as in flushing channel exposed to wear and tear due to high velocity should be lined with dressed hard stone and steel lining. At the end of parallel section and just before the outlet, a coarse trash rack of 14 m wide and 4 m high with vertical angle of 10.6 degree is located to prevent passing of debris. The stacked debris should be removed mechanically. The water level at the gravel trap for the designed discharge will be 315.87 m above msl and the adopted wall level is 317.75 m above mean sea level. A 25 m long spillway with crest level 316.00 m above msl is provided at the right wall of the gravel trap to spill excess water which will be entered to intake during high floods. The spilled water will be discharged back to river via stilling basin. Sediment deposited in the gravel trap will be flushed through a flushing culvert. The flushing culvert is 43 m long, 1.5 m wide and 2.5 m high with longitudinal slope 1 in 60. The bottom slab lined with hardstone and the wall up to 1.0 m high are lined with 15 mm thick steel lining to protect their surface from erosion and abrasion. A 1.5 m wide and 2.5 m high flushing gate will be operated to allow for necessary flushing discharge only so that production can go on without interruption. Settling Basin The settling basin is located 25.0 m downstream of the gravel trap with 25 m transition length. The settling basin is designed to trap 90% of 0.2 mm particle size. The maximum flow velocity in settling zone will be 0.2 m/s. The discharge to the settling basin during flushing is controlled by three gates of size 4.25 m wide by 2.25 m high which are located just upstream of the inlet transition to the settling basin. The settling basin consists of three chambers with 8 m width and 70.3 m long each. The average depth of the settling basin is 5.25 m. The water level at the settling basin for the designed discharge will be 315.80 m above msl and the adopted top wall level is 316.3 m above mean sea level with freeboard 50 cm. The middle wall levels are adopted only at 315.90 metres above msl. The bottom slab of the settling basin will have a slope of 1 in 100. The less sediment content water from the settling basin will be discharged
through 8.0 m width weir to the headrace canal. There are three stoplog gates 20 m downstream from the weir to stop the entry of water to the settling basin from the canal during the flushing period. The size of the stoplog gate is 2.77 m wide and 2.6 m high. The sediment flushing system will be conventional hydraulic flushing. The sediment flushing is controlled by 2 m by 2.5 m gates for each chambers. Stoplogs are provided for each gate for the gate maintenance purpose. The gates are located adjacent to the right wall of the settling basin outlet. About 225 m long 2.0 m by 2.0 m rectangular section flushing culvert is proposed for sediment flushing purpose. The culvert bed slope will be 1 in 500. The bed slope is adopted flatter so that the flushing culvert should not be submerged during high floods(1 in 5 years flood). Headrace Canal and Balancing Pond Less sediment content water from settling basin will be conveyed by a 775 m long trapezoidal headrace canal to balancing pond. The longitudinal slope of the canal is 1 in 1500 with side slopes 1 in 1. The canal is constructed with 0.5 m thick stone masonry with 1 in 4 cement sand mortar and 10 cm thick concrete lining with nominal reinforcement for thermal crack control. The pond is located at Gunmune Bagar. The main purpose of the pond is to balance the water supply to start the powerplant for short period. The average length and width of the balancing pond is about 100 m and 100 m respectively. The embankmet of balancing pond is of the earthfill type. The water level at the pond area will be 315.3 m above msl and the top level of the embankment is adopted at 316.0 m above msl. Tunnel Inlet The tunnel intake is located at the end of headrace canal and the balancing pond. The entry to the tunnel intake from the headrace canal consists of a 10 m long transition part from trapezoidal section to the rectangular section, a fine trash rack before the sloping glacis, 7.5 m long and 4.4 m high sloping glacis and funnel type tunnel intake. Sloping starts from elevation 313.15 m above msl to 310.0 m above msl. The funnel starts at an elevation of 310.0 m with a diameter of 10.2 m and ends at 3.3 m length with a diameter