Maiwa Khola

Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project (Package - 2) DoED
Feasibility Study Executi ve Summary ES- 1 METCON

Salient Features of the Project

LOCATION District: Taplejung
VDCs: Dhungesanghu, Thinlabu, Change,
Santhakra, Khamlun and Phunlin.
Latitude: 27
0
-21-0 To 27
0
-2237
(3026000 - 3029000 N)
Longitude: 87
0
-33-58 To 87
0
-37-
37 (556000E - 562000E)

PURPOSE Hydropower Generation

HYDROLOGY Catchment Area 173.4 km
2

Average Annual Flow 17.2 m
3
/s
Design Flow 8.07 m
3
/s
(45% exceedence)
Flood Flow 461.00 m
3
/s
(with 100 yrs return period)

HEADWORKS a) Diversion weir
Type Nongated overflow concrete gravity
Crest elevation 815 Masl
High flood level 819.5 Masl
Crest length 30m
Maximum height 7m
Design flow 461 m
3
/s
Geology Alluvial Deposit
(Boulders, gravels, sand)



INTAKE STRUCTURE Design flow 9.28m
3
/s
Intake bays 2 Nos
Size of each bay 4m x 1.7m
Intake water level 815 Masl
Intake sill level 813.30 Masl
Intake length 20m (variable)
Intake velocity 0.68m/s
Geology Alluvial Deposit

HEADRACE CANAL-1 Design flow 9.28 m
3
/s
Section Rectangular, covered
concrete lined
Size 3mx1.7m
Gradient 1:1000
Length 81m
Geology Alluvial and colluvial Deposit

DESILTING BASIN Design flow 9.28m
3
/s
Type Single chamber with -
continuous flushing
Section Rectangular (upper-half) and
inclined at 45
0
(lower half)
concrete lined
Size 11m x 4.5m
Length 90m (including transitions)
Silt particle size larger than 0.20mm
Settling velocity 0.024 m/s
Mean flow velocity 0.27 m/s
Geology Alluvial and colluvial deposit



HEADRACE CANAL-2
Design flow 8.07m
3
/s
Section Rectangular, covered,
concrete lined
Size 2.5mx1.85m
Gradient 1:1000
Geology Alluvial and colluvial deposit

HEAD RACE TUNNEL Design flow 8.07m
3

Section D-Shaped
Size 2.5mx2.5m
Gradient 1:1000
Length 4,150m
Geology Chlorite micha schist and
schistose phyllites, with or
without garnet

FOREBAY Water level 810.52 Masl
Section Rectangular, concrete lined
Size 10mx2.5m
Length 58m
Geology Exposed bedrock
represented by Chlorite
sericite schistose phyllites

PENSTOCK Design flow 8.07m
3
/s
Diameter 1.90m
Length 700m
Thickness 20mm
Geology Colluvial deposit



POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE
Type Surface
Size Length=23.4m
Width=11m
Height=17.40m
Turbine axis at elevation 610 Masl
Installed capacity 13.5Mw
Number of generating units 2
Tailrace water level 609.62 Masl
Gross Head 200.90m
Tailrace canal Rectangular,
Section covered, concrete lined
Size 2.5 m x 1.86 m
Gradient 1: 1000
Length 65m
Geology Alluvial and colluviial deposits

GENERATING EQUIPMENTS

Turbines Type Vertical shaft, Francis
Number 2
Capacity Each with output 7.15 Mw
and synchronous speed 750
rpm.
Generators Type A/c synchronous brushless
excitation system
Number 2
Capacity Each with output 6.8Mw
synchronous speed 750 rpm
and generating voltage 11Kv
Power Transformer Type outdoor, oil immersed
Number 2
Rated Output Each with 8,000 KVA
Rated voltage 11Kv/132 KV



TRANSMISSION LINE Length 7Km
Transmission Voltage 132KV

ENERGY GENERATION Average Annual Energy 78.11 Gwh
Dry season 14.03 Gwh
Wet season 64.08 Gwh

PROJECT COST Estimated cost Rs. 1,89,61,20,000.
(excluding Tax & duties
at 2009 price level)

ECONOMIC INDICATORS Nett Present Value (NPV) IN (000) Rs. 67,99.55
Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) 1.40
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) 13.97%

FINANCIAL INDICATORS Nett Present Value (NPV) in (000) Rs. 40,30,61
Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) 1.31
Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) 13.7 %



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

It is estimated that Nepal is endowed with the total hydropower potential of 83,000 Mw.
About 50% of the potential is considered as technically and economically feasible
potential. Presently, a little over 1 % of this potential has been harnessed. A large
section of national population is still away from the hydropower reach. The average per
capita consumption of electricity in the country is one of the lowest in the world. The
Government of Nepal intends to develop the potential in an economically efficient and
sustainable manner to meet the growing power demand in the country. In line with the
Hydropower Development Policy, 2001 and Water Resources Strategy, 2002, the
Government of Nepal wishes to maximize the private sector involvement in the
development of hydropower projects. Compared to large and medium scale hydropower
projects, the significant advantages of small hydropower plants are lower capital
investment, proximity to regional load centres, use of local materials and technology and
shorter construction period. Under the grant assistance from the Norwegian
Government, Department of Electricity Development (DoED) has been engaging the
competent local consultants in conducting the Feasibility Study and Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of small hydropower projects for a couple of years. The
proposed assignment for undertaking Feasibility Study and EIA of Maiwa Khola Small
Hydropower Project is one such undertaking.

Based on the Technical and Financial proposals to carry out the Feasibility study and
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project as
submitted by Metcon Group Private Ltd. on 11 J anuary 2007, DoED through its letter
dated 31
st
May 2007, invited the consultants for initiating the necessary procedure to
enter into a contract.

On J une 27, 2007 discussions were held between DoED and Consultants regarding the
finalization of contract based on request for proposal, technical proposal and financial
proposal, description of services, reporting requirements, key personnel & sub-
consultants, breakdown of contract price in local currency and working schedule &
manning schedule. DoED & Consultants had initialed the final draft of the contract and
agreed that the initialed documents were subject to approval from respective authorities
prior to signing of the contract.


On August 5, 2007, Department of Electricity Development (DoED) and Metcon Group
Private Ltd (METCON Consultants) entered into a contract for undertaking a Feasibility
Study and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower
Project in Taplejung district of Eastern Development Region of Nepal.

The consultants initiated this study in August 2007 immediately after signing the
contract. Inception Report was approved by DoED in February 2008. Scoping and ToR
documents for carrying out. EIA were submitted to DoED in October 2008. In the
meantime GON announced a change in Environmental Regulation 2054 during
presentation of Budget for FY 2008/2009. Subsequently amendments were made in
Environmental Regulation 2054 and consultants were instructed by DOED letter dated
2065-5-19 to carry out Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) instead of Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project, as stipulated in the referred contract earlier.

1.2 Previous Studies

Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project was identified and studied at reconnaissance
level during the works The Study of Small Hydropower Project of 5-10Mw capacity
previously done by the consultants ITECHO Nepal (P) Ltd. for DoED. Information about
the location, geology, hydrology, layout, energy generation, access and transmission line
of the project as identified and studied earlier were provided in Appendix - A of the
above referred contract.

1.3 Objective and Scope of Work

The main objective of the consultants services is to carryout and complete the Feasibility
Study including Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Study of Maiwa Khola Small
Hydropower Project.

The specific objectives, as outlined in the TOR of the contract, are as follows:

To produce a bankable feasibility study report that will analyse and document all
important aspects required for the formal approval of the project by DoED and
government authorities of Nepal;
To serve as a main document for inviting participation in the implementation of the


project by the private investors;
To complete the Feasibility Study Report by incorporating all relevant baseline
investigations, assessments and plans, drawings and cost estimates regarding
technical, economic, financial and environmental aspects; and
To conduct IEE as an integral part of the Feasibility study in line with the existing
environmental legislations of the country.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA

2.1 Location

The project is located on Maiwa Khola a tributary of of Tamor river in Santhakra,
Thinlabu, Dhungesangu and Change VDCs of Taplejung district of Mechi Zone in the
Eastern Development Region of Nepal within 27
0
-21-0 - 27
0
-22-37- Latitude
(3026000 N - 3029000 N) and 87
0
-33-58- 87
0
- 37-37 E Longitude (556000 E - 562000
E). The overall project location and project area location are shown in Fig No ES-2.1
and ES-2.2 respectively.

2.2 Physical Features

The Maiwa khola basin is bordered by J aljale Himal at an elevation of 4540 m amsl,
Dhupi and Sumba danda in the North, Milke, Menchhyam dada in south and East and
Giddhe and Milke dada in the west. The basic basin characteristics of Maiwa and Tamor
were assessed using the Arc View GIS tools based on the digital elevation model (DEM)
data derived from contour map published by Survey Department of Nepal Government.

The total length of the Maiwa khola from its origin to the confluence with Tamor River
near Dobhan at an elevation of about 653 m amsl is about 24 km. It has seven main
tributaries namely Lechuwa, Nenwa, Kanuwa, Yandeli, jaiwa, Hguwa and Hina. The
largest among these tributaries is Yandeli khola joining the Maiwa at an elevation of
about 960 Masl near Tenthap village located about 2 km upstream of the headworks site
of the project. The average gradient of the Maiwa khola from origin to the confluence is
about 14 %. The average gradient of the Maiwa khola for a stretch of about 7.5 km


between its confluence with Yandeli and Tamor is mild and about 3.4%. The average
slope of the Maiwa khola for the upper part of the catchment above the confluence of
Yandeli Khola is steep and varies from 8.5% to 17%. The side slope of the Maiwa
catchment above the intake varies from 2% to 57% with an average of 26.4%. The
average gradient of Tamor River in between Dobhan and powerhouse site at Tupurke
site is about 1.5%.

2.3 Accessibility

Presently the project site does not have access to existing about 250 km long Mechi
Rajmarga connecting Taplejung district headquarters with East - West Highway at
Chaarali in J hapa district of Mechi zone in the Eastern Development Region via Phidim
and Ilam bazaar the headquarters of Paanchthar and Ilam districts respectively.
According to the Terms of Reference of the contract for the present study, the
consultants, have investigated, surveyed designed and proposed to construct a 10.95
km long district level graveled access road with a 60m long bridge over Tamor river at
approximately 700 m upstream of the powerhouse site. This access road will connect
the powerhouse site of the project with Banande a nearest roadhead on above
mentioned rajmarga. Further, it is proposed that the headworks and forebay sites of the
project will be accessible by a graveled motorable road to be diverted towards Dobhan
from the access road at the right bank of the bridge over Tamor river at Chainage no 10
+240. The length of this project road will be about 7 m.

Imported construction materials and construction machines, plants, tools and electro-
mechanical equipments for the powerhouse will be transported to the project site by
inland transport form the nearest seaport, Kolkotta, India. The entry point from above
seaport to Nepal will be Kakarbhitta in J hapa district. From this entry point onwards to
the project site the transportation of all kind of construction materials except for the
materials like sand, gravel and stones available locally machines, plants, tools and all
kinds of equipments will be done Via the Mechi Rajmarga (250m) running between
Taplejung and Chharali at East - West Highway Via Phidim and Ilam bazaar the
headquarters of Paanchthar and Ilam districts respectively and the project access road
(10.5km) proposed to be constructed prior to the commencement of main civil works of


the project. About 140 km of above mentioned Rajmarga between Chharali and Phidim
is blacktopped while the remaining portion of about 110 km between Phidim and
Taplejung is just graveled. Presently the latter portion is in poor condition. However, the
concerned government department has plan to rehabilate and improve this portion
before blacktopping it in the near department has plan to rehabilate and improve this
portion before blacktopping it in the near future.

There is a fair weather airport at Sukhetar which is situated at about 3 km and 9 km
southeast of district headquarters Taplejung bazaar and project site respectively.

