Small/ LowmHead Hydropower PRDA-1706 - UNT Digital ...

, J- " ?Executive Summaries of

Small/ LowmHead Hydropower PRDA-1706

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES

SMALLILOW-HEAD HYDROPOWER

PRDA- 1 7 0 6

F E A S I B . I L I T Y ASSESSMENTS

MAY 1 9 7 9

U l b E L A l M t t l

Neither the United Stale Gweronrenl mr any agency thereol. mr anv of their emplove. makerenv warranry. expreu or implied. or auu- any 1-1 liability or resmnsibility for the -raw. mmpleieneu. or ~ r e f ~ l n e n of any informa!ion. apparelus. product. or procen dixlored. or rcprmntr that i o "re w v l d mt infringe priwielv owed rights. Reference herein io any rpmilic mmmercial produc~. p r ~ ~ e u . or service by trade name. Irsdemark. manufacturer. or otherwire, d o e not nsnwr i ly rnnsiit~te or imply ill endorsmen!. remmmendelion. or favoring by !he Uniled Slate Government or anv ugenn, thereof. The view and opinion* of authors expreUed herein do no!

EG&G IDAHO, INC .

IDAHO Y L L S , IDAHO 83401

PREPARED FOR THE

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

IDAHO OPERATIONS O F F I C E

UNDER CONTRACT NO. D E - A M 0 7 - 7 6 I D 0 1 5 7 0

FORWARD

The execu t i ve summaries o f 49 o f t h e 54 f e a s i b i l i t y assessments performed under DOE'S Program ~ e s e a r c r a n d Development Announcement (PRDA) ET-78-D-07-1706 a r e con ta ined i n t h i s r e p o r t . The remain ing f i v e summaries (1771, 1781, 1797, 1803, 1818) were n o t r ece i ved i n t ime f o r pub1 i c a t i o n . They w i l l appear i n an addendum i n t h e "Proceedings" o f t h e Small/Low-Head Hydropower PRDA-1706 Con t rac to r s ' Symposium, Albany, New York, May 8-10, 1979.

App rec ia t i on i s expressed t o each o f t h e o rgan i za t i ons and i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f these summaries, which made t h i s document poss ib l e . T h i s p u b l i c a t i o n p rov ides t h e hydropower community w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e f e a s i b i l i t y assessments o f a c t u a l smal l hydro s i t e s . The s i t e s were se lec ted t o p rov ide widespread geographica l d i s t r i b u t i o n , as w e l l as a v a r i e t y of water resources, h y d r o e l e c t r i c power c a p a c i t i e s , and dam o r d i v e r s i o n s t r u c t u r e s . It i s in tended t h a t these assessments w i l l : 1 ) encourage t h e devel opment o f renewable resources f o r power generat ion; 2 ) p rov ide i n s i g h t i n t o t h e requi rements f o r a good f e a s i b i l i t y assessment; and 3 ) p rov ide eng ineer ing , economic, env i ronmenta l , sa fe t y , and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on smal l hydropower development.

For f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i f i c s i t e s o r assessments, you a r e encouraged t o c o n t a c t ' the i n d i v i d u a l . o rgan i za t i ons invo lved .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . The Bethlehem Dam Hydroe lec t r i c P r o j e c t . No: 1759 . . ... . . . . . . 1

. . Pe l ton Reregulat ing Dam on the Deschutes R iver . No . 1758 . . . . . . 4

. . Mora Canal Drop - No . 1760 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A rchusaCreekDam- ,No .1761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

. . High F a l l s Dam on Towaliga River No 1762 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

. . Jackson B l u f f Dam on the Ocl~lockonee R ive r - No 1763 . . . . . . . . 19

' i ~ o r m a n s k i l l Hyd roe lec t r i c F a c i l i t y - No . 1765 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

. . . . . . . .. . . Peninsular Paper Company Dam on the Huron R iver No 1766 27 . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodruff Marrows Dam on the Bear R iver No 1767 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lowel 3 Creek - 'No 1768 35

... The C a r l y l e Reservoi r on the Kaskaskia R iver - No 1769 . ' . . . . . . 39

. . . . . Restora t ion of Frog Hollow M i l l Hyd roe lec t r i c P lan t - No 1770 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French Landlng Dam on the Huron R iver - No 1772 46

. . . . . . . . . . . . Zumbro Dam on the South Pork Zumbro R iver - No 1773 50 , . . . . . . . . . . . . Big Blue R iver Hyd roe lec t r i c Development - No 1774 54

. . . . . . . . . . . Vulcan Power F a c i l i - t y on the Pox R iver - No 1775 64

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Max Starcke Park Dam - No 1776 68

Four S i t e s on the Mousam River . No . 1777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Tremont Dam on the ideweantic River . No . 1778 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Johnson Lake I n l e t . No . 1779 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Piqua Hydroe lec t r i c P r o j e c t on the Great Miarni R iver . No . 1780 . . . 85

P l i i l l i p s Hyd roe lec t r i c P r o j e c t . No . 1782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Lower Wain Canal Hydro S ta t i ons . No . 1783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chicopee Fa1 1 s Dam . No . 1784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lewiston Canal Development No 1785 104

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i i gh F a l l s Hyd roe lec t r i c P lan t No 1786 106

Br ig l i ton Dam Hydroe lec t r i c Redevelopment . No . 1787 . . . . . . . . . 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woonsocket F a l l s Dam . . No . 1788 121

. . . . . . . . . . Low-liead Hydropower on the M i l l R iver . No . 1789 125

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Harland Dam P r o j e c t No 1790 129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enloe Dam on t h e Similkameen River No 1791 137

Brown Bridge. Keystone. Boardman. Sabin and Union S t r e e t Dams on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boardman River . No:1792 .. . 140

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Cont I d )

O t t e r Creek H y d r o e l e c t r i c ~ e a i i b i l ity Report . No . 1793 . . . . 141

. . . . . . . . Lake Frances Power Generat ing F a c i l i t i e s . No . 1794 147

S t . Joseph R i v e r H y d r o e l e c t r i c P lan t s . No . 1795 . . . . . . . . 151

. . . . Catarac t Power P l a n t Expansion on t h e Saco R i v e r . No 1796 162

T u t t l e Creek Dam on t h e B i g Blue R i ve r . No . 1798 . . . . . . . 167

J o i n t I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s Hydropower Assessment Study . Nb . 1799 171

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dan R i v e r . No . 1800 174

A d d i t i o n a l Power Generat ion a t U p r i v e r Dam on t h e Spokane R i v e r . No. 1801 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P a t i l l a s Reservo i r . No . 1804 194

O'Shaugnessy and Gr iggs Dams on t h e S c i o t o R i v e r . No . 1805 . . . 197

. . . . . . . . . . . Pawtucket Dam and Nor thern Canal . No . 1807 201

Dam and Power F a c i l i t i e s on t h e Merr imack R i v e r ..No. 1808 . . . . 204

. . . . . . . . . . . Barge Canal on t h e Mohawk R i v e r . 140 . 1809 208

. . . . . Dry F a l l s Dam P o t e n t i a l H y d r o e l e c t r i c Power . No . 1811 220

. . . . . . . Expansion o f Sharmut H y d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t . No . 1812 224

Maxwell Locks and Dam . No . 1813 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

. . . . . . . . . . . . Broadwater H y d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t . No . 1822 232

i i i

THE BETHLEHEM DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT,

BETHLEHEM, N., H.