of 4.25 m. Vertical drop of the 4.25 m shaft is 1.9 m and the shaft is connected with headrace tunnel by a bend of the same diameter with central radius of 3.0 m. Invert level at the beginning point of the headrace tunnel is 300.00 m above msl. The transition length between the circular shape to the invert D shape is 8 m. Headrace tunnel The headrace tunnel starts at the Gunmune village and ends at the Dhade Kholsa Gaon just upstream of the confluence between Musse Kholsa and Dhade Khosa at an elevation of 297.00 m above msl. The headrace tunnel is 2172 m long. At the end of the headrace tunnel and before the surge tank a rocktrap of 80 m long 3 m wide and 1.5 deep has been provided. The cross section of the tunnel is inverted D shaped with base width and height being 3.80 m each and crown radius 1.9 m. According to the geological conditions 4 types of tunnel supports have been considered. About 70% of the tunnel length where the rock is fair to good quality will be supported with 50 mm thick plain shotcrete and 25 mm dia 2.3 m long rock bolts at 2 metre centre to centre provided in staggered. About 23% of the tunnel area consists of poor to very poor rock. Tunnel support in this area will be 50 mm thick fibre reinforced shotcrete and 25 mm dia 2.3 m long rock bolts at 1.6 m centre to centre provided in staggered. About 3% tunnel length will be in very poor rock, support in this area will be 50 mm thick on wall and 80 mm thick on crown fibre reinforced shotcrete and 25 mm dia 2.3 m long rock bolts at 1.4 metre centre to centre provided in staggered. Remaining part of the tunnel will be in extremely poor rock, support in this area will be 70 mm thick on wall and 100 mm thick on crown fibre reinforced shotcrete and 25 mm dia 2.3 m long rock bolts at 1.2 m centre to centre provided in staggered. The base of the tunnel will be concreted with 10 cm for first and second type tunnel, 15 cm thick for third and forth type tunnel.
Surge-Tank The surge shaft proposed at the end of the tunnel and immediately downstream of the rock trap is located at about 400 m upslope from the powerhouse area. The shaft consists of 6.0 m finished diameter with concrete lining of 0.6, 0.4 and 0.25 m thickness at lower, middle and upper part of the shaft respectively. Each part of the shaft is 9.0 m high. The surge shaft is connected to the tunnel by a 4.0 m diameter and 0.8 m thick orifice. The shaft is covered with a 8 m diameter corrugated roof truss. Penstock Pipe The penstock pipe comprises three sections: a 84 m long horizontal steel lined tunnel, a 265.5 m long inclined exposed steel pipe and 66.5 m long buried steel pipe before it bifurcates. The internal diameter of the pipe is 2.35 m and the thickness varies from 10 mm to 32 mm. After the inclination part the penstock crosses the Muse Kholsa. The penstock pipe at the Kholsa crossing will be protected by a 30 cm thick concrete casing. Before entering the powerhouse the penstock pipe is bifurcated symmetrically to the penstock alignment at 36.870 and 15.8 m long. After bifurcation a 10 m long penstock pipe conveys water to the powerhouse. The thickness and the diameter of the pipe after bifurcation is 25 mm and 1.5 m respectively.
Support Piers, Anchors and Thrust Blocks There are five anchor blocks for four vertical bends and one combined bend. The anchor block is to be constructed of C15 concrete with 40 % plums and nominal reinforcement. Hoof reinforcement is required around the pipe. The size of the anchor block is about 4.5 m long, 3.8 m wide and 4.0 m high. There are four thrust blocks. The first thrust block is for the horizontal bend immediately after the Muse Kholsa crossing, the second is for the bifurcation and the third and fourth thrust blocks are for the smaller pipes after the bifurcation. Thrust blocks are also constructed of C15 concrete with 40 % plums and normal reinforcement. Support piers are required along the straight section of exposed penstock between anchor blocks. Spacing of the piers is kept 3 m center to center to avoid overstressing of the pipe. The support piers will be constructed with C25 reinforced concrete. Powerhouse The powerhouse is located at the right bank of the Muse Kholsa just upstream of the confluence of Muse Kholsa and Lodiya Khola. The powerhouse is a surface structure to accommodate two generating units of capacity 7.25 MW each. The powerhouse consists of