3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS AND RECOMMENDED PROJECT
LAYOUT

Possible alternative layouts and recommended project layout were described at length in
the Revised Inception Report dated J anuary 2008. A brief account of the mentioned
report is presented below:

3.1. Study of Possible Alternative Layouts of the Project

According to above mentioned report, altogether three possible alternative layouts-
Alternative A, B and C of the project were identified and studied using then available
topographical maps of 1:50,000 scale, aerial photographs, general information about
the environmental conditions of the project area and findings of review of available
hydrological, geological and other relevant data/information. For the comparison
purposes, all three alternative layouts were prepared in 1:50,000 scale topographical
maps and parameters of layout components and structures were determined using a
design flow of 65% probability exceedence.

The benefit-cost analysis made for the alternative layouts revealed that Alternative B
layout was more favorable than the other two Alternatives A and C. Hence, it was
selected for further phase of study. The comparison of these alternative layouts along
with the salient features, as provided in the Revised Inception Report, is referred to in
Table No. ES-3.1



Further, a benefit-cost analysis was made to determine the tentative optimum capacity of
the above selected Alternative B layout of the project. For this, a range of capacities
were considered using the flow ranging from 65% to 37% probability of exceedence. As
a result of this analysis the Alternative B layout of the project with a tentative installed
capacity of 12.74 Mw corresponding a flow of 7.8m
3
/s equaling to a flow of 40%
probability exceedence was found optimum as it provided the highest benefit-cost ratio
1.48. Hence, it was recommended that the Alternative B layout of the project with an
installed capacity of 12.74 Mw be taken up for further phase of study comprising of
various field investigations and design works as specified by ToR of the contract. The
results of this analysis, as provided in the Revised Inception Report, are referred to in
Table No. ES-3.2

3.2. Presentation of Recommended Layout

The recommended layout of project with tentative installed capacity of 12.74 Mw
envisages the construction of headworks comprising of a diversion weir, intake structure,
desilting basin and canals connecting intake to desilting basin to headrace tunnel,
forebay, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace. This conceptual layout of the project as
mentioned above was adopted for further studies including the field investigations,
optimization and feasibility level design. The tentative salient features of the layout as
worked out during the inception phase of study subject to revision and modification, as
required, during the further course of designing are as follow:
Gross Head 200m
Design Discharge 7.8m
3
/s with 40% of probability of
exceedence
Installed Capacity 12.74Mw
Headrace Tunnel Length 4,600m, D-Shaped
2.5mx2.5m), Non pressure tunnel
Penstock Length 560m, Diameter 1.82m
Annual Gross Energy 70.89Gwh
Preliminary Cost in (000)/NRs 1,31,43,00
Preliminary Annual Cost in (000)/NRs 19, 71, 00
Preliminary Annual Benefit in (000)/NRs 29, 14, 00
B/C ratio 1.48

Table No. ES-3.1: Salient Features of Alternatives A, B and C.
S.N Description Alternati ve A Alternati ve B Alternati ve C with Audit
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Catchment Area at intake (km
2
)
Location of diversion weir site
Latitude
Longitude
Location of Power house site
Latitude
Longitude
Gross head (m)
65% exceedence flow (m
3
/s)
Power generation (Kw)
Annual gross energy (Gwh)
Type/Size of waterway
Waterway length (m)
Penstock pipe diameter/length (m)
Access Road (Km)
Project Road (Km)
Transmission Line (Km)
Preliminary cost in thousand NRS
Annual cost in thousand NRS
Annual benefit in thousand NRS
Cost per Kw (NRS/kw)
Energy cost (NRS/Kwh)
Benefit-cost ratio (B/C)

186.5

27
0
-22-20
87
0
-35-7

27
0
-21-0
87
0
-37-30
160
3.2
4,175
31.81
Non pressure tunnel/2.5m*2.5m
4,200
1.3/430
15
7
20
78,57,00
11,79,000
13,07,00
1,88,000
3.71
1.11

182

27
0
-22-14
87
0
-34-40

27
0
-21-0
87
0
-37-30
200
3.12
5,100
38.95
4,600
1.3/560
15
9
20
90,27,00
13,54,000
16,01,00
1,77,000
3.48
1.18

174

27
0
-22-24
87
0
-33-44

27
0
-21-0
87
0
-37-30
300
2.98
7,340
56.45
6,000
1.3/860
15
12
20
1,33,44,00
20,02,00
23,20,00
1,82,000
3.50
1.16

Feasibility Study Executi ve Summary ES-12 METCON
Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project (Package-2) DOED

Feasibility Study - Executi ve Summary ES-13 METCON

Table No. ES-3.2: Comparison of cost for different plant capacities corresponding to the flow
with probability of exceedence ranging from 65% to 40% at gross head
200m (Alternative B)
Amount in Thousand NRS
S.N Description Flow(65%)=
3.12m
3
/s
Flow(50%)
=4.4m
3
/s
Flow(45%)
=5.9m
3
/S
Flow(43%)
=6.4m
3
/s
Flow(40%)
=7.8m
3
/s
Flow (37%)
=9.75m
3
/s
1. Civil Works P=5.10MW P =7.11MW P=9.34MW

P=10.44MW P=12.74MW P=15.94M
W
a. Diversion weir and intake
structures
3,50,00 3,70,00 3,90,00 4,00,00 4,20,00 4,50,00
b. Desilting Basin 1,00,00 1,00,00 1,75,00 2,00,00 2,20,00 2,50,00
c. Water ways 34,50,00 34,50,00 34,50,00 34,50,00 34,50,00 40,48,00
d. Forebay & Penstock civil works 2,00,00

2,50,00

3,00,00

3,30,00

4,00,00 4,80,00
e. Power house & tailrace 3,10,00

3,80,00

4,40,00

4,60,00

5,50,00 6,60,00

Sub Total 1 44,10,00 45,50,00 47,55,00 48,40,00 50,40,00 58,88,00
2. Hydraulic steel structure (gate,
trashrack valves etc)
1,50,00 1,80,00 2,10,00 2,20,00 2,45,00 2,76,00
3. Electro-mechanical Equipments
turbines, generators,
transformers, etc)
14,79,00 20,62,00

27,87,00 29,23,00 35,67,00 43,04,00

4. Penstock pipe 7,01,00 7,01,00 10,19,00 10,62,00 13,06,00 15,77,00
5. Project Road 6,30,00 6,30,00 6,30,00 6,30,00 6,30,00 6,30,00
Sub Total 2 29,60,00 35,73,00 46,46,00 48,35,00 57,48,00 67,87,00
A Total Estimated Cost 73,70,00 81,23,00

94,01,00 96,75,00 1,07,88,00 1,26,75,00
B Site installation and general
facilities @ 3% of A
2,21,00

2,44,00

2,82,00 2,90,00 3,24,00

3,80,00
C Contingencies:
Civil works 15%
Electro-Mechanical works (10%)

6,62,00
1,48,00

6,83,00
2,06,00

7,13,00
2,79,00

7,26,00
2,92,00

7,56,00
3,57,00

8,83,00
4,30,00
D Engineering, Administration and
Construction Management @ 6%
of A
4,42,00 4,88,00 5,64,00 5,80,00 6,48,00 7,60,00
E Environmental cost @ 2.5% of A 1,84,00 2,03,00 2,35,00 2,42,00 2,70,00 3,17,00

Grand Total 90,27,00 99,74,00 1,14,74,00 1,18,05,00 1,31,43,00 1,54,45,00
Annual cost (NRS) 13,54,00 14,92,00 17,21,00 17,71,00 19,71,00 23,17,00
Installed capacity (KW) 5,100 7,110 9,610 10,440 12,740 15,940
Annual Energy (Gwhr) 38.95 49.30 59.32 62.41 70.89

81.33
Energy cost (NRS/Kwhr) 3.48

3.03 2.90

2.84 2.78 2.85
Cost/KW
(NRS/KW)
1,77,000 1,40,000 1,19,000 1,13,000 1,03,00 97,000
Annual Benefit (NRS) 16,01,00 20,26,00 24,38,00 25,65,00

29,14,00 33,43,00
Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/C) 1.18 1.36 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.44


4. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND SURVEY

In accordance with the ToR of the contract, the following field investigation and survey
works were carried out for the project alternative recommended by the Inception Report
approved by DoED on February 27, 2008. Most of these works, except for core drilling
and construction material survey, were conducted during March 2008- December 2008
with the completion of geophysical survey by 2D electrical resistivity survey. The field
investigation and survey works regarding core drilling and construction material,
however, could be conducted only during J anuary- April 2009 as the East-West Highway
remained nonoperational during August- December 2008 due to Koshi flood of August
17, 2008 which had washed away the portion of highway at east bank upstream of the
koshi barrage. The field report on the field investigation and survey works excluding core
drilling and construction material was submitted to DoED on May 12, 2009. The report
on core drilling, construction material survey and related tests of geological/geotechnical
investigation, however, was submitted to DoED only on August 7, 2009. The summary
of these field investigation and survey works is briefly presented below:
.
4.1. Topographic Survey and Mapping

At the outset of the feasibility study the only map covering the project area was to a
scale of 1:50,000 and aerial photographs of similar scale taken in September 1996,
which was deemed to be inadequate. The main concern, therefore, was to prepare
suitable maps at the earliest possible. A survey team headed by a Senior Surveyor was
dispatched to the project site on March 14, 2008. The survey team was mandated to
undertake ground survey works for the preparation of topographical maps of proposed
headworks area, forebay area, penstock line, powerhouse site, and tailrace;
topographical strip survey for the headrace tunnel corridor; take cross sections of Maiwa
Khola and Tamor River at different locations; fix alignment of 2D electrical resistivity
survey lines; locations of drill holes and survey alignment of the access road. The field
survey except for location of drill holes was concluded in J une, 2008. The location of drill
holes was done by separate survey team during J anuary, 2009.



The entire field data were evaluated immediately in the field. The plotting as well as
mapping work was completed using AutoCad land development software programmes.
The details are presented in Appendix A-1 Topographical Survey and Mapping of Part
III of the Final Report.

4.2. Hydrological, Meteorological and Sediment Data Collection

Maiwa Khola is an ungauged river and hence no time series data on hydrology are
available. A gauging station near Dobhan just about 100m downstream of the existing
suspension bridge over Maiwa Khola connecting Dobhan bazaar and Mahadevtar
situated at its right and left bank respectively was established by the Consultants in
September 2007. A gauge reader was assigned to take daily record of water level and
sediment samples three times a week. Since then data regarding water level and
sediment were collected regularly. The hydrological data required for determination of
long term mean monthly flow, dependable flow and design flow, etc. are generated using
the available data of hydrological stations No. 690 and 684 on Tamor River at Mulghat
and Majhitar respectively obtained from DHM.

The rainfall and temperature data for Taplejung bazaar covering the period 1975-2006
and 1992-2006 respectively and rainfall data for meteorological stations at Dobhan for
1975-2006 were collected from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology.
According to rainfall data of Dobhan meteorological station for the period 1975-2006, the
average annual rainfall in the project area is about 1674 mm. Based on the information
from Taplejung meteorological station for the period 1992-2006, the average minimum
and maximum temperature in the project area is about 4
0
c and 25
0
c occurring in the
month of J anuary and August respectively of the year. The details are presented in
Appendix A-2 Hydrological & Sedimentation Investigations and Studies of Part III of the
Final Report.

4.3. Geological and Geotechnical Investigations and Mapping

The geological and geotechnical site investigations and mapping works, excluding core


drilling and construction material survey and testing were concluded in December, 2008.
A proposal was made on vertical core drilling programme for the approval from DoED in
August, 2008. In accordance with the terms of reference, the consent of DoED for drill
depth, number of drill holes, drilling sites etc. was taken before commencing the drilling
work. Although the process for mobilization of core drilling team was planned in due
time, the team has to be denied in mobilization for the time being due to the
transportation problem caused by breaching of eastern embankment of Kosi River.
However, the drilling team was able to mobilize in J anuary, 2009. The core drilling
works were completed in April 2009.

4.3.1 Geophysical Survey

Geophysical exploration using 2D electrical resistivity survey was performed before
commencing the core drilling work in accordance with the approved Revised Inception
Report.