Bethlehem Mink Farm Richard Polonsky, Principal Investigator

PRDA Proposal Contract No. EW-78-F-07-1759

The Bethlehem Dam is located in Northern New Hampshire, on the Ammonoosuc River. It has a 96 square mile drainage area and includes the western slopes of Mt. Washington. It is a run-of-rhe-river site with no ponding and an average flow of 209 cfs.

The history of the dam and its property is typical of the development of New England hydropower at a run-of- the-river site. The property has been associated with agriculture and lumber operations for over a century and a half. The present dam was built in 1927 and utilized a 1,500 long steel penstock with a 300 KW francis turbine and Woodard generator. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire decommissioned the site in 1958 and sold it to Dr. Arnold Polonsky, President of Bethlehem Mink Farm.

The Bethlehem Mink Farm is a third generation family business, started in 1937 as a hobby of "Grandpa" Joseph Polonsky (a retired pharmacist from New York city). His son, Arnold, after graduating from veterinary school in 1945, took over management of the farm and through the next 26 years built it into the largest mink ranch on the East Coast. A million dollar a year aggregate business, the Bethlehem Mink Farm was a totally self- sufficient operation.

In 1971, EMF'S herd was dessimated by a PCB (polychlorinated byphenyls) contaminated ingredient. Thirty years of work and 18,000 mink died in five days. Today, EMF'S operatons include farming, the raising of 1,300 calves a year; service operations - refrigerated warehousing and trucking; real estate - rental of commercial and industrial properties, and land development. Bethlehem Mink Farm plans to recommission the site with the intent of utilizing the power in its current operations as well as future expansion and diversification of its agricultural productian.

New amps shire has a short growing season and imports 90% of its food from Sunbelt regions of the U.S. The Farm will extend the growing season by developing an enclosed, biologically integrated growing facility for raising fish and vegetables. There are three existing masonry structures currently at the site which are not in use. Of these, the former Public Service Co. Transformer Service building located about 100 feet from the dam is favorably suited to re-use as a Prototype Acquaculture/Agriculture Production Facility which could serve as an experimental model for a larger facility to be constructed at the site for greater utilization of the power produced at a later date.

Electricity generated would be used to produce light to supplement natural daylight and waste heat from the lighting would be used to control the temperature in the growing facility. An integrated, controlled environment ( e .g . for growing trout, tomatoes, lettuce and/or processing ) would provide for balanced load management on a seasonal and daily basis which would be compatible with the electricity generating partern of the plant.

The Farm is planning its agricultural operations .to match the flow of the river. Therefore, an early emphasis was placed upon low stream flows in order to have power available year round. This led to sizing turbines which could operate over a wide range of flows. Stream duration curves, based on 5 cfs increments over a . 0 - 200+ cfs range, were compiled for each month of the year from 11 years of data.

The Farm compared three basic types of turbines against the 12 models of monthly stream flow. These turbines were: a tube (Allis Chalmers), a francis (Brown-Boveri) and a cross-flow (Ossberger). Manufacturers were asked to supply information for two sites utilizing 42 feet of head at 500 KW and 62 feet of head at 750 KW capacities with a 200 cfs. stream flow. The original turbine was a 300 KW francis at the 42 feet head, but was not seriously investigated beca~~se of its high cost.

The monthly comparisons for the turbine/generators0 performances utilizing the monthly flow models were:

42' Head

MONTHLY POWER POTENTIALS

6 2 ' Head

MONTH

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Ossberger

285 339 320 245 259 292 465 496 421 276 203 210

Brown-B Allis-C Ossberger Brown-B

Monthly Avn 317 299 286

Yearly MegaWH 2785 2629 2515

The Bethlehem Nink Farm will continue its active role in the development of its hydro site. It intends to take part in the installation and operation of the equipment. The cost analysis for the various turbine/. generator packages and installations, including the replacement turbine, are shown below. These costs .are stated in terms of April, 1979 dollars.

COST ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL TURBINE PACKAGES

. .

Item . . - Brown Brown .

blanufacturer Ossberger Boveri AC AC Ossberger Boveri . . ' AC . . . .... Turbine Type Cross Flo Horiz. Tube Vert. Cross Flo Vert. . . ' Tube' .

Francis Francis Francis

. - , ... . Head (feet.) '

.,.. . ' . . 4 2 . 42 . . 42 .42 ' . . . 62 . . , ..'62, ' . . '62 ,

Restore Dam Area $22,420 $22,420 $22,420 $22,420 $22,420 $22,420 $22,420

. . , '. . Power House Activity 2,394 2,394 12,825 450 14,'825 14,825 ' 14,825

. . . Cables, etc. 3,070 3,070 2,070 3,070 3,445 3,445 ' . 31445

. . Sub Total $27,884 $27,884 $37,315 $25;940 $40,690 $40;690 . $40,690

Pens toclc 185,989 185,989 182,889 185,989 274,289 274,289 271.,'189

Turbine Set . 246,000 364,000 304,000 626,000 345,000 .378,000 . 420,000~

Utility Intertie 18,090 18,090 18,090 18,090 24,090 24,090 24,090

Cost $540,963 $658,963 $605,294 $909,019 $750,069 $783,069 $821,969

S/KN $1,082. $1,318 $1,211 $2,597 $1,000 $1,044 $1,096

fm/yr 2,785 2,629 2,515 1,932 4,097 3,889 3,738

% Capacity 6 3 5 9 5 7 6 3 62 5 9 5 7

The major surprise was the cross-flow turbine. Its lack of peak efficiency was'more than offset by its wide operating range with the stream flow. The cross-flow is also less affected by high tail water, leaf and ice conditions. The francis and tube turbines also clearly demonstrated the major advances in turbine technology which have been made in the last 40 years. ' The choice for the site. seems obvious: a cross-flow turbine at the higher head.

The Farm has gatherdd'='gre=t deal of information. It sent representetives to hydro manufacturers, hydro conferences, hydrosites, universities and public and private'agencies. Its research will continue until the plant become; operational. The short foim FERC License is available but is untested by practice.' The environmental concerns are identified but some specifics have not been defined by certain agencies. Multiple use is being evaluated with the help of local and regional sp@cial interest groups. In general, the Farm has - '

found an open attitude useful in dealing with the still formidable legal and institutional obstacles/barriers to small scale hydro development.

The realistic key to bringing this hydroelectric site on line is an in-hand power contract with a suitable buyer. The New Hampshire Legislature passed laws 'instructing the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission to establish a reasonable rate to be paid to small (under 5 MW) producers of power. Now after extensive hearings -

- the commission is expected to announce the rate by June 1979. The Federal .Energy Regulatory Commission is expected to have similar rate structur'es published in 1980. The Farm's goal for agricultural utilization of the Dam's power should start to materialize on a commercial scale in 1981.

PELTON REREGULATING DAM ON THE DESCHUTES RIVER

Warm Springs, Oregon

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of 0;egon 1

Edward F i t zge ra ld Dibble, Consulting Engineer Redlands, Ca l i fo rn i a I n Associat ion With

Haner, Ross &' Sporseen, I n c . , C i v i l Engineers Por t land , Oregon

and Engineering & Dccign Associates , E l e c t r i c a l Engineers

Tigard, Oregon


INTRODUCTION

The Confederated Tribes of t he Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon a r e con- s i d e r i n g bui ld ing a hyd roe l ec t r i c power p l an t i n t he e x i s t i n g Pel ton Reregulat- i n g Dam about n ine miles northwest of Madras i n Central Oregon. The. dam i s l o - c a t ed on t he Deschutes River which flows along the e a s t e r l y edge of t he Warm Spr inss Reservation.