a R.C.C structure that houses the machine floor and control building. Machine floors are inlet valve floor, turbine floor, generator floor, maintenance and unloading bay. An overhead traveling crane is installed in the powerhouse to facilitate installation and maintenance of powerhouse equipment. The superstructure of powerhouse will be constructed from R.C.C columns, walls and block masonry walls. Series of windows will be provided for proper lighting and ventilation in the powerhouse. One small access door and one large shutter door will be arranged in the powerhouse. The small access will be mainly used for the entrance of people and small size materials and equipment and will be located at the stair case area. The large shutter access will be mainly used for the transportation of large equipment and heavy equipment during installation and repair and maintenance of the power plant. This shutter access will be located at the erection bay of the powerhouse. The roof of the powerhouse is arranged with steel truss structures on R.C.C columns covered with corrugated coloured galvanized iron sheets. Tailrace After the generation water will be discharged to the tailrace canal via draft tube. Stoplogs are provided at the end of the draft tube. Water level immediately after the draft tube will be 199.0 m above msl during normal operation period. The tailrace is designed for the maximum 202.75
m above msl considering the maximum flood level of Kankai Mai Multipurpose Project. The tailrace conduit is connected with the draft tube by a 13.5m long transition section. The first 8 m portion has horizontal bottom slab, while the other 5.5 m part has sloped bottom slab to connect the tailrace conduit. A stoplog is provided at the beginning of the tailrace conduit. A stoplog is also provided at the end of the tailrace at Musse Kholsa. This stoplog will be operated during tailrace conduit maintenance period.The tailrace conduit consists of a 15 m long C25 concrete culvert, 20 m long C25 transition, 1370 m long trapezoidal section stone masonry canal, 225 m long 8 mm thick and 1.5 m dia steel pipe and 15 m long outlet structure. The tailrace canal begins with invert level 195.60 m above msl to maintain minimum tailrace water level of 197.00 m. The tailrace canal is trapezoidal in section of stone masonry with 1 in 4 cement sand mortar. Bottom width and height of the canal are 1.5 and 1.5 respectively. The longitudinal and the side slope of the canal are 1 in 100 and 1 in 1 respectively. Generating Equipment Two generating units are placed with Francis turbine. The installed capacity is 14.5MW (2x 7.25 MW). The selected turbine is two sets of vertical Francis turbine with 7.75 MW capacity each, at the net head of 108.89 m and design discharge of 15.40 m3/s (7.7 m3/s per unit). The speed is 600 rpm. Vertical synchronous generator, N=7250 kW, 50 Hz, 10.5 kV, 0.85 p. f. lag, class F insulation with temperature rise limited to class B have been used. Two sets of main transformers with 8530 kVA-33/6.3 kV shall be used. The adopted standards shall be: GB1094.3.5-85, GB/T6451-1995, GB1094.1.2-1996, JB/T3837-1996 equivalent to IEC standards. One overhead traveling crane shall be of electrical operated, cabin controlled type, suitable for three-phase 220/380 V-50 Hz power supply, and shall be equipped with a single trolley having both main and auxiliary hoists. The maximum load to be lifted by the crane shall be 35 ton. Transmission Line 24 km long 33 kV double circuit transmission line from powerhouse switchyard to connect to the NEA sub-station at Anarmani of Jhapa district is proposed.
8.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The environmental impact to the size and type of the project are moderate. The major impact shall be the ecosystem of the river downstream of the weir up to 8 km length where Deo Mai discharges approximately 1.2 m3/s of water in the driest month (March). The continuous environmental release of 10% of minimum monthly flow which is equivalent to 722 l/s will compensate the adverse effect to this reach. A fish-ladder has also been proposed for migratory fish-movement. The key social issues in the area are rural electrification and upgrading of the access road to this area. Electricity is a must for the prospective growth of small scale industries and upgrading of the road will facilitate trade and commerce of the area. With