The geophysical team was assembled and dispatched to the project site on March 14,
2008 along with topographic survey team. A Consultants team visited the project site
during March 18-27, 2008 and altogether 18 profile lines totaling more than 3,000 m in
length at different locations were proposed for carrying out the 2D electrical resistivity
survey. The survey lines were finalized after considering the importance of the structures
for various components of the project and their location was based mainly on the
topographic condition and preliminary geological assessments.

The field survey was completed at the end of J une, 2008. The details are given in a field
report on 2D electrical resistivity survey submitted to DoED on August 21, 2008.

4.3.2 Engineering Geological Mapping

The mapping team was mandated to undertake fieldwork for the preparation of
engineering geological maps of proposed headworks area, forebay area, penstock line,
powerhouse site, and tailrace at the scale of 1:1,000 and head race tunnel corridor at


1:10,000 scales.

Geotechnical field investigations such as joint measurement survey, compressive
strength determination by Schmidt Hammer and seismic studies were performed in
accordance with the terms of reference. The fieldwork was completed during November
and December, 2008. The detailed description is provided in Appendix A-3 Geology and
Geotechnical Studies of Part III of the Final Report.

4.3.3 Core Drilling

Altogether five drill holes were drilled at different locations of the project area. Two drill
holes DH-1 and DH-2 were drilled at powerhouse area to depth of 30 m each. Bed rock
was intersected at 13.90 m & 11.90 m respectively. Similarly DH-3 at forebay, DH-4 at
desilting basin and DH-5 was drilled at inlet portal of the proposed headrace tunnel.
General description of the drill holes are presented in Table No. ES-4. The geological
logs, DCPT values and permeability tests of all holes are shown in Appendices of the
Report on Core Drilling, Construction Material Survey and Related Tests of
Geological/Goetechincal Investigation dated J uly 2009.

The Lugeon tests were performed in DH-3 at forebay only and the same tests could
not be performed in the holes like DH-1, DH-2, DH-4 and DH-5 successfully since
the bedrock intersected in all the holes are soft, friable, poor quality with open joints
and highly foliated. However, field permeability tests were performed in rest of the
holes.



Table No. ES-4: General Description of Drill Holes

4.3.4 Construction Material Survey and Testing

Construction material such as coarse and fine aggregates and cohesive material
required for construction purpose of the project was assessed at different locations of
the project area. Most of the deposits are pocket type small to medium size located
along left and right bank of Maiwa Khola and right bank of Tamor River. The
cohesive material is available at Sakphara Tole located at about 300 m uphill from
the proposed desilting basin. The coarse and fine aggregate are available in alluvium
deposit of the above described area, which content grey, medium to coarse grained
sand with gravels, cobbles and boulders of quartzite, gneiss, phyllite and schist. The
average thickness of such material is about 3.0m. The investigation of the
construction material was done by excavating five test pits. The test pits were
logged, documented and sampled by a professional Geologist at the site separately
for separate pits. The samples were transported to Geotechnical laboratory of EMES
Pvt. Ltd. where most of the samples were assessed and tested as per the given
standard and procedure to determine the prescribed parameters. Some of tests
Drill Hole
No
Inclination Location
Drill hole
depth
m
Bedrock
intersected
depth m
DH-1 Vertical Powerhouse
30

13.90

DH-2 Vertical Powerhouse 30 11.90
DH-3 Vertical Forebay 30 8.00
DH-4 Vertical Desilting basin 20 16.95
DH-5 Vertical Inlet Portal 30 10.00


facility is not available in house laboratory, which were tested in other private and
Government Institution laboratories of the country. Evaluation of such material was
done quantitatively and qualitatively based on field data and laboratory results. The
quantity of the explored material is sufficient and the nature and quality of the
material is suitable with necessary treatment for implementing the project.

The detailed description of core drilling and construction material survey and related
tests is presented in the Report on Core Drilling, Construction Material Survey and
Related Tests of Geological/Geotechnical Investigation dated J uly 2009.

5. BASIC STUDIES

The basic studies that were conducted in the course of preparation of Feasibility report
are briefly summarized below:

5.1 Hydrological Studies

As per TOR of the contract, the hydrological studies of the project mainly focus on the
interpretation and analyses of collected relevant primary and secondary data information
as described in section 4 above applying the standard and appropriate methodologies
and procedures to determine such important hydrological parameters as long term mean
monthly flows, flood flows, dry season flows, construction flood flows, flow duration
pattern, and stage discharge relationship etc required for completing the feasibility
design of the project. The detailed description of the hydrological studies is presented in
Appendix A-2 Hydrological & Sedimentation Investigations and Studies of the PART III
of the Final Report.

5.1.1 Catchment Characteristics

The Maiwa khola basin is bordered by J aljale Himal at an elevation of 4540 m amsl,
Dhupi and Sumba danda in the North, Milke, Menchhyam dada in south and East and
Giddhe and Milke dada in the west. The basic basin characteristics of Maiwa and Tamor


were assessed using the Arc View GIS tools based on the digital elevation model (DEM)
data derived from contour map published by Survey Department of Nepal Government.

The total length of the Maiwa khola from its origin to the confluence with Tamor River
near Dobhan at an elevation of about 653 m amsl is about 24 km. It has seven main
tributaries namely Lechuwa, Nenwa, Kanuwa, Yandeli, jaiwa, Hguwa and Hina. The
largest among these tributaries is Yandeli khola joining the Maiwa at an elevation of
about 960 m amsl near Tenthap village located about 2 km upstream of the headworks
site of the project. The average gradient of the Maiwa khola from origin to the
confluence is about 14 %. The average gradient of the Maiwa khola for a stretch of
about 7.5 km between its confluence with Yandeli and Tamor is mild and about 3.4%.
The average slope of the Maiwa khola for the upper part of the catchment above the
confluence of Yandeli Khola is steep and varies from 8.5% to 17%. The side slope of the
Maiwa catchment above the intake varies from 2% to 57% with an average of 26.4%.
The average gradient of Tamor River in between Dobhan and powerhouse site at
Tupurke is about 1.5%. The catchment area of the Maiwa Khola is shown in Figure
No.ES-5.1

5.1.2 The Climate

Lungthung, Taplethok, Taplejung and Dobhan are the precipitation station in the the
Tamor River basin. The closest station to the project site is Dobhan. The mean annual
basin precipitation for the Maiwa Khola basin is about 1674 mm. The monsoon rains
contribute more than 70% of the total annual precipitation. The monsoon, i.e. the wet
season, starts from May to September.

Taplejung Climatic Station with index number of 1405 is the nearest climatic stations
having relatively long (1992-2006) records of temperature data series from the study
basin. The maximum temperature at the station varies from 24.1
0
C to 26.1
0
C in the
month of J uly while the minimum temperature varies from 2.7
0
C to 5.2
0
C in the month
of J anuary.



The temperature varies from place to place depending upon the altitude. The lapse rate
of 6.5
0
C/km rise of altitude can be used to find the temperature of a particular place with
reference to the observed temperature at the climatic station. Since the altitude of the
study basin varies from 840 m to 4480 m, the climatic temperature varies from tundra to
temperate and tropical based on the altitude. The relative humidity may be as high as
95% during the wet season and as low as 41% during the dry season.

Figure ES- 5.1 : Maiwa Khola Catchment

5.1.3 Reference Hydrology

The Maiwa Khola is Catchment doesnot have any hydrometric station so no time series
hydrological is available. However, Tamor river has two hydrometric stations with station
no.684 and 690 at Majihitar and Mulghat respectively. These stations have been


established and are in operation by the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
(DHM). The monthly and yearly stream flow data of these stations have been collected
from DHM. Mulghat station (690) has published the data from 1965 to 2006 only. The
flow data from 1965 to 2006 of Majhitar station have been generated based on the flow
records of Mulghat station using the regression equation established by using the flow
data of these both stations for the common period from 1976 to 2006. The long term flow
data of both these stations for the period from 1965 to 2006 have been used as the
reference for determining the longterm hydrological parameters of Maiwa Khola.

5.1.4 Long Term Hydrology

The careful review of the respective hypometric data showed that the catchment
characteristics in between the Mulghat and Majhitar station sites were similar to the
catchment characteristic of the Maiwa Khola catchment. The nature of hypsometric
curves drawn for the mentioned catchments was found similar and the catchment area
values for the mean elevation were found highly correlated Hence, it was recommended
to generate the long term flow of Maiwa Khola by Catchment Area Ratio method (CAR)
by dividing the difference of flow by the difference of catchment area between Mulghat
and Majhitar and multiplying by the catchment area of Maiwa Khola as shown below:
( )
Maiwa
A
A A
Q Q
Maiwa Qat
684 690
684 690
=

Where
A
690
= 5894 km
2

A
684
= 4390 km
2

A
Maiwa
= 173.4 km
2

The flow values thus completed were compared with the flow values determined by
other methods such as Middle Irrigation Project (MIP) and regional methods like WECS-
DHM and DHM 2004 as well as the relatively very short period observed flow values at
gauging station on Maiwa Khola near Dobhan bazaar.

From this comparative analysis, the flow values obtained from using the CAR method
were found more reliable and hence it was recommended to adopt the same for the


present study. The long term mean monthly and yearly flow of Maiwa Khola at intake
site are shown in Table No ES-5.1, as obtained by using different method as mentioned
above.

Table No. ES-5.1: Estimated long term mean monthly & yearly flow (m3/s) at intake site

Month
Based on
Difference
between
Majhitar and
Mulghat
WECS-
DHM
DHM
2004
MIP
Observed
in 2008
Based
on
Tamor -
Majhitar
only
Based
on
Tamor -
Mulghat
only
Recommended
J an 2.5 2.2 4.0 7.3 3.6 2.1
2.0
2.5
Feb 2.0 1.9 3.4 5.5 3.1 1.8 1.6 2.0
Mar 1.9 1.7 2.5 3.6 3.0 1.8 1.6 1.9
Apr 3.2 1.7 2.4 2.8 3.9 2.8 2.4 3.2
May 8.4 2.3 3.2 7.9 5.3 5.4 5.4 8.4
J un 24.7 7.6 12.6 18.2 11.2 13.5 14.5 24.7
J uly 48.3 23.3 30.7 44.0 54.6 26.8 28.0 48.3
Aug 54.6 28.0 44.8 75.8 78.4 30.9 30.6 54.6
Sep 37.5 21.4 30.9 50.1 45.4 18.8 21.7 37.5
Oct 16.5 9.5 14.6 24.3 29.3 8.9 10.3 16.5
Nov 6.7 4.0 6.9 12.4 11.0 4.2 4.6 6.7
Dec 3.4 2.6 4.8 9.4 5.4 2.7 2.8 3.4
Yearly 17.2 8.8 13.5 21.9 21.4 10.2 10.3 17.2

5.1.5 Flow Duration Analysis

The generated mean daily flow data of Maiwa Khola intake site for the period from 1965
to 2006 were used for the flow duration analysis. These flow data were generated using
CAR method, as explained above.



The results of analysis are presented in the Table No. ES-5.2. The flow duration curve
prepared on these results is depicted in Fig No. ES-5.4.

Table No. ES-5.2: Estimated available flow (m
3
/s) at intake site for different Probability
of Exceedence (% of year).