AGREEMENTS

I n 1955 the Confederated Tribes entere'd i n t o an agreement with Port land General E l e c t r i c Company, an investor-owned u t i l i t y , t o al low t h e company t o b u i l d and opera te Pel ton Reregulat ing Dam and two hyd roe l ec t r i c dams, Pel ton Dam, t h r e e miles upstream and Round But te , seven miles f u r t h e r upstream. A t t h a t time i t was no t considered economically f e a s i b l e t o i n s t a l l a hydroelect- r i c p l a n t i n the Reregulating Dam. In the 1955 agreement, t he Confederated Tr ibes r e t a ined t he r i g h t t o i n s t a l l , opera te , and maintain a hyd roe l ec t r i c genera t ing u n i t o r u n i t s i n t he Reregulat ing Dam a t t h e i r own expense with t he des ign , cons t ruc t ion , and opera t ion t o be sub j ec t t o the approval of t he power company, who i s respons ib le f o r maintaining t he flow i n t he Deschutes River as prescr ibed i n i t s FPC l i c e n s e . The Pel ton Reregulating Dam was b u i l t and i s opera ted by the power company t o provide temporary r e r egu l a t i on s torage s o l e l y t o hold t he varying flow from the peaking opera t ion a t Pel ton and Round Butte and t o r e l e a s e s a i d flow a t uniform r a t e s t o t he Deschutes River downstream.

WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION AND DESCHUTES RIVER

The Warm Springs Keservation of Oregon, covers about 680,000 acres from t h e c r e s t of the Cascade Range on t he west down t o t h e Deschutes River on t he e a s t . Fores t s cover t he land i n t he higher e l eva t i ons . Large open a r ea s wi th s c a t t e r e d juniper vege t a t i on , i n t e r spe r sed wi th deep canyons cover t he lower e l eva t i ons . The main community on t h e Reservation i s Warm Spr ings , l coa ted 3 mi le s nor th of t he Pel ton Reregulat ing ' Dam. The proposed p r o j e c t w i l l be en- t i r e l y w i th in the r e se rva t i on .

The Deschutes River drainage a r ea upstream from the Pe l ton Reregulating Dam i s 7,820 square miles i n Cent ra l Oregon and t he ea s t s i d e of t h e Cascade Range. There a r e severa l l a rge manmade r e se rvo i r s upstream which s t o r e water f o r i r r i g a - t i o n p r o j e c t s and near Bend, Oregon, about 50 miles upstream almost a l l t he flow i s d ive r t ed leaving l e s s than 200 cfs,., But above t he Round Butte and Pel ton P ro j ec t s t he Deschutes River becomes born again" and i s one o f t he most uniform- l y flowing r i v e r s i n t he United S t a t e s , because of ground water which emerges i n t he canyons from porous lava rocks a s l a rge steady-flowing sp r ings . The recorded flows a t t he r e r egu l a t i ng dam i n the l a s t twenty years have va r i ed from a low of about 2600 c f s t o a high of about 15,800 c f s . The average.f low f o r t he l a s t f i f t y - f o u r years has been 4,475 cubic f e e t per second.

PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed p ro j ec t w i l l inc lude a cons t ruc t ion of a power house t o harness

the head and flow a t t he e x i s t i n g Pel ton Reregulat ing Dam, and cons t ruc t ion of a t ransmission l i n e 3 miles long t o connect t o t he e x i s t i n g power system a t Warm Springs.

rra The power house w i l l inc lude one ho r i zon t a l bulb tu rb ine and generator wi th

nameplate r a t i n g of 15,000 k i l owa t t s . . The head on t he p l an t w i l l normally f l uc - t u a t e each day from a low of about 18 f e e t a t 6 a.m. t o a high of about 42 f e e t a t 11 p.m. each n igh t . The p l an t w i l l opera te under an average head of 36 f e e t . The n e t average annual production w i ' l l be 81,135,000 k i lowat t -hours , which i s an annual 'ou tput of 9,262 average k i l owa t t s , r e s u l t i n g i n a . p l a n t f a c t o r of 62 percent .

The plan of development contemplates removal of a s ec t i on of t he e x i s t i n g e a r t h and r o c k f i l l dam j u s t west of t he e x i s t i n g concrete spi l lway s t r u c t u r e and cons t ruc t ing t he power p l an t adjacent t o t he sp i l lway . During the construc- t i on per iod i t would be necessary t o i n s t a l l cofferdams, both upstream and downstream around the a r ea where t he s ec t i on of t he dam w i l l be removed so t h a t the a rea can be dewatered whi le cons t ruc t ion work proceeds.

The s i n g l e u n i t bulb t u rb ine i n s t a l l a t i o n was s e l ec t ed a s t he most econom- i c a l l y f e a s i b l e arrangement. Two u n i t s would produce s l i g h t l y more power because the u n i t s could be operated near maximum e f f i c i ency over a broader range than wi th a s i n g l e u n i t . However, t he two u n i t ins t -a l la t ion would cos t approximately $1,000,000 more, which i s approximately t h r e e times as much a s t he value of power saved due t o t he g r ea t e r e f f i c i e n c y .

Consideration was given t o t h r ee types of un i t s -Bulb , Kaplan, and Tube Tur- b ine s . The tube tu rb ine was el iminated because of i t s lower e f f i c i e n c y , appear- ing t o be about 1 .5% l e s s a t po in t of peak e f f i c i ency and about 3% a t minimum and maximum operat ing load. The e f f i c i ency f o r t he Kaplan turb ines ' appeared t o be f a i r l y c lose t o t h a t of t he Bulb t r ub ine , but t he power house f o r t he Kaplan would need t o be about 20% wider . The depth of excavat ion would have been about the same, and t he length would have been about t he same because of t he requi re - ments r e l a t i n g t o fishway design.

Ul t imate ly , t he r e fo re , t he bulb t u rb ine was s e l ec t ed as p r e f e r r ed , wi th recogni t ion of a need t o review a t time of f i n a l design. It w i l l be important t o spec i fy t h a t t he Bulb turbine-generator cont rac tor guarantee t h e o v e r a l l e f - f i c iency of t he e n t i r e u n i t , a f t e r l o s se s f o r t he e x c i t e r , cool ing pumps o r f a n s , o i l p ressure pumps, e t c . , requi red i n opera t ing t he complete u n i t .

The e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s include fishways which lead t o a f i s h l adde r , t r a p and loading s t a t i o n . The proposed p ro j ec t w i l l inc lude add i t i ona l fishway en- t rances above t he d r a f t tube e x i s t of t he new power house, wi th con t ro l weirs t o opera te automatical ly by remote con t ro l .

The power supply on t he Warm Springs Reservation i s p r e sen t ly from one 69-kv l i n e of P a c i f i c Power & Light.Company from Madras t o a subs t a t i on a t Warm Springs from which various p a r t s of' t he r e se rva t i on a r e served r a d i a l l y . This l i n e has been sub j ec t t o occasional outages. ' The proposed p ro j ec t w i l l inc lude a 3-mile long t ransmission c i r c u i t , 69-kv, from the Pel ton Reregulating Dam t o t he Warm Springs subs t a t i on . This w i l l provide a nearby source of dependable power t o t he r e se rva t i on .