the launching of the project some budgetary provisions are made to cooperate with the local people for these works which will provide better environment for the local area. There is existing irrigation system in Kankai river which is approximately 16 km downstream from the powerhouse. Adoption of 14.5 MW simple run-of-river scheme will have no effect to the existing Kankai irrigation system. There shall be permanent loss of forest land and trees as in the case of other similar type of projects. However, the loss is minimal in the main project area and higher in the transmission line route. The re-plantation program shall address this issue to the extent of acceptibality.
Two species of animals are found in the area Salak (Manis crassicaudeta) and Sun Gohoro (Varanus flavescens) which are protected by the government under the National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973. During the project construction, contractual provisions shall be made for restricting hunting and entering into the forest by the project people. Three river systems namely Mai Khola, Muse Kholsa and Lodhiya Khola pass through the project area. Mai river system provides habitat for fishes such as Sahar (Tor tor) and Asala (Schizothorax plagiostomus). Other fishes locally called as Gardi, Thend, Buduna, Raj bam, Katle, Jhinge etc. are also available in the Mai river. Environmental Management Plan for impacts after designing and implementing them shall be monitored to check effectiveness of design and implementation plan (mitigation requirements). For this compliance monitoring and impact monitoring shall be done. To facilitate Environmental Management Plan (EMP), an Environmental Management Unit (EMU) working under Project Manager will be established.
9. 9.1
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COST Access Road
The access to the site is through the existing road from East-West Highway at Birtamod of Jhapa district to Soktim via Sanischare, Khudunabari and Garuwa Sukrabare. The road needs to be upgraded for the purpose of supply to the project. The upgrading of the road shall be started at least 3 months before the main contractor mobilizes to the site. The duration to correct geometry of the road including descending reach to the headworks site from Soktim has been estimated about month. Thus the access to the site shall be completed in four months including one month at the start to the main civil contractor. All local supplies shall be carried out through the East-West Highway at Birtamod and locally transported through the access road up to the site. Location of local construction materials such as gravel, sand and red-clay is nearby the access road and the project area and hence is easily accessible.
9.2
Camps and Facilities
The peak time labour (from outside the Project area) is estimated to be around 300 persons. There is a village Gunmune at the headworks site and Musetar village at the powerhouse site. In addition there is a small Bazar at Sitali which is at a distance of 2 km from the powerhouse and another village Soktim which is at a distance of 1 km from the headworks site. One third of the peak labour can be accommodated in the nearby villages. However, it has been planned to construct temporary camps for the labour at the adjacent areas. Headworks camp shall be placed aside of the Gunmune village and powerhouse camp shall be constructed downstream of the powerhouse in the plain area of Muse Kholsa. Tunnel muck for the tunnel length to be excavated from intake portal side shall be disposed into the left bank of Mai river in the headworks (settling basin, canal) area whereas the tunnel muck from tunnel and surge shaft area including excavated material from penstock foundation shall be dumped along the Muse Kholsa bagar in a controlled manner. Drinking water to the camp shall be provided from the source at Soktim by constructing a reservoir to collect water during night. The water supply shall be done via pipe line of approximately 1.5 km upto the headworks. Other alternative for water supply shall be using the water of Mai Khola with purification.
9.3
Construction Power