Probability of Exceedence (% of year) Flow (m
3
/s)
5 63.13
10 47.61
15 38.71
20 32.26
25 26.17
30 20.26
35 14.65
40 10.84
45 8.07
50 6.26
55 5.13
60 4.31
65 3.62
70 3.12
75 2.64
80 2.27
85 1.96
90 1.63
95 1.21
100 1.12

Maiwa Kh

Feasibility S

F

5.1.6 D
T
e
flo
tim
flo
st
P

T
in
a
M
N
2
hola Small Hy
Study - Executi v
Figure No. E
Design Floo

The flood fre
stimating the
ood data fo
me series 19
ood frequen
tandard valu
Parameter III
The regional
ntake and po
nd DHM an
Methodologi
Nepal in J ul
004.
dropower Pro
ve Summary
ES-5.4 : Flow
od
equency and
e design floo
r both the s
965-2006 of
ncy analysis
ue distributi
(LPIII) and
flood freque
owerhouse
nd DHM 200
es for Estim
y 1990 and
oject (Package
ES
w Duration C
d regional f
od at intake
sites were g
f Tamor rive
was carried
on methods
log Normal
ency analysi
sites of the
04 methods
mating Hydr
by DHM in
e-2)
S-25

Curve for the
flood freque
and powerh
generated by
r at Mulghat
d out on the
s like Gumb
(LN).
s was also c
project. Th
as recomm
rological Ch
a publicatio

e intake site
ncy analysis
house sites o
y the CAR
t and Majhita
e generated
bel Extreme
carried out t
is analysis w
mended by W
haracteristics
on Hydrolog

of the projec
s methods
of the projec
method usin
ar hydrologic
flood flow d
Value (GE
to estimate t
was made u
WECS and
s of Ungaug
gical Estima
DO
METC
ct.
were applie
ct. The long
ng the flood
cal stations.
data followin
V), log Pea
the flood flow
using the W
DHM in a s
ged Locatio
ation in Nep
OED
ON

ed for
term
d flow
The
g the
arsion
ws at
WECS
study
ns in
al in


The detailed description along with the results of these analyses is given in Appendix A-
2 in Hydrological & Sedimentation Investigation and Studies of Part III of the Final
Report.

Considering the location, type and size of the project structures like headworks and
powerhouse and tailrace, the design flood of 461m3/s with a return period of 100 years
was adopted for the design of headworks and the same for powerhouse site was taken
as 3570m3/s with a return period 1000 years taking into consideration the possibility of
the Glacier Lake Outbrust Flood (GLOF) in Tamor river.

5.1.7 Construction flood

The Diversion flood estimation was carried out by frequency analysis on the generated
annual maximum monthly flow data of intake site for the dry season of the year. The
standard distributions methods like GEV and LPIII and LN were applied for the analysis.
A dry season flood of18.9 m
3
/s with a return period of 10 Years during the period of
November through April is considered reasonable for the diversion during construction of
the project.

5.1.8 Development of Rating Curve

The rating curves at the intake and powerhouse sites have been developed with the aid
of HEC-RAS, which is a computer program developed at the Hydrologic Engineering
Center (HEC) by US Army Corp of Engineers. The cross-sections taken during field
survey were used to study the water surface profiles by the HEC-RAS Model.

As the river reach is steep with huge gravels and boulders in the river and thick bushy
vegetations at the banks, Mannings roughness coefficients of 0.05 for channel section
and 0.06 for flood plain section were taken for the hydraulic HEC-RAS analysis. The
mixed flow simulation was done for the chances of having both sub and super critical
flow in the river reaches. The Normal depth flow boundary conditions were adopted in
the modeling. The rating curves for intake and powerhouse site are shown in Figure No.
ES-5.5 and ES-5.6 respectively.


Figure No. ES-5.5: Rating Curve at the Intake Site.

Figure No. ES-5.6: Rating Curve at the Powerhouse Site

812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Discharge (m
3
/s)
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
m
)
596
598
600
602
604
606
608
610
612
614
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Discharge (m
3
/s)
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
m
)


5.1.9 Riparian Release

The Hydrological analysis shows that the minimum mean monthly flow at the intake site
of the project is 1.9m
3
/s. This minimum flow generally occurs in the month of March. It is
estimated that 10% of this minimum flow that is 0.19m
3
/s will be released downstream of
the headworks of the project.

5.2 Sedimentation Studies

The sedimentation studies of the project consist of review of collected primary and
secondary sediment data analyses. Evaluation of such data and information is to
determine the sediment yield to be used for feasibility design of the project. The details
of the studies are presented in Appendix A-2 Hydrological & Sediment logical
Investigation and Studies of Part III of the Final Report.

5.2.1 Estimate of sediment Yield

The sediment yields at the intake site were estimated based on the observed sediment
concentration data and compared with the values from Himalayan Technique and other
Regional methods. Since the sediment sample is surface grasp sample and taken from
only one vertical section, certain correction factors were applied in sediment yield
estimation based on experience gained in past studies. The estimated sediment yields
were compared with the similar studies in neighboring basins and the regional specific
sediment yield. The estimated total sediment yield from the observed sediment yield was
found to be 557.0 tonnes/year yielding specific sediment yield 10.92 t/km
2
/yr only which
is very small compared to the regional specific yield of 7695 t/km
2
/yr for Tamor river
basin. The sediment yield calculated from Himalyan Sediment yield Technique was
found to be about 0.771 million tons per year at the intake site. This carresponds to a
mean annual concentration of about 1422 parts per million by weight (ppm ~mg/l) at the
intake site using the mean annual discharge of 17.2 m
3
/s.



5.2.2 Sources of Sediment

Main sources of sediment in river are the soil erosion from the watershed. The human
activities like tilling of land for cultivation, construction of infrastructures like road,
buildings, felling down of trees for fire wood activates the soil erosion. Intense rainfalls
on steep bare land bring a lot of sediment in river with flowing water during monsoon
season. The soil erosion can be divided in to three categories as surface (sheet
erosion), Rills erosion and gulley erosions in high steep slope. Besides the artificial
reasons natural land slide, mass failure and debris flow are also major sources of the
sediment in Nepalese river. The GLOF can also be one of the major sources of sediment
for power house sites but it is not for the intake site as there was no glacier lake in the
Maiwa Khola study basin. About 60 % of the study basin is covered with forest; there are
little chances to have severe sheet and rill soil erosions since the surface of the
watershed are covered all over the year and prevents from direct striking with raindrop.
Due to high gradient of river and banks in some stretches, gulley soil erosions are
possible sources of sediment in Maiwa basin. The agriculture lands are the major
sources of fine sediment in Maiwa khola.

6. PROJECT OPTIMIZATION

Appendix A-4 Optimization Studies of Part III of the Final Report describes in detail the
studies made for the optimization of the project in terms of its installed capacity. The
project, as also described in Section 3 - Alternatives Layouts And Recommended
Layout of the Final Report is a run of - river type project consisting of headworks,
headrace tunnel, forebay, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace. The general approach
adopted for the project optimization is as follows:

Consider the project development options.
Prepare general layout and identify the project components for each of the options
considered for the project development.


For each of the option carryout the design of the principal structures of the project
components and determine their main features.
For each of the option asses the dry season and wet season energy generation and
estimate benefits to be accrued.
Prepare cost estimate for the options considered.
Carryout the economic valuation for each of the options by making the benefit cost
analysis based on the present value of benefit and cost.
Finally choose the option providing the maximum benefit /cost (B/C) ratio, Net
Present Value (NPV) and Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR).

6.1 Project Development Options and Their Economic Evaluation

Consultants have made a study to find out the optimum capacity of Maiwa Khola Small
Hydropower project based on the conceptual layout of the project developed with due
consideration of project location, its accessibility from the nearest existing roadhead and
topographical hydrological, meteorological and sedimentation as well as general
engineering geological and geotechnical and environmental conditions of the project
site.

Altogether seven options for the development of the project have been considered.
These options have been specified as option 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 with various project
capacities corresponding to design flow of 65%, 60%,55%,50%, 45%, 40% and 35%
probability of exceedence. According to hydrological studies these flows are as follows:
65% =3.62 m
3
/s; 60% =4.31 m
3
/s; 55% =5.13 m
3
/s; 50% =6.26 m
3
/s; 45% =8.07 m
3
/s;
40% =10.84 m
3
/s and 35% =14.65 m
3
/s. After preparing the general layout, design and
cost estimate for each of these options, the economic evaluation of each of the options
was made using the following basic economic parameters.

Discount rate 10%.
Cost and benefit are based on 2009 price level.
Project cost is disburded in 5 years.
Replacement cost of E/M equipments is considered in 25
th
year of operation.


Annual benefits start from 6
th
year.
Project economic life is 50 years.
Annual Operation and Maintenance cost is 1.5% of total project cost and starts from
the 6 years.
Energy generation outage is taken as 5%, both in dry and wet season.
Discount rate is taken as 10%.
Energy benefits are assessed as:
- Dry season energy sale @ Rs. 7 per Kwh.
- Wet season energy sale @ Rs. 4 per Kwh.

The main design features of the project components of considered options are shown in Table
No.ES-6.1.



Table No.ES-6.1:The main design features of the project components of different options considered for Optimization Study

S.No
Project Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7
Components Q65%=3.62m
3
/s Q60%=4.31m
3
/s Q55%=5.13m
3
/s Q50%=6.26m
3
/s Q45%=8.07m
3
/s Q40%=10.84m
3
/s Q35%=14.65m
3
/s
1. Intake Structure
Discharge=1.15Q% Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.96m
3
/s
Discharge=5.90m
3
/s
Discharge=7.20m
3
/s Discharge=9.28m
3
/s Discharge=12.47m
3
/s Discharge=16.85m
3
/s
2nos.4x0.75m 2nos.4x0.90m 2nos.4x1.10m 2nos.4x1.30m 2nos.4x1.7m 3nos.4x1.5m 3nos.4x2m
Velocity =0.69m/s Velocity =0.69m/s Velocity =0.67m/s Velocity =0.69m/s Velocity =0.68m/s Velocity =0.69m/s Velocity=0.7m/s
2. Headrace Cannal-1 Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.16m
3
/s
(From intake to gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000
desilting basins) roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015
Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
size: 3x0.95m size: 3x1.08m size: 3x1.2m size: 3x1.40m size: 3x1.7m size: 3x2.15m size: 3x2.75m
3. Desilting Basin Discharge=4.16m
3
/s Discharge=4.96m
3
/s Discharge=5.90m
3
/s Discharge=7.2m
3
/s Discharge=9.28m
3
/s Discharge=12.47m
3
/s Discharge=16.85m
3
/s
Velocity=0.27m/s Velocity=0.25m/s Velocity=0.27m/s Velocity=2.7m/s Velocity=0.27m/s Velocity=0.29m/s Velocity=0.294m/s
size: 46x7x2.25m size: 46x9x2.75m size: 54x9x3m size: 60x9x3.5m size: 70x11x4m size: 90x12x4.5m size: 108x13x5.5m
(LxBxH) (LxBxH) (LxBxH) (LxBxH) (LxBxH) (LxBxH) (LxBxH)
Area=13.5m
2
Area=19.50m
2
Area=21.75m
2
Area=26.25m
2
Area=34.75m
2
Area=42.38m
2
Area=57.25m
2
4. Headrace Canal-2 Discharge=3.62m
3
/s Discharge=4.31m
3
/s Discharge=5.13m
3
/s Discharge=6.26m
3
/s Discharge=8.07m
3
/s Discharge=10.84m
3
/s Discharge=14.65m
3
/s
(From desilting gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000
basin out let to roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015 roughness=0.015
Headrace tunnel Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
inlet portal) size: 2.5x1.01m size: 2.5x1.15m size: 2.5x1.32m size: 2.5x1.52m size: 2.5x0.85m size: 3x1.93m size: 3x2.43m
5. Headrace Tunnel Discharge=3.62m
3
/s Discharge=4.31m
3
/s Discharge=5.13m
3
/s Discharge=6.26m
3
/s Discharge=8.07m
3
/s Discharge=10.84m
3
/s Discharge=14.65m
3
/s

D-Shaped
(2.5x2.5m)
D-Shaped
(2.5x2.5m)
D-Shaped
(2.5x2.5m)
D-Shaped
(2.5x2.5m)
D-Shaped
(2.5x2.5m) D-Shaped (3x3m) D-Shaped (3x3.5m)
gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1000 gradient 1/1200 gradient 1/1500

Velocity=1.43m/s Velocity=1.5m/s Velocity=1.03m/s Velocity=1.23m/s Velocity=1.61m/s Velocity=1.74m/s Velocity=1.75m/s
6. Forebay volume
650m
3

780m
3

925m
3

1130m
3

1460m
3

1960m
3

2640m
3

7. Penstock length/ 700/1.2m 700/1.4m 700/1.4m 700/1.6m 700/1.8m 700/2.2m 700/2.4m
optimum diameter
8. Powerhouse 5.92 6.72 8.31 10.17 13.14 17.22 23.92
Capacity(Mw)



Table No ES-6.2: Summary of Economic Indicators obtained from Benefit-Cost Analysis

Options Capacity MW Total Committed Energy
Generation GWH
Cost in 000
NRs
Average
Benefit in
000 NRS
Benefit
Cost Ratio
B/C
Economic
Rate of
Return
(EIRR %)
Net Present
Value in
(000 NRs) Wet Season Dry Season
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5.92
6.72
8.31
10.17
13.14
17.72
23.92
42.48
46.47
54.21
63.29
76.11
92.37
114.00
13.59
13.66
13.66
13.69
13.70
13.71
13.71
28.89
32.81
40.55
49.60
62.41
78.66
100.29
1,38,77,50
1,45,12,16
1,52,28,81
1,63,08,17
1,82,07,19
2,25,19,28
2,72,32,96
21,06,61
22,68,41
25,77,94
29,42,29
34,55,21
41,06,21
49,71,74
1.21
1.32
1.34
1.43
1.50
1.44
1.44
12.13
12.44
13.41
14.23
14.90
14.35
14.36
23,81,07
25,81,60
42,61,17
57,16,31
74,98,84
81,04,89
98,23,49


Feasibility Study Executi ve Summary METCON

E-34
6.2 Recommendation for the Optimum Installed Capacity

According to the economic evaluation of various options, it is revealed that option 5 is
the optimum option. This option with a capacity of 13.14 MW, if considered for project
development, provides maximum B/C, and EIRR compared to other options. As shown
in Table No ES-6.2, the benefit cost ratio (B/C) and Economic Internal Rate of Return
(EIRR) for this option is 1.50 and 14.90% respectively Hence it is recommended that the
installed capacity of the Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project be adopted as 13.14
MW corresponding to a design flow of 8.07m
3
/s with a 45% probability of exceedence.