The power outp'ut from the proposed p ro j ec t w i l l be more than t he presen t needs of t he r e se rva t i on . I n 1977, t he t o t a l e l e c t r i c energy de l ivered t o t he Reservation was about 32 mi l l ion kwh, whereas, t he p ro j ec t w i l l produce about '

81 mi l l i on kwh, which i s two and ha l f times a s much as t he presen t needs of the Reservation. The interconnect ion a t t he Warm Springs subs t a t i on w i l l allow the production from the p ro j ec t t o he lp se rve t h e P a c i f i c Northwest which has a growing need f o r energy.

CAPITAL COST

. A t 1978 c o s t l e v e l s , t he c a p i t a l co s t b f t he proposed p ro j ec t would be $19,374,000. I f t he p ro j ec t were t o be moved along on a f a i r l y t i g h t time sched- u l e , i t could be completed i n 1982. Including allowances f o r e sca l a t i on during t h a t t i m e i t i s estimated c p a i t a l c o s t of t h e p r o j e c t , i f completed i n 1982, would be $25,831,000. Deferral o r delay of t he p ro j ec t would cause t he cos t of t he

p r o j e c t t o e s c a l a t e about $175,000 f o r each month of delay o r about $2,000,000 f o r a delay of a year .

ANNUAL COST

The.annua1 cos t s of t he p ro j ec t w i l l include opera t ion and maintenance, ad- m i n i s t r a t i v e and genera l c o s t s , replacement of s h o r t - l i f e i t ems , i n su rance , ' de - p r e c i a t i o n and payment of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t on outs tanding debt . These a r e shown i n t he following t a b l e wi th t h r e e columns showing r e spec t i ve ly , the annual cos t s f o r the p ro j ec t a t 1978 cos t l e v e l s , 1982 cos t l e v e l s , and t he " level ized"

- cos t s during the e n t i r e p ro j ec t payout per iod . The l eve l i zed cos t s represen t t he amount of equal annual payments during t he 25 year payout per iod , 1983 through 2007, of t he present worth va lue , using 1982 a s t he base yea r , of a l l p ro j ec t c o s t s , including allowance f o r i n f l a t i o n of annual cos t s during t he 25 yea r s .

ESTIIUTE OF ANNUAL COSTS

1978 1982 P ro j ec t

Levelized . ~

cost Cost Costs Levels Levels .(1982 Bas e j

Capi ta l Cost $19,374,000 $25,831,000 $25,831,000

Operation and Maintenance $ 160,000 $ 202,000 $ 314,000

Administrat ive & General 30,000 36,000 56,000

In te r im replacements 68,000 90,000 140,000

Insurance 39,000 52,000 80,000

Depreciation-50 year s ink ing 17,000 22,200 22 ;200 fund, 10%

Sub t o t a l $ 314,000 $ 402,200 $ 612,200

Debt Serv ice I n t e r e s t & Pr inc ipa l 25 yea r s , 10% I n t e r e s t

To t a l Annual Cost $ 2,448,000 $ 3,248,200 $ 3,458,200

Unit Cost f o r 81,135,000 kwh 30.17 mills/kwh 40,03 millslkwh 42.62 mills/kwh

It i s proposed t h a t t he p ro j ec t be operated as a . t r i b a 1 venture o r corpora- t i o n i n which case i t i s an t i c ipa t ed i t w i l l be loca ted w i th in the Warm Springs Reservation and t he re fo re w i l l not be subjec t t o county ad valorem property t axes .

The payout per iod f o r debt s e rv i ce used i s t he 25 years 1983-2007, because 2007 i s t h e year t he FPC l i c e n s e f o r t he e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s exp i r e s .

ENERGY GENERATION

Studies i n d i c a t e t h a t by opera t ing t he pool a t t he higher l e v e l s i n s t ead of a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l s t h e gross generat ion w i l l i nc r ea se about 2,025 average k i l owa t t s . Of t h i s , t h e l o s s of gene ra t i on . a t Pel ton would be 1,250 average k i l o w a t t s , which would have t o be repa id t o t h a t p l a n t . Huwever, there would be a n e t increase i n average energy output a t t he proposed power p l an t a t t he Reregulat ing Dam of 672 average k i l owa t t s . 'This has been included i n t he e s t i - mate of average energy output of 9,262 k i l owa t t s . This w i l l r e s u l t i n t o t a l n e t energy production of 81,135,000 k i lowat t h0ur.s per yea r , which i s t he n e t product ion t o be a n t i c i p a t e d .

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Existing. f ac i l i t i e s include fishways a t each side of the spillway, and a f i sh ladder and trap. They are designed and operated to provide steady releases to the Deschutes River to maintain desirable conditions for f ish.

The proposed project w i l l be operated in the same manner. A new fishway w i l l be added which w i l l release water to the r iver at a shallow depth above the draf t tube. The draft tube from the turbine 1s purposely designed to discharge a t a considerable depth so as to separate the turbine discharge form the f ish at t ract ion water.

From an environmental standpoint, the proposed project w i l l be convert- ing the energy of the flowing water and i t s head into e lec t r ic energy withaut degrading the environmental conditions a t the s i t e . The use of th i s renewable natural resource w i l l produce an annual average of 81,135,000 kilowatt-hours which i s the equivalent of 135,000 barrels of o i l per gear for generating an equal amount of e lec t r ic energy.

Reregulating Dam S i t e

MORA CANAL DROP

n e a r B o i s e , I d a h o

B o i s e P r o j e c t B o a r d o f C o n t r o l T u d o r E n g i n e e r i n g Company

PRDA P r o p o s a l C o n t r a c t No. EW-78-F-07-176.0

I . INTRODUCTION

The B o i s e P r o j e c t B o a r d o f C o n t r o l e n t e r e d i n t o a c o o p e r a t i v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y t o c o n d u c t a s t u d y t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f d e - v e l o p i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c power a t a n e x i s t i n g c a n a l d r o p s t r u c t u r e on t h e B o i s e P r o j e c t i n s o u t h w e s t e r n I d a h o . The B o a r d , i n t u r n , i s s u e d a s u b c o n t r a c t t o T u d o r E n g i n e e r i n g Company t o p e r f o r m t h e s t u d y .

... The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y was t o d e v e l o p i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d s e r v e a s a ..'

b a s i s f o r a d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t t o p r o c e e d w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e power f a c i l i t i e s .

The s t u d y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e power f a c i l i t i e s i s f e a s i b l e i n a l l r e s p e c t s . The p l a n t w o u l d h a v e a n i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of 1 , 9 0 0 k i l o w a t t s w i t h a n e s t i m a t e d a n n u a l e n e r g y o u t p u t o f 8 , 1 1 3 , 0 0 0 k i l o w a t t - h o u r s . The i n i t i a l c o s t of t h e p r o j e c t wou ld b e . a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 . The a n n u a l c o s t , i n c l u d i n g a m o r t i z a t i o n , wou ld r a n g e b e t w e e n $ 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 a n d $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 , d e p e n d i n g on t h e f i n a n c i n g m e t h o d s a d o p t e d . E n e r g y p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s -. w o u l d r a n g e b e t w e e n $0 .0203 $0 .022 p e r k i l o w a t t - h o u r .