The existing 11kV line at the Soktim village is approximately 1.6 km from the headworks site and then another 3.0km from headworks to powerhouse site. Another option is to build a new 33 kV transmission line from Puwa Power Plant located at a distance of 8 km from the headworks site. Construction power requirement for tunnelling is at least 500 kW at the time when single tunnel-boomer is working. To work from two faces with this power, the sequence of drilling and support work should be altered. With this arrangement, 750 KW power shall be sufficient to work in tunnel and concreting.The tentative time for the erection of this line is assumed to be 4 months.
9.4
Contract Package
It is aimed that the main civil contractor shall perform the execution of all civil works including tunnel and powerhouse. The preparatory works such as upgrading of access road, owners camp facilities and construction power supply shall be executed by the owner with subcontractors before and during the full mobilization of the main civil construction contractor. This will provide additional time cushion to the project for accelerating construction works. The 33 kV power evacuation transmission line shall be a separate contract and be started in such a way that the erection of the line is ready before testing/commissioning date of the project. This work does not fall under critical path. All hydro-mechanical works such as gates, trash-racks, steel penstock pipe and other steel works will be another contract package. This package is fitted in the construction schedule so that the works are easily carried out parallel to all civil construction activities. Powerhouse equipment from the end of penstock until the start of 132 kV power evacuation line will be a single package including design, drawings, fabrication & supply, erection/installation plus testing and commissioning. Engineering design and construction supervision of the project will be conducted by in-house engineering department of the Owner. This will facilitate close monitoring and coordination with different contractors and suppliers for integrated work harmony to achieve set target date for completion of the project.
9.5
Project implementation Schedule
The project implementation schedule has been derived on the basis of calculated quantities of works to be done and the duration that is required for design, fabrication, supply and installation of major project components. Time for further investigations recommended in this report to incorporate in detail design and preparation time for contract and tendering including negotiations and contract awards have been considered appropriately while preparing implementation schedule. The critical path observed is tunneling which is estimated to be 34 months (including portals and surge shaft) and the total duration of the project completion including testing and commissioning is estimated to be 4 years from the date of power Purchase Arrangement. The Implementation Schedule is attached with this summary.
9.6
Cost Estimate
The total Project cost is NPR 2125 million (26.52 MUSD). All costs are as of March 2006. Currency conversion used was 1 USD = 72 Nepali Rupees, local market rates for similar nature civil construction and hydro-mechanical works have been used, royalties and taxes were applied as per provisions in the corresponding HMGNs regulations. Royalties or costs associated with construction materials and borrow area have not been considered and it was
assumed that the local contractors shall bid for civil and hydro-mechanical installations. Powerhouse equipment supply shall be through international suppliers by inviting proposals and negotiating with them. The capital cost of the project were derived from the unit costs of the major civil work items. The eletro-mechanical equipment cost were adopted by comparing the quotations received from the suppliers. The hydro-mechanical installations were compared to the prices in existing market as well as quotations received. The environmental mitigation costs and land costs were derived by direct interaction with the local people and the environmental provisions for such mitigations. The physical contingencies adopted for the capital cost estimate of the project are: (a) Tunneling work (15%), Civil construction (10%), Electromechanical equipment (5%), Others (10%). An allowance of 10% of the project cost was applied for engineering management and administrative costs of the project to cover further site investigations (geological investigations and physical modeling, environmental assessment, preparation of tender stage design and documentations and detailed engineering design of the project, contract and tendering, construction supervision, testing and commissioning of the project, project administration, reviewing and approving contractors submittals, and cost of owners/consultants equipment, supplies, communication and transport. The summary of the cost estimates are presented in Table below: Project Cost Summary