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN

Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project, as proposed in the present study, is a high
head run-of-river type project with an installed capacity of 13.5Mw.

The project is located in Dhungesangu and Change VDCs of Taplejung district of
Eastern Development region of the Country. According to general layout and design,
the project comprises of a 30m long and 7m high concrete diversion weir, with an
undersluice structure, side intake capable of diverting a design discharge of 8.07m
3
/s,
170m long covered headrace canal-1 connecting intake to desilting basin, 90m long and
10m wide single chamber desilting basin, 60m long headrace canal-2 connecting
desilting basin with the inlet portal of 2.5x2.5m inverted D Shaped and 4,150m long
headrace tunnel, forebay, 700m long penstock pipe with diameter 1.9m, powerhouse
accommodating 2units of electromechanical equipments each with a capacity of 6.75
Mw and tailrace.

The general plan of the project in the existing toposheet of the project area is shown in
DWG No. ES-1. The general layout of the project with its components based on its
design is depicited in DWG No. C-1. The salient features of the projects have already
been presented in the very beginning of this report. A very brief description of the project
components, however, is summarized below. All drawings referred to in the description
are given in Part III Appendix A-7 Maps and Drawings of the Part II, Volume 1 Main
Report.


E-35

7.1 Description of Project Components

7.1.1 Headworks

A design of headworks of the project is prepared using the topographical maps
developed in a scale of 1:1,000 with 1m countour interval and results of study and
analysis of hydrology, meteorology and sedimentation and geology of the project area.
A special care has been taken to prevent these structures from sedimentation to the
extent possible while preparing their respective design in terms of their layout and
hydraulic as well as structural functioning. According to general layout of Headworks as
shown in DWG No. 2, the headworks consists of diversion weir, intake structure,
headrace canal-1, desilting basin and headrace canal-2. The basic design features of
these structures are briefly described below:

a) Diversion weir

It is proposed to construct a nongated concrete weir across Maiwa Khola near Mahabun
village situated at about 5.5Km upstream of Maiwa Khola confluence with Tamor river
near Dobhan bazaar. The weir is designed to pass the flood discharge of 461m
3
/s with a
return period of 100 years. The length of the weir including a undersluice structure at
the left bank of the river is 30m, of which, 22m is provided for the nongated weir with its
crest fixed at an elevation of 815 Masl and rest 8m is provided to accommodate two
bays (each of 3m width) of undersluice structure along with two separation peirs. The
crest of underluice structure is fixed at elevation of 812 Masl. Each bay of the
undersluice structure is provided with stoplogs and a vertical gate to be operated by
hoist installed at an elevation of 825 Masl. The width and height of gate is 3.30x3.30m.
The gates will be opened during wet season to flush down the bed load likely to be
deposited upstream of undersluice structure and will be remained closed during lean
season to facilitate the diversion of river discharge to intake structure closely located at
upstream of undresluice structure. Such operation of gates at undersluice structure
prevent the intake structure from siltation. In order to have subcritical flow conditions at
the downstream portion of weir it has been designed as a stilling basin to eliminate the
supercritical flow due to formation of hydraulic jump during the design flood passing over


E-36
the weir. The length of stilling basin is 28m and it is made up of structural concrete
placed at an elevation of 809 Masl that is 2m below the top of the down stream
protection apron provided in the form of 1 to 1.5m thick riprap to protect the river channel
from scouring. The riprap is placed at elevation of 811 Masl. As the weir is founded on
the moderately permeable alluvial deposit, a 15m long upstream concrete apron and 2m
deep cutoff wall up to elevation of 808 Masl is provided at the upstream face of the weir.
This will help to increase the seepage length and subsequently reduce the uplift
pressure on the foundation level of the weir enhancing its stability.

The plan and sections of diversion of weir including intake and under sluice structure are
shown in Dwg. No 3, C-4 and C-5 respectively.

b) Intake Structure

The intake structure is located at the right bank of the weir immediately at the upstream
of the undrsluice structure and is connected to a rectangular covered headrace canal-1
designed to convey the flow from intake to desilting basin.

Intake is designed for a flow equivalent to 1.15 times the design flow required for power
generation considering that 15% of this flow is required for flushing operation of desilting
basin. The elevation of entrance sill of the intake is placed below the crest elevation of
the diversion weir. For a design flow of 8.07m
3
/s corresponding to 45% probability of
exceedance a flow of 9.28m
3
/s is adopted for the design of intake and elevation of
entrance sill is fixed 813.30 Masl that is 1.7m below the crest level of the weir. Two bays
of intake structures each with a width of 4m and depth of 1.7m will divert a flow of
9.28m
3
/s with a velocity of 0.68 m/s. The intake structure is designed as a rigid
reinforced concrete structure and is connected to covered headrace canal-1 by its side
walls designed as retaining walls. Each bay of the intake is provided with stoplogs and
trash racks. The size of the trash racks for each bay is 4m wide and 2.15m high. A
gravel trap immediately behind the trashrack is provided to remove the gravels entering
the trash rack by flushing them down to downstream of the undersluice structure. A
vertical intake gate is provided at the beginning point of covered headrace canal-1 to
regulate the flow to the canal and to facilitate the inspection and maintenance of canal
structure.


E-37

c) Headrace Canal-1

The flow from the intake is conveyed to desilting basin through a rectangular shaped
covered canal. The canal runs through the right bank of river. For discharge of 9.28m
3
/s
the net size of canal is 3m wide, 1.70m high and has a gradient of 1:1000 and velocity
1.81 m/s. The canal is covered and designed as a reinforced concrete box. The top of
the box right from beginning to end is kept at elevation of 816.00 Masl.

d) Desilting Basin

It is located on a raised flat terrace on the right bank of river approximately at 90m
downstream of the diversion weir. The design discharge of desilting basin is same that of
headrace canal-1. 15% of design discharge is used to flush accumulated silt down to
the river. The basin is designed to remove the silt particles larger than 0.2 mm in size.
For the design discharge of 9.28m
3
/s the size of a single chamber desilting basin has
been calculated as 70m long 11m wide and 4m deep. These calculations are made
based on the assumption that the settling velocity is 0.021m/s and mean velocity of flow
in the basin is 0.27m/s. Flushing operation is supposed to be continuous, specially in the
monsoon season. Desilting basin is connected with headrace canal-1 and headrace
canal-2 by a 10m long transition structure at each end. The inlet transition structure is
provided with a gate to shutdown the desilting basin for its repair and maintenance. The
upper half of the cross section of the basin is rectangular while the lower half is inclined
at an angle of 45
0
towards the centre through which the sediment will roll down to two
flushing galleries running along its length at a gradient of 1:70. Near the outlet transition,
these galleries will be equipped with the gates. By opening these gates the silt will be
flushed down to river through a flushing channel. The river side face of desilting basin is
protected by gabions and backfilling required to maintain the top level of desilting basin
at an elevation of 816.00 Masl. Hill side face of the desilting basin requires excavation
over its top level to locate the road to intake and diversioin weir sites.

e) Headrace Canal-2

The silt free flow from desilting basin is conveyed to inlet portal of the headrace tunnel


E-38
by a rectangular canal. The design discharge for this canal is 8.07 m
3
/s. The nett size of
the canal is 2.5m wide and 1.85m deep. The velocity is 1.61 m/s. The major portion of
canal is proposed to be constructed as covered reinforced concrete box with its top at
elevation of 816Masl. The gradient of canal is 1:1000.

7.1.2 Headrace Tunnel

The water from the headrace canal 2 to forebay is conveyed by a headrace tunnel
passing through the right bank of Maiwa Khola. It is designed to carry a flow of 8.07m
3
/s.
The hydraulic calculation show that an inverted D-Shaped, non pressure and completely
concrete lined tunnel of 2.5mx2.5m dimension with a gradient 1:1000 is appropriate to
convey the design flow 8.07m
3
/s to be used for power generation. The velocity of flow in
the tunnel is 1.75m/s for these flows.

The plan and longitudinal profile showing the support system as depicted in Dwg. No. C-
14 and C-15.

7.1.3 Forebay

A 58 m long 10 m wide and 2.5 m deep forebay accommodating a volume required for
the storage of 3 minutes design flow of 8.07 m
3
/s is designed and located at north corner
of Bajhogara village at the foot of an exposed rocky slope near the foot trail on the way
from Dobhan bazaar to Bajhogara village. A 5 m long and 4m wide penstock intake
structure is located at the western end of the forebay. Penstock inlet structure is
provided with sloplogs and trashrack. The normal water level at forebay is estimated as
810.52Masl after considering the headlosses in the headrace tunnel and the top level as
812.02 Masl considering a free board of 1.50 m. As there is no place for locating a
structure for the overflow of the design flow incase of sudden closure of the powerhouse,
it is proposed that the same will have to be located near the inlet portal of headrace
tunnel at an elevation of 812.00 Masl. Structurally, the forebay is designed as a
reinforced concrete structure having 0.5m thick bottom slab and 0.30m to 0.5m thick
side walls. The plan and cross sections of the forebay are shown in Dwg No. C-16 and
C-17.



E-39
7.1.4 Penstock Pipe

A 700m long steel penstock pipe with a diameter of 1.9m and thickness of 20mm
conveys the flow from forebay to Powerhouse equipped with two units of Francis
turbines. The first 118m length of penstock pipe is aligned in southeast direction through
the flat terrace while the rest of its length aligned in eastwest direction with a horizontal
bend of about 50
0
-0-30at the location of anchor block 2. It is bifurcated at an elevation
of 610 Masl near an anchor block behind the power house to feed the turbine. The
diameter of each pipe after bifurcation is 1.35m. The entire length of penstock pipe has
one horizontal bend and 7 including one at the location of horizontal bend vertical bends.
At all these places the penstock pipe has been provided by anchor blocks and the
expansion joints. Besides the anchor blocks the penstock pipe has been supported by
intermediate saddle supports to be located at every 6m length of pipe. The plan and
longitudinal profile of penstock pipe is shown in Dwg No. C-18 and C-19.

7.1.5 Powerhouse and Tailrace

The powerhouse and Tailrace of the project are located on the right bank of Tamor river
near a place locally known as Tupurke.

The surface powerhouse is designed to house the generating mechanical and electrical
equipments comprising of turbines with penstock inlet valves, spiral cases, draft tubes,
overhead crane and governers, and generators with excitation and power control and
protection equipments etc. The dimensions of the powerhouse has been determined
considering the space requirement for installation, operation and maintenance of the
mentioned generating mechanical and electrical equipments. According to adopted
design, it is envisaged that two sets of the said equipments each with a capacity of 6.75
Mw will be installed operated and maintained in the powerhouse. The dimensions, of
power house as determined by the design are as follows.