The e n e r g y p r o d u c t i o n c u r v e c l o s e l y m a t c h e s t h e e n e r g y demand c u r v e f o r t h e s u r r o u n d - .", i n g a r e a . The I d a h o Power Company h a s i n d i c a t e d a n e e d f o r t h e e n e r g y a n d h a s o f f e r e d t o p u r c h a s e a l l e n e r g y p r o d u c e d a t t h e Mora C a n a l Drop f o r $ 0 . 0 2 6 p e r k i l o w a t t - h o u r , t h u s mak- i n g t h e p r o j e c t f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e u n d e r any of t h e c u r r e n t f i n a n c i n g o p t i o n s .

The s t u d y . e x a m i n e d m a r k e t i n g p o t e n t i a l , e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s , s o c i a l i m p a c t s and li- c e n s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . A f i n a l s t e p i n t h e s t u d y was t o d e v e l o p a s c h e d u l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e p l a n t a n d p u t t i n g power on l i n e .

11. EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Mora C a n a l i s p a r t of a l a r g e c a n a l s y s t e m known a s t h e A r r o w r o c k D i v i s i o n o f t h e B o i s e P r o j e c t , a d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s B u r e a u o f R e c l a m a t i o n (U.S.B.R.) . T h e A r r o w r o c k D i v i s i o n p r o v i d e s f o r i r r i g a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 a c r e s o f f a r m l a n d s l o - c a t e d t o t h e w e s t o f B o i s e b e t w e e n t h e B o i s e a n d S n a k e R i v e r s . Of t h i s t o t a l , t h e B o i s e P r o j e c t B o a r d o f C o n t r o l o p e r a t e s a n d m a i n t a i n s t h e c a n a l s y s t e m f o r 1 6 7 , 5 0 0 a c r e s . T h e B o i s e P r o j e c t B o a r d o f C o n t r o l i s a n e n t i t y f o r m e d u n d e r c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n t h e U.S. D e p a r t - men t of I n t e r i o r a n d t h e f i v e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s i n t h e B o i s e v a l l e y . The d i s t r i c t s a r e t h e New York I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , t h e Nampa a n d M e r i d i a n I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , t h e B o i s e - Kuna I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , t h e W i l d e r I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t and t h e B ig Bend I r r i g a t i o n D i s - t r i c t .

The o v e r a l l s y s t e m i s c o m p r i s e d o f t h r e e u p s t r e a m r e s e r v o i r s on t h e B o i s e R i v e r , a d o w n s t r e a m d i v e r s i o n dam, a c a n a l n e t w o r k a n d o n e o f f - c h a n n e l r e s e r v o i r . U p p e r m o s t i n t h e s y s t e m i s A n d e r s o n Ranch Dam a n d R e s e r v o i r on t h e S o u t h F o r k o f t h e B o i s e R i v e r a p p r o x i - m a t e l y 60 m i l e s u p s t r e a m f r o m B o i s e , I d a h o . A r r o w r o c k Dam i s l o c a t e d on t h e B o i s e R i v e r a b o u t f o u r m i l e s b e l o w t h e j u n c t i o n o f t h e N o r t h a n d S o u t h F o r k s , and a b o u t 22 m i l e s up- s t r e a m f r o m B o i s e . Lucky P e a k Dam i s l o c a t e d on t h e B o i s e R i v e r d o w n s t r e a m f r o m A r r o w r o c k Dam a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n m i l e s a b o v e B o i s e . Two m i l e s d o w n s t r e a m o f Lucky P e a k Dam, t h e 6 8 f o o t h i g h r r i h h l e c o n c r e t e B o i s e R i v e r D i v e r s i o n Dam d i v e r t s t h e p r o j e c t f l o w s i n t o t h e B o i s e P r o j e c t c a n a l s y s t e m . The New York C a n a l f l o w s s o u t h w e s t e r l y f r o m t h i s p o i n t , e v e n - t u a l l y e n d i n g a t L a k e L o w e l l .

The Mora C a n a l b r a n c h e s f r o m t h e New York C a n a l 26 m i l e s d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e d i v e r s i o n p o i n t . The c a n a l r u n s w e s t w a r d f r o m t h i s p o i n t t o t h e s o u t h s i d e o f L a k e L o w e l l , a d i s - t a n c e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 27 m i l e s . Was teways l o c a t e d a t t h e s o u t h e a s t and s o u t h w e s t e n d s o f t h e l a k e c a n e a c h d i v e r t 100 s e c o n d - f e e t f r o m t h e Mora C a n a l .

T h e Mora Drop s t r u c t u r e i s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 m i l e s b e l o w t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h t h e Mora C a n a l d i v e r g e s f r o m t h e New York C a n a l . The s t r u c t u r e i s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 m i l e s s o u t h w e s t o f B o i s e . The p u r p o s e o f t h e e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y i s t o d r o p f l o w s o f t h e Mora C a n a l a v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e o f 3 6 f e e t . The e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s c o n s i s t o f t h e U p p e r Mora C a n a l w i t h a n a p p r o x i m a t e c a p a c i t y o f 1 , 1 0 0 c f s , a h e a d w o r k s s t r u c t u r e t h a t c o n t r o l s t h e f l o w o f up t o 300 c f s i n t o t h e W a l d v o g e l C a n a l , t h e Mora C a n a l Drop s t r u c t u r e , a down- s t r e a m s t i l l i n g b a s i n a n d t h e Lower Mora C a n a l w i t h a c a p a c i t y o f 8 5 0 c f s . The l a y o u t o f t h e e x i s t i n g d r o p s t r u c t u r e c a n b e s e e n i n P l a t e 11.

111. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPM'ENT

The f i r s t s t e p i n d e t e r m i n i n g a recommended d e v e l o p m e n t was a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e new f a c i l i t i e s . At t h e Mora D r o p , t h e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l c o n s i s t o f a new h e a d g a t e s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e W a l d v o g e l C a n a l t o b e l o c a t e d d o w n s t r e a m o f i t s p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n ; new g a t e s f o r t h e e x i s t i n g c h u t e , w h i c h w i l l r e m a i n i n p l a c e a s a n e m e r g e n c y b y p a s s o f t h e t u r b i n e s ; t h e p o w e r p l a n t i n t a k e w o r k s w i t h a c o n d u i t c o n n e c t i n g t o t h e t u r b i n e ; t h e power p l a n t i t s e l f ; a n d o u t l e t w o r k s t h a t t i e i n t o t h e Mora C a n a l j u s t d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e e x i s t i n g s t i l l i n g b a - s i n . The g e n e r a l l a y o u t o f t h e s e new f a c i l i t i e s i s shown on P l a t e 11.

W i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l c o n c e p t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , t h e t y p e of t u r b i n e a n d g e n e r a t o r , t h e s i z e a n d number o f u n i t s a n d t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e power p l a n t a n d p e n - s t o c k s t i l l r e m a i n t o b e d e t e r m i n e d . I n a s s e s s i n g t h e number a n d s i z e o f u n i t s , a s e r i e s o f m a r g i n a l c o s t c o m p a r i s o n s was made b a s e d on t h e d e s i g n h y d r o g r a p h a n d t h e h y d r a u l i c h e a d . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e o p t i m a l i n s t a l l a t i o n f o r t h e s i t e wou ld b e o n e u n i t o f 1 9 0 0 k i l o w a t t s w i t h a d j u s t a b l e b l a d e s .