SN A B C D E 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ITEM DESCRIPTION Owner's camp and facilities Access road upgrading Construction power line Main Civil contractor's Mobilization Contractor's camp and facilities sub-total Civil construction Headworks Headrace Tunnel Penstock Pipe Powerhouse Tailrace AMOUNT NPR 25,000,000 4,000,000 7,200,000 2,500,000 7,500,000 46,200,000 370,942,218 275,870,525 24,855,000 66,837,000 25,728,000 90,216,801 40,000,000 15,000,000 25,000,000 113,067,966 80,582,900 12,206,160 11,000,000 9,278,906 129,265,177 25,833,153 84,335,500 7,345,144 11,751,380 354,375,000 337,500,000 16,875,000 1,537,357,686 44,008,000 SUB-TOTAL NPR 46,200,000
854,449,543
Contingencies(15% on 1.2 and 10% on other) 2 Land & Environment 2.1 Land acquisition 2.2 Environmental impact mitigation costs 3 Transmission Line 3.1 33 kV power evacuation transmission line 3.2 Substation equipment at delivery point 3.3 Land and environment Contingencies(10%) 4 Hydromechanical installations 4.1 Headworks 4.2 Penstock pipe and hm arrangments 4.3 Tunnel Contingencies(10%) 5 Powerhouse Equipment 5.1 Complete PH equipment sets Contingencies(5%) Total Project Cost (rounded up to the nearest 1000) F Power consumption during construction
197,743,769
SN
ITEM DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT NPR 153,735,769
SUB-TOTAL NPR
G H
Engineering Management & administration (10%) VAT and Taxes/duties 13% on item 1,3,4 & 5 (except land and env under 3.3) 2.5% Local Taxes & duties (item 5, & 3.2) Sub-total I Bank Interest During Construction Total Project Construction Cost (NPR,100000)
round(0.01)
196,385,028 187,220,499 9,164,529 1,931,486,483 193,814,000 2,125,400,000 29.52 2,125,300,48 3 Million USD
9.7
Disbursement Schedule
The summary of the cash-flow is as shown in the Table below. The cash-flow is based on the implementation schedule and the corresponding costs of the project components.The yearly distribution of costs is as follows: Yearly cash-flow (transmission line cost included)
Year-1 15.88% Year-2 27.63% Year-3 46.77% Year-4 9.71%
10.
PROJECT OUTPUTS AND BENEFITS
Energy Production and average Energy Rates The energy production is carried out on the basis of daily data of Rajduwali station with catchment coorelation. These data were then transferred into Nepali calander months. Below is the Monthly average Power and energy summary Table: Summary of Average Power and Energy
Nepali Calander, Months Baisakh No. of days 31 Average Power, MW 9.32 Average Monthly Energy, MWh 6,937 9,003 11,091 10,807 10,807 10,807 10,123 7,981 6,287 5,306 4,562 4,824 98,533 Energy Loss, MWh Transmission loss 220.34 371.24 526.43 516.02 516.02 516.02 467.72 300.82 186.56 128.51 101.83 108.17 3,960 Transformor loss 104.06 135.04 166.36 162.10 162.10 162.10 151.84 119.71 94.30 79.59 68.43 72.36 1,477.99 Average Monthly Contract Energy, MWh 6,613 8,496 10,398 10,129 10,129 10,129 9,503 7,560 6,006 5,098 4,392 4,643 93,095
Jestha 31 12.10 Asadh 31 14.44 Shrawan 32 14.53 Bhadra 31 14.53 Ashwin 30 14.53 Kartik 30 14.06 Mangsir 30 11.47 Poush 29 9.03 Magh 29 7.37 Falgun 30 6.55 Chaitra 31 6.48 Total 365 Operational Outages (5% considered) Total annual Contract Energy (MWh)
MWh MWh
4,655 88,440
The average energy rate considered for the computation of the benefits is NPR 4.48/kWh in the year 2006 (Base Year). These rates were then escalated for 15 years from base year at the rate of 6% for first 5 years and 2.5% for the rest of the period.