Length of powerhouse 23.4m (including service bay and control room)
Width of powerhouse 11.00m
Height of powerhouse 17.40 (from the draft tube foundation level to roof level of
powerhouse)


E-40

The turbine axis has been fixed at an elevation 610Masl taking into account the Tailrace
water level of 609.62 and assumed characteristics of turbines to avoid the cavitation.
The bottom level of draft tube is at 606.6 Masl. The flow from turbine is discharged to a
tailrace canal through the draft tube. The each outlet of the draft tube is provided with
stoplogs to be operated from outside the generator floor. The generator floor is at
613.50Masl and has been provided with the space for service bay and store and
common room. An overhead crane with a capacity of 16 tonne has been installed at a
level of 618.50 Masl. The water from the draft tube is released to a covered box type
tailrace canal which discharges the same to Tamor river. The length of this canal is 65m.
For design flow of 8.07m
3
/s the cross section of this canal is fixed as rectangle with width
2.50m and height 1.86 at a gradient of 1:1000. The plan and sections of the power
house are shown in Dwg. No. C-22 and C-25.

7.1.6 Hydraulic Steel Structure

The hydraulic steel structure of the project mainly consist of stoplogs (at intake,
undersluice, forebay), trashracks (at intake and forebay), and vertical gates (at
undersluice, intake, desilting basin and power house. The details are given in Part II,
Volume-1 of the Final Report.

7.1.7 Mechanical Equipments

The mechanical equipments are mainly 2 nos of vertical shaft hydraulic turbines
completely equipped with governors and other turbines auxiliary equipments and
accessories, 2 nos of inlet values and an overhead gantry crane.
The main parameters of the turbines are as follows:

Numbers of Turbines - 2
Types of Turbines - Francis
Rated Head - 199.07 m
Rated discharge per unit - 4.04 m
3
/s
Rated efficiency - 91%


E-41
Turbine output per unit - 7.15 MW
Shaft Configuration - Vertical
Shaft Rotation - Anti clockwise
Turbine specific Speed - 96
Synchronous Speed - 750 rpm
Runner Diameter - 0.87 m
Spiral case inlet diameter - 0.87 m
Static Head - 0.383 m

7.1.8 Electrical Equipments

Two units of 3 phase synchronous A/C generators with brush less excitation system are
to be coupled directly with the vertical shaft Francis turbines. The capacity of each unit of
the generators is 6.8 MW at its rated power factor 0.85 lagging. Each unit of the
generators is connected to the 11 KV bus through a circuit breaker and associated
control and protection devices as shown in single line electrical diagram depicted in
Dwg. No.E-1. The main features of the generators are as follows:

Numbers of generators - 2
Rated capacity of generator - 2 x 8 MVA
Power Factor - 0.85
Cooling System - Air cooling
Synchronous speed - 750 rpm
Frequency - 50 Hz
Generating Voltage - 11 KV
Number of Phases - 3
Excitation system - Brushless

7.1.9 Switchyard and Transmission Line

7.1.9.1 Switch Yard

A 11 KV / 132 KV outdoor switchyard is planned to be located on a flat terrace on the


E-42
western corner of the powerhouse. The size of the switchyard is estimated to be 40 m
wide and 60 m long. Two 11KV / 132 KV, 3 phase step-up power transformers each with
8200 KVA ratings are to be located in the switchyard. The other switchyard equipments
and accessories are 132 KV SF6 breakers, current transformers (CT), Potential
transformer (PT), 132 KV metering and protection panels, disconnecting switches,
PLCC, gantry, busbar, ACSR conductors, insulators, control and power cables etc.

Numbers of power transformers - 2
Type - Outdoor, oil immersed
Rated Power Output - 2 x 8000 KVA
Rated Voltage - 11 KV / 132 KV
Rated Frequency - 50 Hz
Type of Cooling - ONAN

7.1.9.2 Transmission line

It is proposed that power generated from the project (13.5 MW) will be fed into the
National Grid at Banande - the likely future point of connection not only for this project
but also for a number of other projects currently being studied in its close vicinity by a
7Km long 132 KV transmission line.

8. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT OUTPUT AND RELATED BENEFITS

8.1 Basis for Assessment

The input data and assumptions used as the basis for the assessment of project outputs
and related benefits are as follows.

a) Assessment of Project output

The long generated term average monthly flow of Maiwa Khola.
Downstream release flow 0.19m
3
/S


E-43
Firm discharge (90% exceedence) 1.63m
3
/S
Design discharge (45% exceedence) 8.07m
3
/S
Design nett head 190.07 m
Installed capacity 13.5 MW
Number of Units 2
Efficiency of turbines 91%
Efficiency of generator 95%
Efficiency of transformers 99%

b) Assessment of Project benefit.

Average plant outage 5%
Selling price for energy Rs. 7/KWh for dry season
(as per the existing NEA power Rs. 4/KWh for wet season
Purchase rate for the plant upto 25MW
Capacity)

8.2 Power and Energy computations

With the given input parameters and assumption the calculations for the monthly power
and energy generation have been carried out the total annual average energy
generation is estimated as 82.23 GWh of which 14.77 GWh is generated during dry and
67.46 GWh in wet season respectively. The maximum power generation is 13.5 MW.

8.3 Computation of Project Benefit

As described above the annual benefit are the revenues likely to be accrued from the
sale of the annual energy generation of the project. Considering the scheduled and
forced outage of the plant as 5%, the average annual energy generation is 78.11 GWh
of which 14.03 GWh is in dry season and 64.08 GWh is in the wet season as shown in
Table No. ES-8.2. The average revenues / benefits to be accrued from the sale of the
average annual generated energy is Rs. 35,45,30,00 of which Rs 9,82,10,000 for the
sale of dry season energy (14.03 GWh) at Rs. 7/KWh and Rs. 25,63,20,000 for the sale
of wet season energy (64.08GWh) at Rs 4/KWh respectively.


Table No. ES-8.1 Calculation of Power & Energy Generation

Assumption and input parameters
Forebay intake Level 810.52m Tailwater level 609.62m
Generator Efficiency 95.00% Turbine Efficeincy 91.00%
Transformer efficiency 99.00% Overall efficiency 85.59%
Gross head,m 200.90m
Design flow, (Q) m
3
/s 8.07 Probability exceedence, %
45%
Dry season outage 5% Wet season outage 5%
Penstock detail
Length of penstock 700 m
Friction coeficient 0.0120 For steel penstock
Penstock Diameter 1.9m
Head loss 0.028 1Q
2

Month
Mean D/S Irrigation Available Diverted Operating Design Headloss
Nett
Head Generation
Dry
season Wet season
Monthl y release release flow flow days flow Penstock (H) capacity energy energy
flow 8.4xQxH
(m
3
/s) (m
3
/s) (m
3
/s) (m
3
/s) (m
3
/s) (m
3
/s) (m) (m) (kw) (kwh) (kwh)
J an 2.5 0.19 0.00 2.31 2.31 31 2.31 0.15 200.75 3,895.35 2,753.233
Feb 2 0.19 0.00 1.81 1.81 28 1.81 0.09 200.81 3,053.12 1,949,112
Mar 1.9 0.19 0.00 1.71 1.71 31 1.71 0.08 200.82 2,884.58 2,038,882
Apr 3.2 0.19 0.00 3.01 3.01 30 3.01 0.25 200.65 5,073.23 3,470,089
May 8.4 0.19 0.00 8.21 8.07 31 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,537,955
J un 24.7 0.19 0.00 24.51 8.07 30 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,230,279
J ul 48.3 0.19 0.00 48.11 8.07 31 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,537,955
Aug 54.6 0.19 0.00 54.41 8.07 31 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,537,955
Sep 37.5 0.19 0.00 37.31 8.07 30 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,230,279
Oct 16.5 0.19 0.00 16.31 8.07 31 8.07 1.83 199.07 13,494.56 9,537,955
Nov 6.7 0.19 0.00 6.51 6.51 30 6.51 1.19 199.71 10,920.94 7,469,923
Dec 3.4 0.19 0.00 3.21 3.21 31 3.21 0.29 200.61 5,409.25 3,823,258
Maximum Power
Generation, KW 13,494.56
Total annual seasonal
Energy, KWh 14,034,574 64,082,301
Total annual seasonal
Energy, GWh 14.03 64.08
Total l Energy, GWh 78.11



9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

The environmental impacts and mitigation measures as identified by the IEE study
carried out by the consultants in accordance with the requirement of EPA (1996) and
EPR (1997) and latest amendment (2009) under the existing contract with DoED are
briefly summarized below. The details of the study have been provided in the IEE study
report presented separately in Volume 2 of this report.

9.1 Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts both the beneficial and adverse of the project occur primarily
within or adjacent to the construction sites of the various project components. Some of
the beneficial impacts likely to be occurred are employment opportunities, infrastructure
development, extension of rural electrification and collection of electricity royalties. The
land takes, soil erosion, vegetation loss, safety hazards and construction disturbances
are some of the adverse impacts likely to be occurred during the construction of the
project. A brief account of these impacts is given below.

9.1.1 Beneficial Impacts

The beneficial impacts are follows:

(a) Physical Environment

Slope stabilization due to use of various protection works in the project area.
Protection of river terrace from river cutting due to application of relevant
engineering works, especially at powerhouse site.

(b) Biological Environment

Development of new ecology in the de-water zone.
Conservation of endangered plant species due to propagation of such species.
Preservation of bio-diversity due to forest management program.



(c) Socio-economic and Cultural Environment

Development of a potential base for all-round development in the area due to
development of all weather access road.
Potential for Development of new economic activities like trade and industry.
Potential for Development of new income generating activities.
Potential for Economic and social benefits from improved road access.
Easy access to social and extension services.
Generation of employment of local people during construction.
Development of new market centers.
Commercialization of subsistence economy.
Extension of electricity supply to the local settlements and collection of electricity
royalties.
Development of new cropping pattern.

9.1.2 Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts associated with project activities in connection with different
environmental components and sub- components are described below.

(a) Impacts on the Physical Environment

Due to spoil disposal the development of ugly scars in the landscape is likely. Solid
waste disposal is likely to affect land quality. Quality of land occupied by temporary
structures and facilities (Quarry site, borrow pits and labour camps) is likely to
deteriorate. Cutting of trees and plants along the hill slopes for various purposes is likely
to cause landslide and erosion. Waste and spoil disposal is likely to pollute water.
Spoilage of petrochemical, oil, paint ect. is likely to cause water and land pollution.
Movement of vehicles and heavy machinery, as well as drilling and blasting tend to
cause air and noise pollution.

Total land take for the project is estimated as 22.5 ha. of which one ha is to be acquired
temporarily and the remaining 21.5 ha permanently. In terms of ownership categories,
15.7 ha constitute private agriculture land, 3 ha private forest and remaining 3.8 ha
public land.


(b) Impacts on the Biological Environment

All together 71 plant species will be destroyed in the project area due to location of
project structure excluding project road. Of these plant species, 26 will be tree species,
six species of shrub, 28 species of herbs, three species of grass, seven species of
climbers and two species of pteridophytes. No visible impact on terrestrial flora is noted
during the operation phase.

Wildlife movement will be negatively affected during construction phase. As a result of
construction phase activities wild life movement will be negatively affected. Poaching
and hunting of wildlife may increase during construction phase. Due to forest
fragmentation the wildlife movement will be negatively affected during operation phase.
Birds are very sensitive to human disturbance during the construction works. All species
will be affected from noise and dust pollution. Birds may be negatively affected due to
collision on transmission.

Due to over fishing, fish population will be negatively affected. Construction phase
activities may have negative impacts on fish due to disturbance to spawning ground and
migration of fish. There will be high negative impacts on fish due to development of de-
water zone for about 4.5 km. long extent of river course. Impact will be very high if no
mitigation measure including release of minimum flow is assured.