I n s e l e c t i n g t h e t y p e o f t u r b i n e a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g p l a n t c o n f i . g u r a t i o n , t h e g e n e r a l m e t h o d o l o g y u s e d was t o f i r s t s o l i c i t e s t i m a t e s f o r a s i n g l e 1900 kw t u r b i n e a n d g e n e r a t o r f r o m t h e v a r i o u s m a n u f a c t u r e r s . A f t e r t h e e s t i m a t e s w e r e r e c e i v e d , a p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n o f t , he r e q u i r e d c i v i l and s t r u c t u r a l w o r k s f o r e a c h was t h e n p e r f o r m e d . The t o t a l c o s t s w e r e t h e n d e t e r m i n e d by a d d i n g t h e m e c h a n i c a l a n d e l e c t r i c a l c o s t t o t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c i v i l a n d s t r u c t u r a l c o s t s ; t h e t o t a l s w e r e t h e n c o m p a r e d . T u r b i n e s c o n s i d e r e d w e r e o p e n f l u m e v e r - t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e , v e r t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e w i t h c o n c r e t e p e n s t o c k a n d s c r o l l c a s e , t u b e t u r b i n e , b u l b t u r b i n e a n d O s s b e r g e r t u r b i n e . O n l y a s y n c h r o n o u s g e n e r a t o r was c o n s i d e r e d d u e t o r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e l o c a l u t i l i t y .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e c o s t c o m p a r i s o n showed t h a t t h e v e r t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r w i t h c o n - c r e t e p e n s t o c k a n d s c r o l l c a s e h a d t h e l o w e s t o v e r a l l c o s t . However , t h e o p e n f l u m e v e r - t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e a n d t h e t u b e t u r b i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n w e r e v e r y c l o s e . S i n c e t h e c o s t r e s u l t s w e r e e f f e c t u a l l y e q u a l , a n d s i n c e t h e e f f i c i e n c i e s a n d power o u t p u t s a r e t h e s a m e , d e t a i l e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f t h e v e r t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e w i t h c o n c r e t e p e n s t o c k a n d s c r o l l c a s e a n d t h e t u b e t u r b i n e w e r e . p r e p a r e d . No s u c h c o n f i g u r a t i o n was p r e p a r e d f o r t h e open f l u m e v e r t i c a l s h a f t t u b i n e d u e t o t h e p o t e n t i a l l y h i g h b u t unknown q u a n t i t y o f ro'ck e x c a v a t i o n w h i c h c o u l d s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e p r o j e c t c o s t s . The d e t a i l e d l a y o u t s of t h e two a l t e r n a t e i n s t a l l a t i o n s a r e shown on P l a t e 111.

I n o r d e r t o c o n v e r t t h e power t o a u s a b l e v o l t a g e a n d t r a n s m i t i t t o a n e x i s t i n g power g r i d , i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t r u c t a s w i t c h y a r d a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . The s w i t c h y a r d w o u l d b e c o n s t r u c t e d on a c o n c r e t e b a s e s l a b a d j a c e n t t o t h e p l a n t . A t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o c o n v e y t h e e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y t o I d a h o Power Company 's Bowmont s u b - s t a t i o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e m i l e s s o u t h w e s t o f t h e Mora C a n a l Drop . The c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i l l b e a 34 .5 k i l o v o l t , s i n g l e p o l e , t h r e e w i r e l i n e on 200 f o o t c e n t e r s .

I V . PROJECT ENERGY PRODUCTION

B a s e d on d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e B o i s e P r o j e c t B o a r d o f C o n t r o l , i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t by a m o d e s t c h a n g e i n c a n a l o p e r a t i n g p r a c t i c e , more t h a n h i s t o r i c f l o w s c a n b e c o n v e y e d i n t h e Mora C a n a l . On t h e a v e r a g e , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 AF of i r r i g a t i o n w a t e r p e r y e a r i s d e l i v e r e d t o L a k e L o w e l l t h r o u g h t h e New York C a n a l d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f March t h r o u g h November . Be- c a u s e o f t h e two Mora C a n a l w a s t e w a y s t h a t d i s c h a r g e i n t o L a k e L o w e l l , some o f t h i s New York C a n a l f l o w c o u l d b e d i v e r t e d i n t o t h e Mora C a n a l a t * i t s h e a d g a t e s . T h i s w a t e r w o u l d

then flow through the Mora Drop turbine, continue in the canal to near Lake Lowell, and be diverted into Lake Lowell through the two wasteways. If the Mora Drop power plant is constructed, the Board of Control intends to change their operating practice to take advantage of this additional flow. Consequently, the flow schematics used for the power studies assume this change, will be made.

A performance curve was utilized in determining plant output. Utilizing the curve and the previously discussed flows, it was determined that the plant could be expected to produce an average of 8,113,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The season for power production would be from March 16 to November 15, with the peak coming in July and August.

V. PROJECT COSTS

The initial capital costs consist of construction costs, interest. during construction and indirect costs. For this project, construction cost was estimated at $1,373,750; interest during construction was estimated at $65,000; indirect costs were estimated at $345,000. The indirect costs include engineering, surveys, license and permit applications, construction management, financial consultants, bond counsel and administrative costs. The construction cost estimate is relatively low because the Boise Board of Control intends to do much of the civil and structural work with its own forces. As an example of this low construction cost, the unit price for concrete was considered to be $70 per cubic yard. The total initial investment of approximately $1,800,000 represents an investment of $947 per installed kilowatt.

The project annual costs are comprised of bond repayment costs and operation and maintenance costs. The bond repayment cost depends on the method of financing utilized, the length of repayment time and the interst rate. In the report, two methods of financing were considered: the traditional method of selling revenue bonds and the newer method of obtaining a loan from the Department of Energy. The bond repayment costs for these options would be $155,650 and $139,910 respectively. Adding an annual operation and maintenance cost of $24,700, the total annual cost for the revenue bond option would be $180,350 which, . for an average annual energy of 8,113,000 kwh, represents an energy production cost of $0.0222 per kwh. With the D.O.E. option, the total annual cost would be $164,610, repre- senting an energy production cost of $0.0203 per kwh.

VI. ECONOMIC EVALUATION

The economic evaluation of the project is basically a comparison of the benefits and costs over the life of the project. The method used in the report was the benefit-cost ratio. An economic life of 50 years was chosen. A benefit of $0.026 per kwh was used as Idaho Power Company has expressed their interest in purchasing the energy at that price. Discount rates of 6%, 8% and 10% were used because of the current state of flux of interest rates. For an average annual energy of 8,113,000 kwh the benefit cost ratios ranged from 1.41 to 1.18 depending on the discount rate and method of financing. Inflation was not considered in the derivation of the above ratios. A brief analysis showed that if inflation were considered, the benefit-cost ratio would increase dramatically.

VII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The study investigated the potential environmental impacts of the project and found that no significant impacts were expected. No major safety hazards will be introduced by the power plant. There would be a slightly beneficial socio-economic impact.

A plan to initiate project construction, implement all activities and bring power on line was developed. The plan includes a timetable for a power sale agreement, license and permit acquisition, design, construction, testing and start up. The plan concludes that energy from the Mora Canal Drop Hydroelectric Project could be put on line by the 1982 irrigation season.

.my- L Wld

., . -- ,*a, -._ _ '-.. \

/-. - ... .-I "LB / - .o>-.u1- m,. /z, _ _ rnO8 *?:*A I-. 'I\' . ----.-/ .' $ 8

.!___. . -_ --- - '"I ~---7, Ij I I I

SECTON B

PROPELLER TEE ALTERNATIVE

ROO"..aRUY.Mc.uEI..IMVOCTD.OOnm.