The energy benefit shall be by the sales of energy to the grid and the government-takes shall be the royalty on installed capacity and energy production as well as the taxes on energy sales. Energy Consumption The estimated energy produced by MHP is assumed to be consumed by the local market in the National Grid. This project situated at the eastern region will be the added benefit to the national grid because all other existing plants are far from this load centre and the nearest is the multi-fuel diesel plant in Duhabi. At present demand supply scenario, more power plants need to be added in this region for better supply of the energy. Hence the energy produced by the project is considered to be consumed fully by the grid. Emission Benefit The benefit stream for the project is based on the sale of power and quantification of the benefit from reducing emissions from an equivalent thermal generation alternative. The project located in the eastern region shall directly reduce the operation of existing multi-fuel diesel plant located in this region to the extent of its capacity at least during dry season (mid November to mid May) as well as the import of power from Indian system during this period (sometimes even during wet period). Benefit Evaluation for MHP has thus been calculated at least for dry season generation of 32.2 GWh energy (mid November to mid May) as shown in table below: Description External Cost Reduced kWh Emission Credit (USc/kWh) (USD) CO2 : Multi Fuel Diesel 0.6 32.20*106 193,200 SO2 : Multi Fuel Diesel 0.14 32.20*106 45,080 NOx : Multi Fuel Diesel 0.0075 32.20*106 2,415 Total Emission Credit in USD 240,695
The emission credit has been estimated for the dry-season energy when operation of the multi fuel diesel plant is must.
Capacity Benefit The long run marginal cost analysis from the report entitled "Size and Number of Units Optimization of Upper Arun Project" which was carried out for the World Bank in 1991 suggests the capacity benefit of USD 108.4 /kW per annum. The capacity benefit has not been applied in the financial analysis since the project is intended to be developed through private sector and the benefit shall be reflected through the agreed energy tariff between NEA and the private party.
11.
PROJECT EVALUATION
The evaluation of the project has been performed from the financing point of view. The analysis has been preformed for the total project development cost of 2125 million Nepali Rupees including transmission line. Operation and maintenance costs were considered as 2% of project development cost. NPV were calculated at 10% discount rate for 25 (34) years. The interest on bank loan on 70% debt has been considered as 11% during construction period (including bank commissions and loan management fee) and then at the rate of 10% per annum during loan repayment years. The base case results of financial evaluation for average energy rate of 4.48 NPR/kWh at the discount rate of 10% and escalation as mentioned above is presented in Table below. Base-Case Results Net Present Value of Cashflow at 10% discount rate, NPV Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Benefit Cost-ratio (BC-ratio)
1,283 17.52% 1.54 Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-23 Cost 100% Revenue 100%
Return on Equity (RoE) NPV Govt-takes (as royalty and tax takes)
24.58% 761
The increase in the cost is likely due to international market with ever increasing price of fuel and that climatic change may result in longer droughts resulting into losses of revenue of the hydropower projects. In addition a hydrological risk is always bound to be with hydropower projects. This risk always exists and therefore there must be some margins in the benefit streams to safe-guard the investments. The normal practice shall be to test the project at 10% cost over-run and 10% revenue losses. The results of this test are as shown in the table below: Results of Sensitivity Test (cost over-run by 10% and revenue loss by 10%) Net Present Value of Cashflow at 10% discount rate, NPV Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Benefit Cost-ratio (BC-ratio) Return on Equity (RoE) NPV Govt-takes (as royalty and tax takes)
862 14.87% 1.36 19.30% 641 Cost 110% Revenue 90%
Since the hydropower projects involves many risk factors, return on equity less than 20% will be very risky for investors to invest into hydropower projects. It is further tested on its sensitivity to evaluate the attractiveness of the project at the average energy rates of 4.25NPR/kWh and escalation as before (NPR 4.25/kWh in Year 2006 with 6% escalation for 5 years and then 2.5% for the next 10 years). The results are as shown in the Table below: Net Present Value of Cashflow at 10% discount rate, NPV Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Benefit Cost-ratio (BC-ratio) Return on Equity (RoE) NPV Govt-takes (as royalty and tax takes)
729 14.19% 1.31 17.95% 595
Cost Revenue 110% 90%