(c) Impacts on the Socio-environment Environment

The project will directly affect 567 people of 103 households in the project area. Out of
the total number of affected families, 20 families shall be affected at powerhouse site,
two at the headworks site and 81 along with the project road area. Among the 103
families, Limbu is the dominant group, constituting 44%. Similarly, other groups like
Sherpa, Brahmin/ Chhetri, Dalit, Newar and Rai constitutes 19%, 18%, 9%, 6%and 4%
respectively in the project area.

The influx of labor force from outside will put a pressure upon fuel wood, food supply and
services in the project area. Such pressure is likely to cause price rise of commodities


and inadequacy of natural resources and services. The pressure on schools, health
institutions and market centers is likely to be high during the construction phase.

It is likely that about 10 households loose their side jobs of fishing in Maiwa Khola due to
de-watering. Similarly, people of Mahadevtar and Dobhan market centers loose their
facility of swimming and washing in the Maiwa Khola.

Due to de-watering condition five cremation sites along the Maiwa Khola are
likely to be affected.

9.2 Mitigation Measures

9.2.1 The mitigation measures suggested for the reduction of adverse impacts are as follows:
(a) Mitigation measures for physical Environment

Avoid unnecessary excavation and cutting.
Air quality should be regularly monitored during the construction phase for taking
relevant measures to minimize air pollution.
A minimum of 0.19 m3/s (10 percent) of the water flow of the Maiwa Khola
should be released to reduce the negative impact of de-watering during dry
season.
Use spoils as refill and unused spoil should be managed properly.

(b) Mitigation measures for Biological Environment

Transplant Asparagus racemosus, develop nursery for threatened plant as well
as fodder and timber plants
Control firewood use in labour camps and other construction camps
Supply kerosene or LPG in labour camps
Spawning areas should not be disturbed
Develop Asala and trout fish sanctuary in at upstream of diversion weir.
Illegal felling, hunting and poaching should be minimized



(c) Mitigation measures for Socio-economic and cultural Environment

Provide special employment opportunity to the project affected families.
Compensation for the loss of agricultural land and buildings should be given on
the basis of local transaction rates.
Alternative source of fuel wood should be provided to the work-force.
Intensification of agriculture and development of cottage industries.

9.2.2 Mitigation and Enhancement Cost

The total cost for mitigation nd enhancement measures to be undertaken during the
construction of the project has been estimated as NRs. 19.5 million.

9.3 Conclusion

The overall bio-physical and socio-economic impact of the project is small. The project
area is not associated with any important habitat of terrestrial flora and fauna. Some
adverse impacts could be reduced by carrying out recommended mitigation measures.
Improvement of accessibility generation of employment opportunities for local people
and power supply of local villages could be considered as direct positive outcomes of the
project.

The proposed project is environmentally acceptable. Therefore, it is recommended that
the project be implemented on condition of timely and efficient implementation of
proposed mitigation measures.

10. CONSTRUCTION PLANNING, SCHEDULE AND COST

10.1 Project Implementation

It is envisaged that the project will be implemented by the private sector investors under
Build Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT) arrangement.



10.1.1 Project works

The various works to be executed for the construction of the project are Preparatory
works, Civil works, Hydraulic Steel Structural works, Electro-mechanical works and
Switchyard and Transmission line works. The brief description of these works is
presented below:

10.1.2 Preparatory works

The preparatory works of the project are:
Project detailed engineering
Arrangement of project financing and project license
Land acquisition (about 27.5ha)
Construction of access and project roads (2.5km access and 7km project road)
Construction of permanent and temporary camps ( About 1500m
2
of permanent
camp facilities)
Construction power supply (About 500kw)

It is estimated the works like project detailed engineering and project financing and
license will be the completed within one year. The construction of other preparatory
works like access roads, project road, camp facilities and construction power supply will
be completed within 2years of the commencement of the project.

10.1.3 Civil Works

The civil works of the project comprise the construction of the headworks, headrace
tunnel, forebay, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace. The construction of headrace
tunnel is expected to be commenced by the end of first quarter of 2
nd
calendar year. It is
estimated that the 1
st
phase of river diversion works will be started by the beginning of
2
nd
quarter of 2
nd
calendar year of the construction to arrive at the earliest beginning of
partial excavation of diversion weir. The total time estimated for the completion of civil
works is about 47 months.



10.1.4 Hydraulic Steel Structure and Penstock Works

These works consist of design, manufacturing, supply, installation and testing of trash
racks, stoplogs, gates to be placed at such structures as intake, undersluice, desilting
basin and forebay and steel penstock pipe.

10.1.5 Electro-mechanical works

The electromechanical works of the project are the design, manufacturing, supply,
installation, testing and commissioning of:

Two units of Francis turbines each with a rated capacity of 7.15Mw with draft
tubes, scroll cases, penstock inlet valves, powerhouse crane including all
embedded parts and tools required for installation and operation.
Two units of A/C generators each with a rated capacity of 6.8 MW along with all
auxiliary electrical equipments, tools and parts required for installation and
operation.
Two 11/132 Kv step up power transformers each with 8200 MVA capacity.

The award of the contract for these works will be in place by the beginning of 3
rd

calendar year. After the award of the contract about 1 year time has been estimated for
the design and manufacturing and supply so that the installation can be started by the
beginning of 4
th
calendar year. The complete installation is expected to be place around
middle of the 5
th
calendar year. With this schedule and also with the consideration of
time of about 3-4 months that may require for testing, it is expected the plant will be in
operation latest by the end of the 5
th
calendar year.

10.1.6 Transmission and Switchyard works

These works consist of the construction of an approximately 50x35m outdoor switchyard
near the power house and about 7km long 132 Kv Transmission line. The works include
the design, manufacturing, supply, installation and testing of switchyard electrical
equipments and transmission line accessories. The execution of these works will also be
executed under the provision to be adopted for the execution of Electro- Mechanical


works, as briefly mentioned above.

10.2 Contract Package

It is envisaged that all the civil works and works related to supply, manufacturing and
installation of hydro-mechanical works including penstock pipe of the project will be
carried out by the selected local construction companies under the contracts to be
concluded on the National Competitive Bidding (NCB). As regards the electromechanical
works of the project, it is considered that these works will be carried out by selected
contractors through the International Competitive Bidding (ICB) process. With a view to
ensure the proper coordination between the construction sites and consolidate and
reduce the managerial and administration services and also to eliminate to the extent
possible the interfaces between different contracts, it is proposed that whole of the
project works be divided and implemented into following four contract Packages.

Package1.1 Preparatory works consisting of construction of access and project roads.
Package1.2 Preparatory works consisting of construction of permanent camp and
construction power supply facilities.
Pacakage2 Civil works of Headrace Tunnel.
Package3 Civil works of headworks (diversion weir, intake structure, headrace
canals and desilting basin), forebay, penstock , and tailrace and all the
hydro-mechanical works like stoplogs, trash racks, gates and penstock.
Package4 Electro-mechanical works consisting of design, manufacturing, supply,
installation, testing and commissioning of turbines, generators, inlet
valves, outdoor switchyard and transmission line.

10.3 Construction Schedule

Based on the construction program and operational sequence as well as the appropriate
time duration needed for the execution of various construction activities of the project, a
detailed construction schedule has been developed. The construction period of the
project has been estimated as 5 years including 1 year time considered adequate to
complete such crucial project preparatory activities as project detailed engineering and


project financing arrangement.

The actual time for the construction of the civil, electromechanical and transmission line
works of the project commencing from the award of civil works contract will be 47
calendar months. The time of 13 months before the award of civil works contract will be
spent mainly in project activities like detailed engineering and financing arrangement.
Thus the total construction period of the project including project preparatory works has
been estimated as 5 years i.e. 60 calendar months.

10.4 Cost Estimate

Based on the optimized project layout and design and thereby type and volume of works
required to be executed during the construction of the project, a detailed cost estimate of
the project has been developed using the criteria, assumptions and methodology briefly
presented below:

10.4.1 Criteria and Assumptions

Basic criteria and assumptions made are:

All costs are taken at 2009 price level.
Cost of project preparatory and civil works is estimated using the unit rates derived
from the rate analysis exercise performed with due consideration of project location
and basic labour and material rates for the fiscal year ending on J uly 15, 2009.
These basis rates have been obtained from the District Administration office,
Taplejung.
In case of some civil works items, particularly the underground works of Headrace
Tunnel and hydraulic steel structural as well as electro-mechanical works, the cost
has been estimated using the cost data/information available from public and
private institutions that have been involved in the development of similar
hydropower plants in the country.
All costs are exclusive of taxes and duties.
An exchange rate of 1US$=78.65 NRs prevailing on J uly 15, 2009 is adopted for
estimating the cost of equipments and materials to be imported for the project.


10.4.2 Methodology

The sequential description of the methodology used for estimating the project cost is
summarized below.

i) The works involved in the construction of the project have been grouped as follows:

A. Preparatory works such as construction of access and project road, camp and
construction power supply facilities and land acquisition.
B. Civil works which comprise of the construction of headworks, headrace tunnel,
forebay, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace.
C. Hydraulic steel structures consisting of trash racks, gates and stoplogs with all
embeded parts and hoisting arrangements.
D. Steel Penstock Pipe.
E. Electro-mechanical works such as turbines, generators, inlet valves, gantry
crane, power transformers and other outdoor switchyard equipments.
F. Transmission line works.

ii) The total project cost is considered as the sum of 1 Direct and 2 Indirect cost of the
works as grouped above.
iii) The direct cost for each group of works has been estimated using the quantity/
volume of works obtained from the related design and unit rate analysis exercise
based on existing norms and basic labour and material rates at the project location.

The costs like the cost of detailed engineering, construction management and
administration, owners administration, environmental mitigation and physical
contingencies for each group of mentioned works considered as the indirect cost of the
project have been estimated. The following assumptions are made to estimate these
cost
iv)
Engineering construction management and administration
Cost - 8% of the project direct cost


Physical contingencies for :
a) Preparatory and surface civil works - 10%
b) Civil works (underground) - 15%
c) Hydro-mechanical, Electro-mechanical and Transmission line
works - 8%
Environmental Mitigation works as per the estimate of IEE study
Owner cost - 2% of the project direct cost
v) Total project cost has been estimated as the sum of the direct and indirect cost of
each group of the works mentioned above.

10.4.3 Project Capital Cost

The summary of the project capital cost is presented in Table No. ES-10.1. As shown in
this Table, the capital cost of the project is estimated as NRs .1,89,61,20,000 of which
NRs. 1,55,04,51,000 is estimated as the direct cost and NRs. 34,56,69,000 as the
indirect cost. The brief account of the direct as well as indirect cost of the project is
given below.



Table No. ES-10.1: Summary of Project Cost Estimate

S. No Description of Project Works Cost in 000NRs
1.
A.
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
DIRECT COST
PREPARATORY WORKS
Access Road
Project Road
Camp Facilities
Construction Power Supply Facilities
5,50,00
3,50,00
3,00,00
3,00,00
TOTAL OF PREPARATORY WORKS (A) 15,45,00
B.
B.1
B.1.1
B.1.2
B.1.3
B.1.4
B.1.5
B.1.6
B.1.7
B.1.8
B.1.9
CIVIL WORKS
HEAD WORKS
Diversion Weir
Undersluice Structure
Stilling Basin
Downstream River Protection
River Diversion
Intake Structure
Headrace Canal-1
Desilting Basin
Headrace Canal-2
7,67,04
2,54,85
4,87,03
97,97
50,00
3,78,85
2,40,52
3,68,29
2,29,61
TOTAL OF HEAD WORKS (B.1) 28,74,16
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
HEADRACE TUNNEL
FOREBAY
PENSTOCK PIPE
POWER HOUSE
TAILRACE
51,50,08
3,86,06
2,75,70
2,66,78
1,70,75
TOTAL OF CIVIL WORKS (B) 89,73,53
C
D
E
F
HYDRAULIC STEEL STRUCTURES
STEEL PENSTOCK PIPE
ELECTRO-MECHANICAL WORKS
TRANSMISSION LINE
1,83,30
8,24,00
35,03,86
3,24,82
TOTAL OF HYDRO-MECHANICAL AND ELECTRO-MECHANICAL
WORKS (C+D+E+F)
48,35,98
TOTAL OF DIRECT COST 1 (A+B+C+D+E+F) 1,55,04,51
2
G

H
I

J
INDIRECT COST
Engineering, construction Management & Administration Cost (8%of direct
cost)
Environmental Mitigation cost as estimated for the IEE Study.
Physical Contingencies :
10% Preparatory and surface civil works
15% Headrace Tunnel (underground) works
8% Hydro mechanical & Electro- Mechanical works
Owners Cost (2% of direct cost)
12,40,36

1,95,00

5,51,85
7,72,51
3,86,88
3,10,09
TOTAL OF INDIRECT COST 2 (G+H+I+J) 34,56,69
TOTAL PROJECT COST (1+2) 1,89,61,20



10.5. Disbursement Schedule

Based on the proposed construction schedule of the project, it is estimated that the total
project cost will be disbursed as per the schedule given in the following Table No. ES-
10.2.