PROPELLER TURBINE

ROO1. .JP*UL .~CXLEI .4 IMV&Tt .

_____.________ ------. ---.--

W E M C T W D Or U l T l O L

UORA CANAL DROP

PLAN AND SECTIONS

PLATE=

1 .

ARCHUSA CREEK DAM

Quitman, MS

P a t Har r i son Waterway D i s t r i c t b - Karl W. Car lson & John Herr ing

PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. 1761

I. INTRODUCTION

The r i s i n g c o s t s , u n c e r t a i n f u t u r e supp ly , and environmental problems have r e s u l t e d i n s e r i o u s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f energy s o u r c e s t h a t have n o t p rev ious ly been cons ide red economically and t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e .

One such source invo lves low head h y d r o - e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t o r s . The Department o f Energy has funded s e v e r a l f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f hydro-elec- t r i c g e n e r a t o r s a t e x i s t i n g low head dams. This r e p o r t d e a l s wi th such a f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy f o r t h e Archusa Creek Dam n e a r Quitman, M i s s i s s i p p i .

11. PERTINENT PROJECT FACTS

The l a k e and darn a r e owned by t h e P a t Har r i son Wate rway .Dis t r i c t and i s in- tended pr imargly f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes . The i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a h y d r o - e l e c t r i c u n i t should be compat ible w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The s tudy i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e a r e no apparen t t e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s t o p reven t such a p r o j e c t and t h a t a s u i t a b l e t u r b i n e g e n e r a t o r could be ob ta ined . The s tudy f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r o j e c t should be economically f e a s i b l e .

The l ake has an a r e a o f approximately 450 a c r e s and t h e proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n would have an approximate head of 2 5 ' . The average annual flow is 90cfs dur ing t h e p e r i o d June through November. I n o r d e r t o provide maximum power dur ing peak load p e r i o d s , a t u r b i n e / g e n e r a t o r u n i t w i t h a n o u t p u t of 250kw i s proposed. With t h i s s i z e u n i t and a v a r i a t i o n of 1' i n t h e l e v e l o f t h e wa te r t o p rov ide f o r s t o r a g e , t h e u n i t could p rov ide peaking power f o r a t l e a s t n ine hours p e r day, f i v e days p e r week, assuming average flows.

111. CONCLUSION

An Ossberger t u r b i n e i s proposed f o r two reasons . F i r s t , t h e i n i t i a l c o s t is l e s s ; second, t h e c o n t r o l s a r e s imple b u t it i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n 1 /3 , 2/3, o r f u l l r a t e d o u t p u t w i t h e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same e f f i c i e n c y . S i m p l i c i t y o f con- t r o l s i s important from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f bo th c o s t and maintenance.

An induc t ion g e n e r a t o r i s proposed a g a i n f o r t h e sake o f c o s t and s i m p l i c i t y o f o p e r a t i o n . Th i s r e q u i r e s a source of e x c i t i n g energy which can be d e r i v e d from t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n wi th t h e l o c a l u t i l i t y . A capacl . tor bank i s inc luded t o improvc t h e power f a c t o r . The l o c a l u t i l i t y ( M i s s i s s i p p i Power Company) has expressed an i n t e r e s t i n the p r o j e c t and h a s provided a t e n t a t i v e o f f e r concerning t h e amount they would pay f o r t h e energy. The c r i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy in - vo lves economics. A n economic a n a l y s i s which t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s c o n s i d e r s conserva- t i v e i n d i c a t e s t h e p r o j e c t would be f e a s i b l e a s t h e P a t Har r i son Waterway D i s t r i c t owns t h e f a c i l i t y and markets t h e energy t o t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Power Company.

HIGH FALLS DAM ON TOWALIGA RIVER

High Falls, Georgia

S t a t e of Georgia (Office of Energy Resources and Depar tment of Natural Resources),

Georgia Inst i tute of Technology and Cadre Corporat ion Neil B. Hilsen, Principal Investigator

Coopera t ive Agreement No. EW-78-F-07-1762

I. INTRODUCTION

The Off ice of Energy Resources (OER) and t h e Depar tment of Natural Resources (DNR) responded t o t h e Depar tment of Energy's Program Research and Development Announcement with a proposed study based on a n exist ing d a m s t ruc ture in High Fal ls S t a t e Park. The present dam, located approximately 5 0 miles south of Atlanta, impounds t h e Towaliga River, p a r t of t h e Al tamaha drainage basin, capturing a reservoir of 740 acres . High Falls Dam was built in 1905 and used for generat ion purposes until 1958 when t h e s i t e was abandoned due t o economic problems. In 1961, t h e dam. s i t e and several ad jacen t parcels of land were donated t o t h e S t a t e of Georgia, and a r e under t h e management of t h e Depar tment of Natural Resources. Since t h e original genera t ing faci l i ty had a head of 34 m m (100 f t ) , t h e 20 m e t e r l imitat ion in t h e PRDA precluded this locat ion f rom t h e assessment . Other locat ions were assessed t h a t fell within t h e low-head cons t ra in t of t h e PRDA.

11. OBJECTIVE

The overall object ives of this p ro jec t a r e t o (1) assess t h e feasibility of a hydropower faci l i ty at High Falls S t a t e Park f rom technical , environmental , and economic view points; (2) assess t h e economic, environmental , social, inst i tut ional , and market ing cons t ra in t s and impac ts t h a t a f f e c t t h e development of a hydropower faci l i ty; (3) prepare a s e t of conceptual design drawings and .specifications concerning t h e faci l i ty , dis tr ibut ion system, location, equipment s ize, duty cycle, and o ther performance parameters ; (4) develop a construct ion schedule with es t imated costs; and (5) p repare a report t h a t provides t h e basis fo r a design proposal fo r t h e faci l i ty implementat ion.

The s i t e was se lec ted for s tudy because it would provide a l a rge a r ray of variables in t h e technical , economic, .

environmental , and social aspec t s of revitalizing t h e generat ing potent ial of t h e Towaliga. In order t o de te rmine t h e optimum faci l i ty configurat ion f r o m these variables, a sys tems approach was used for t h e assessment. The overal l program plan consisted of: (1) S i te Assessment, (2) Faci l i ty Design, (3) Energy Production Est imates, (4) Economic Analysls and (5) Environmental and Socio-Institutional Assessment.

111. CONCEPT

The design concept employed for this s tudy was t o t a k e maximum advantage of s tandardized and pre-engineered package systems. The specif ic resources, constraints , and l imitat ions were identif ied and a design was selected; th i s design was utilized t o conduc t fu r ther economic analyses.

IV. RESULTS

The resul ts of this s tudy a r e presented briefly in t h e following order: (1) Flow da ta , (2) Constraints , (3) Potent ial s i tes , (4) Selected system, (5) Environmental assessment , and (6) System c o s t and economic analysis.

( I ) Flow d a t a -- There was a s t r e a m flow gauge located on t h e Towaliga River a t t h e highway bridge on S t a t e Highway 16, about 6.3 miles upstream of t h e dam. This gauge was opera t ive f rom 1960 t o Septpmber 1971 p d was recorded daily during t h a t period. We measured t h e watershed of t h e gauge t o b e 266 km 2(102.8 mi I2which corresponds very closely t o t h e USGS measurement . From t h e defined dam watershed, 525 km (202.9 mi 1, t h e gauge flow values y e r e adjusted using t h e appropriate adjustment f a c t o r s and formula. The mean flow is approximately 7.8 m /s (275cfs). The monthly flow distributions were used for analyt ical purposes t o account fo r seasonal variations.