(17.7% in 25Yrs)
Since the return on equity is as low as 17.7%, further test on lower rates has not been performed. It is the negotiation process between NEA and SHPL where the energy rates shall be fixed on the basis of sharing of risks between both parties. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation shows that the project is financially viable and attractive at the average energy rate of NPR 4.48/kWh in year 2006 and still shows the viability at an average rate of 4.25/kWh. These rates are then to be escalated at the rate of 6% for first five years and then at the rate of 2.5% for another 10 years. Further, it is recommended to enter into negotiation for the PPA with NEA on the basis of the results of this Summary Report. The analysis performed herein above provides sufficient background to enter into the negotiations for Power Purchase Agreement with NEA. The energy rates proposed for the evaluation are attractive to NEA compared to the existing energy rates of the most of the private sector power plants of this range.
12. 12.1
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions
The following conclusions were made from the feasibility study of Mai Hydropower Project: 1. The 14.5 MW MHP is technically feasible and possesses the importance in the INPS system mainly for the following reason:
MHP is very desirable from the perspective of loss reduction for NEA being nearer to load center of eastern region, For the improvement of voltage and power supply scenario in the region, This project will replace to some extent the operation of expensive thermal power plant and even reduce dependency on Indian system for the Eastern Nepal. Realization of MHP will help rapid industrialization of the power hungry eastern Terai belt of Nepal. Many Nepali skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers will have an opportunity to get employment during construction and to some extent post construction period that strengthens the local economy. The project is therefore very important for the national economy as well. 2. Installed capacity and energy: The installed capacity of the plant is 14.5 MW (2x 7.25 MW) with design discharge of 15.4 m3/s and net head of 109.58 m. The gross energy production is 98.53 GWh (dry energy 20.98 GWh and wet energy 77.55 GWh delivering 88.440GWh per annum of net energy at delivery point). 3. The project is financially viable with an average energy rate of NPR 4.48/kWh (in the Base year 2006). The base year energy rates were escalated at the rate of 6% for first five years and then at the rate of 2.5% for another 10 years. 4. The environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being prepared as a separate report. The environmental and social impacts are moderate to low typical for the run-of-river project. 5. The major environmental issue would be downstream release of design discharge through Lodhiya Khola (approximately 3 km), which may cause damages to the adjacent rice-field and also cause trouble to dry-season movement of vehicles along the Khola. 6. The headworks diversion structures are designed for 100 year flood. At 1000 year floods, the structures are allowed to pass the flood without free board. Minor damages are expected during these floods. 7. To evacuate generated power a 33 kV double circuit transmission line (24 km long) is proposed to connect to the NEA sub-station at Anarmani of Jhapa district. 8. Existing access road is considered with upgrading (approx 30 km length). 9. The construction period of 4 years has been considered from the date of PPA.
12.2
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made for the implementation of Mai Hydropower Project: Further Geological and Geotechnical Investigations 1. Boreholes shall be drilled in weir axis (10 m), tunnel inlet portal (30 m), surge shaft (20 m), Penstock alignment (10 m) and 2. Lugeon or leakage tests shall be carried out in lateral low cover area of tunnel alignment to estimate water leakage through the tunnel. 3. Slack durability test of rock sample (to test durability of rock with water flow) to be carried out. 4. Swelling Test of mudstone should be done. Physical hydraulic modelling and modification of weir structures The major cost component is headworks. Therefore it is recommended to perform physical modelling to assess flushing requirement and down-stream protection requirement as well as to
check flood levels and weir geometry to adopt during detail design phase. The hydraulic modelling is also required to size and confirm the geometry of the stilling basin. Hydrology and Sediment study It is recommended to continue the flow measurement and sediment sampling. Transmission line It is recommended that the 132 kV transmission line should be erected by the government as a separate project and link it as one of the major transverse power evacuation transmission line in this region to connect to the up coming projects in this region (Kabeli, Tamur-Mewa, Hewa etc.) including this Project although the 33 kV double circuit transmission line is proposed for this project. Tax Holidays To come with reasonable energy rates and encourage private sector to invest in hydropower projects it is recommended that the tax holidays should be provided to the developers for the period of at least 10-15 years or loan repayment period.

00 Executive Summary 14.5MW Jul07 NEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

00 Executive Summary 14.5MW Jul07 NEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.

14.5 MW MAI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED.

SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED

MAI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

June 2007 Ashadh 2064

SANIMA HYDROPOWER (P.) LIMITED.

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-1

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Base-Case 1,283 17.52% 1.54 24.58% 761

Commercial operation is envisioned in the end of year 2010.

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-3

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

THE PROJECT AREA

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

BASIC STUDIES Hydrology and Sediment Study

Exceedence of time (%)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Geological and Geotechnical Studies

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Percentages 51% 29% 14 % 1% 1% 4%

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Q=0.2 0.6 RMR=30 40

IV VERY POOR TO EXTREMELY POOR ROCK V EXTREMELY POOR ROCK

Q=0.04 0.2 RMR=15 30

Q=0.04 0.01 RMR< 15

VI EXCEPTIONALY POOR ROCK

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Mass Wasting Study

Summary Report, Revision A (NEAs comments incorporated)-12

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited

Mai Hydropower Project Feasibility Study: Executive Summary (Revision-A)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Sanima Hydropower (P.) Limited