Table No. ES-10.2: Disbursement Schedule

Construction Year % of Total Cost Amount in 000 NRs
1
st
year 1.5 2,84,42
2
nd
year 22 41,71,46
3
rd
year 22 41,71,46
4
th
year 37 70,15,64
5
th
year 17.5 33,18,22
Total 100% 1,89,61,20

11. PROJECT EVALUATION

11.1 General

In accordance with the ToR of the contract, the project has been evaluated for its
economic and financial viability. The discounted cash flow technique, generally used for
project evaluation, has been used to determine the key economic as well as financial
indicators like Benefit/Cost ratio (B/C), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present
Value (NPV). A brief account of economic and financial analysis and the parameters and
assumptions used for analysis is given below.

11.2 Parameters and Assumptions used for analysis

The determination of the key indicators for the economic and financial viability of the
project is based on the following number of parameters and assumptions.



The discount rate or opportunity cost of capital used is 10%.
All costs and benefits are taken at 2009 price level ignoring the price escalation for
economic analysis.
The exchange rate used for estimating the cost of imported equipments and
materials is 1US$=78.65 NRs.
The project cost is disbursed over the 5 year period of construction based on the
construction schedule.
Replacement of electro-mechanical equipments component is considered in 25
years of operation.
The costs and benefits are evaluated over a period of 50 years of the operation for
the economic analysis.
For financial analysis such evaluation is made for a period of 25 years of operation.
Annual operation and maintenance cost equivalent to 1.5% of the capital cost is
adopted.
The financial cost of the project includes 13% VAT and 1% custom on the cost of
civil works and Electro-mechanical works of the project respectively.
The price escalation at the rate of 6% and 1% for local and foreign cost respectively
is considered for the financial analysis.
The debt/equity ratio assumed for financial analysis is 70/30.
Interest during construction (IDC) over the debt is taken as 10%.
The revenues to be accrued from the sale of marketable energy are the benefits and
are calculated assuming the following energy selling rates for the base year with an
escalation of 6% per annum at least for the loan payment period.
Dry season Rs 7/Kwh
Wet season Rs 4/Kwh
While calculating marketable energy 5% outage both in dry season and wet season
is assumed.
As per the prevailing law, the following annual royalties are considered for financial
analysis



For first 15 years of operation:
Capacity royalties Rs 100/Kw
Revenue royalties 2 % of total revenues
After 15 years of operation:
Capacity royalties Rs 1000/Kw
Revenue royalties 10% of total revenues

Insurance premium annually to be paid is assumed as 0.5% of the capital cost.
Bonus and welfare fund provision is assumed as 2% of the profit after taxes and
interest.
Depreciation at the rate 4% is assumed.
Corporate tax equivalent to 20% and income tax of 1.5 % is considered.

11.3 Economic Analysis

The project with a total cost of NRs. 1,89,61,20,000 as given in the preceeding chapter
of the report has been evaluated on the basis of the above parameters and
assumptions. The economic evaluation indicators of the project are expressed interms of
its B-C ratio, IRR and NPV. The results of economic analysis are given in Table ES-11.1.
The details of analysis including discounted cost and benefit streams are shown in Table
15.3

Table ES-11.1: Economic Analysis Results

Economic Indicators Results
Net Present Value (NPV) in, 000 NRs 67,99,55
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) % 13.97
Benefit/Cost (B/C)Ratio 1.40

From the results shown in above table, the project is found economically viable.

11.4 Financial Analysis

The financial cost of the project has been estimated by adding the following costs to the
project cost considered for its economic evaluation.



Value added tax at 13% for civil and other construction works related to project
preparation.
Custom duties at 1% for the electro-mechanical and hydro-mechanical works.
Interest during construction (IDC) on the debt, which is assumed as 70% of the
project cost, at a rate of 10% per annum.
Price escalation during the construction at a rate of 6% and 1% for local and foreign
cost respectively.

The financial cost of the project such derived is NRs. 2,46,39,19,000 of which NRs.
68,63,30,000 is equity and NRs. 1,77,75,89,000 is the debt. The financial viability of the
project has been assessed interms of such financial indicators as B-C ratio, IRR and
NPV. The results of the analysis at 10% discount rate are summarized in Table ES-11.2
below.

Table No. ES-11.2: Financial Analysis Results

Financial Indicators Results
Net Present Value (NPV) in 000 NRs. 40,30,61
Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) % 13.70
Benefit/Cost (B/c) Ratio 1.31

From the above results it is revealed that the project is financially viable.

11.5 Sensitivity Analysis

In order to check the sensitivity of financial indicators, an analysis with different
scenarios like scenario A with discount rate varying from 8 to 14%,scenario B project
cost increases and decreases by 10% and finally scenario C with delay of project
commissioning by one year has been carried out. The results of the sensitivity analysis
are given in Table No. ES 11.3.



Table No. ES 11.3: Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario Discount rate B/C FIRR% NPV in 000 NRS
A 8%
10%
12%
14%
1.53
1.31
1.14
0.98
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
76,77,65
40,30,61
15,87,47
(1,62,14)
B Cost decreased by 10%
Cost increased by 10%
1.50
1.16
16.2
12.1
57,76,36
22,84,87
C Project Commissioning
delayed by one year
1.26 13.1 31,58,14

The sensitivity analysis clearly shows that the project is financially viable with a FIRR
over 12% for all the scenarios considered for analysis.

12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The main conclusions and recommendations drawn from the present feasibility study of
Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project executed in accordance with the ToR of the
contract dated August 05, 2007 between DoED and METCON Consultants are as
follows:

12.1 Conclusions

1. The proposed Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower project is a high head run of river
hydropower scheme. The headworks of the project is located on Maiwa Khola at about
5Km upstream of its confluence with Tamor river near Dobhan bazaar situated about
6Km west of Taplejung district headquarters. All headworks structures except for the left
bank abutment of the diversion weir are located on the right bank of the river lying in
Dhungesangu VDC. The left bank abutment of the diversion weir, however, is located in
Thinlabu VDC. The headrace tunnel passes through Dhungesangu and Change VDCs.
The forebay, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace are located in Change VDC.



2. The optimized installed capacity of the project is 13.5MW comprising 2x6.75MW
generating units driven by vertical axis Francis Turbines operating at a gross head of
200.90m and design discharge of 8.07m
3
/s. The project is capable of generating 78.11
GWh of average annual energy of which 14.03 GWh and 64.08 GWh is average annual
dry and wet season energy respectively. The firm energy of the project corresponding to
90% probability exceedence flow of 1.63m
3
/s is 24.09 GWh.

3. The implementation of the project requires the construction of a 10.95 Km long access
road along with a bridge over Tamor river connecting its power house site with the
nearest roadhead Banande on the existing Mechi Rajmarga the only highway which
connects Tapeljung district headquarters with Chaarali on the East-West Highway in
J hapa district. As major portion of this road can also serve as access road for a couple
of other projects which have been identified and studied in the nearby catchment of
Mewa Khola such as Mewa and Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Projects, it is
recommended in the present report that the construction of about 8Km of this road
should be undertaken by the Government of Nepal or alternatively jointly by all the
concerned project developers. Keeping this in view, it is proposed in the present study
that the construction 2.95 Km of the said access road and 60m long bridge over Tamor
river will be undertaken by the project.

4. The construction of a 7Km long 132Kv transmission line starting from the switchyard at
the powerhouse and ending at Banande, is necessary. Banande is considered most
suitable point for future connection of not only Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
but also couple of other projects currently being studied in its vicinity, to the National
Grid. For this, it is expected that Damak-Kabeli A 132 Kv Transmission line already
planned for construction in near future by NEA will be further extended upto Banande to
encourage the private sector participation in the development of hydropower projects in
this area.

5. The geological investigations made at this level of study show that four different faults
within entire length of 4,150m long headrace tunnel intercept latter on the ground
surface. It cannot be confirmed at this stage of study whether the faults will appear on
the tunnel level or not. If the fault intercepts the tunnel, the problems like heavy inflow of
water in the tunnel, heavy convergence and shear zones with thick fault gauges are


expected. Even in such conditions, it is considered that the tunnel construction is
possible with proper dewatering arrangement and appropriate support system.

6. The 100 year design flood at intake site is 461m
3
/s and 1000 year design flood at
powerhouse site is 3,570m
3
/s. which is likely to be affected by the GLOF in Tamor river.

7. The project is economically viable. The capital cost of the project at 2009 price level is
estimated as NRs. 1,89,61,20,000 including contingencies and project detailed
engineering. The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIIR) is 13.97 % the Benefit/Cost
(B/c) ratio is 1.40 at 10% discount rate.

8. The project is also found financially viable as the Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIIR)
is 13.7% and Benefit / Cost ratio is 1.31 with NPV of NRs. 40,30,61 thousand at 10%
discount rate.

16.2 Recommendations

1 As the project has been found technically feasible, economically and, financially viable, it
is imperative that the implementation of the project be commenced as soon as possible.

2 In light of the very objectives of the present study and the strong commitment of the
Government of Nepal to encourage private sectors participation in the development of
cost effective small and medium scale hydropower projects, it is advisable that the
project be built, operated, owned and transferred by a private sector company eligible for
the power generation and transmission license to be provided by the Government of
Nepal in accordance with the legal provisions of existing Electricity Act and Regulation
and Hydropower Development Policy.

3 It is suggested that the company eventually becoming the owner of the project be
selected from among the technically experienced and financially sound national or the
joint ventures of national and foreign companies that have been involved in the
hydropower development in the countries similar to Nepal atleast for last 10 years or so.
The selection, of course, should be made under standard Competitive Bidding process
which is believed already in practice by DoED.


4 The selected company, which after selection may be called as the owner of the project,
should make all necessary arrangements to commence the project preparatory works,
specially, the works associated with the detailed engineering and arrangement of
financing of the project as soon as possible to ensure that:

a) The project license could be obtained latest within 12 months from the commencement
of project preparatory works.
b) The contracts for preparatory works like the construction of access road, project road,
camp and construction power supply facilities are in place such that the actual
construction can be started latest by 9
th
month from the commencement of preparatory
works.
c) The contracts for civil works are in place such that the construction of headrace tunnel
and pre diversion excavation at headworks of the project can be commenced latest by
the end of 1
st
quarter of the following year.

5 The following hydrological, sediment and geophysical investigations need to be carried
out during the preparatory phase of the project.

Observation of daily water level and frequent measurement of river discharge
(once a week) at the intake site of the project.
Collection and analysis of sediment samples at the intake site of the project. The
collection of samples (one sample a day) is to be carried out during the rainy
season.
The geophysical explorations, particularly, in the reach of active fault of headrace
tunnel should be carried out. These explorations should be done maximum at 5
locations : at chainage 1 +500, 2 +200, 2 +700, 2 +950 m and one at chianage
to be decided after the exploration results at indicated locations. The explorations
should be carried out across the tunnel alignment using the vertical electrical
sounding or seismic reflection / refraction or other similar technique capable of
penetrating to the tunnel excavation level.

Maiwa Khola

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

Maiwa Khola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maiwa Khola Small Hydropower Project (Package - 2) DoED

Feasibility Study Executi ve Summary ES- 1 METCON

You might also like