(2) Constraints -- The assessment included a number o f factors that would often be less important or unrelated to a private sector analysis. These factors are centered around the legal mandates of DNR which provide that sites, such as High Falls State Park, serve multiple public functions.. Thus, the DNR had to set reasonable constraints to insure compatibility of the final design with primary park functions such as fisheries management, camping and recreation, and natural and cultural resource interpretation. The constraints imposed by DNR were: maintain flow over spillway and falls between sun-rise and 10 pm; maintain vegetation and topography to maximum extent possible; maintain flow downstream; and design the powerhouse to be compatible with existing park structures, as well as aesthetically pleasing.

(3) Potential sites - From a preliminary analysis' of the flow characteristics, precipation patterns, and topography, three candidate sites were selected with different available heads of 9.14 m (30 ft.), 12.5 m (41 ft.), and 20 m (65.6 ft.). For a combination of reasons (environmental, historical and economic) the 9.14 m (30 ft.) head site a t the base of the dam was selected. Figure 1 is an artist's rendering of the completed in-place faci l i ty and the surrounding area.

(4) Selected System - Turbine systems were considered initially by generic type, and information was obtained on the availability and system characteristics. Specific types considered were axial flow and cross-flow turbines. The turbine selected for this application is a 1150 mm vertical axis turbine with an open flume arrangement. Figure 2 is a section view of the turbine configuration. This arrangement has several advantages in this particular application; dam modifications are minimized, size and environmental protection of the power house are minimized, and the structure can be designed to have minimal visual impact. The generator is 8 pole 750 rpm asynchronous machine that can deliver 597 kW a t rated operating conditions. The energy wi l l be fed into the Georgia Power Company distribution system through a substation that presently exists 140 m (450 f t ) from the proposed power house location. Al l transformer and switch gear must conform to Georgia Power specifications. It is estimated that this turbine can produce approximately 2,600,000 kwh per year subject to the seasonal variations of water flow.

( 5 ) Environmental Assessment -- The small size of this faci l i ty combined with the operating constraints defined by DNR, wi l l result i n minimal environmental impact, with only minimal variations in the present flow conditions of the reservoir and the stream. There wi l l be no impact in the availability of the recreational uses of the park. The facil ity w i l l be constructed i n the river bed i n such a way that the historical features o f the old m i l l site and the canal are not disturbed. Only the immediate area of the faci l i ty wi l l display the effects of a modification of the existing flow patterns. It is anticipated that the park w i l l broaden i ts interpretative presentations to include a progression of water use technology for power generation as illustrated by the old m i l l foundation, the old powerhouw and the proposed low head facility.

( 6 ) System Cost and Economic Analysis -- A cost estimate was made based on the selected system (see Table I). The result is a total project cost of $1,050,200 or $1760 per kW. This amount includes several costs that are related to satisfying existing constraints and government regulatory and licensing requirements. I f they are relaxed, the project could realistically enjoy a savings of as much as $150,000 o f the total cost. It should be noted that the cost o f the generating equipment, installation, and ut i l i ty intertie is only $411,100, which is 40% of the total cost. This points out the economy of scale problems associated with constructing a small facil ity, because the non- equipment cost would be almost the same i f the generating capacity were doubled or tripled.

Table 1. COST ESTIMATE

Construction

Hydroelectric generating unit

Installation of generating unit

Contractors overhead & profit

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE

Contingency

Ut i l i t y Intertie

Design Fees & other professional services

TOTAL PROJECT COST

The decision criterion for an investment such as this is whether the benefits exceed the costs, and i n comparison to other projects whether the excess of benefits is greater than that of other alternative projects. The choice is made among the alternative locations and technological options. The evaluation o f benefits is based on the assumption that the capital investment is made with money borrowed with general obligation bonds a t the prevailing

r a t e of interest , requiring annual payments of equal s i z e for t h e t e r m of t h e bond to pay it off. Costs and benefi ts accruing in t h e fu ture a r e discounted at t h e social discount r a t e (assumed a t a value of 5.5%).

The S ta te of Georgia has historically borrowed money with a levelized debt service. Thus, $1,050,200 (Table I), borrowed a t 5.5% interest may be paid back in equal instal lments of $68,492. Because of t h e e f f e c t s of inflation, t h e rea l value of t h a t amount is smaller every year. Tha t is, t h e dollar amount remains constant while t h e buying power of t h e dollar decreases.

The nominal values assigned in this analysis were derived from t h e most conservative viewpoint possible. The capital cos t s have been discussed. The growth in t h e price of energy is likely t o be positive due t o rising cos t s in t h e utility industry. The imposition of a social discount r a t e of 5.5% reduced t h e evaluation of benefits. Finally, t h e l i fe span of t h e faci l i ty will probably be more than 30 years. The price per kwh, calculated in real terms, will likely b e cont rac ted in nominal dollars and thus b e larger than included in t h e model. The n e t present value of t h e s t ream of benefi ts and cos t s of t h e faci l i ty under these conditions is $1 10,000. The na ture of t h e assumptions imply t h a t th i s amount is a lower bound on t h e expected NPV of t h e facility. By removing some of t h e less binding constraints , and by assuming a rise in energy prices of t w o per c e n t per year, t h e n e t present value of t h e faci l i ty comes t o $441,000. This amount is not an ex t reme; there a r e still constraints and assumptions t h a t could realistically be modified t o result in higher n e t present value. Nominal parameter values a r e given in Table 2. All dollar amounts in this t a b l e a r e in rea l t e r m s or constant dollars.

Table 2. NOMINAL PARAMETER VALUES

Variable Value (in rea l t e r m s or cons tan t dollars)

Initial cap i ta l expense

General obligation bond r a t e

Weighted average cost of displaced energy

Pr ice paid for energy Slightly lower than cost of displaced energy

Growth of price of energy Average just under zero over 30 years

Operat ing and Maintenance Cost $170/mo = $2,04O/year

Annual generat ion 2,622,000 kwh

Social discount r a t e 5.5%

V. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of this proposed project shows t h e hydroelectr ic generat ing facility t o be technically, environ- mentally, and economically feasible. On t h e other hand, t h e r e a r e inst i tut ional constraints t h a t bear heavily on t h e economic value of t h e proposed facility. The mission of t h e Depar tment of Natural Resources appears to confl ict with t h e economically e f f ic ien t operat ion of t h e generators . As of this writing, t h e DNR is taking under consideration t h e trade-offs between park operation and fishery management constraints and projected s t a t e income f rom t h e facility.

This paper was authored hy George Fletcher, Rob Harvey, Edward Jacobson, and M. John Moskaluk, with assistance and input from Jim Austin, Don Batt les , J im Marks, Gary Poole, and S teve Schmidt.

Figure 1. Artist's Rendering of Hydroelectric Facility and the Surrounding, Area;

Figure 2. Sectional View of Hydroelectr.icFacility.,

JACKSON BLUFF DAM ON THE OCHLOCKONEE RIVER

Ta l l ahas see , F l o r i d a

C i ty of Ta l l ahas see R. W. Beck and Assoc ia t e s .

PRDA Proposal Contrac t No. EW-784-07-1763

LNTRODUCTION

In response t o a Program and Research Development Announcement by t h e Department of Energy (DOE), t h e C i t y of Tal lahassee , F l o r i d a (Ci ty) submitted a proposal da ted February 13 , 1978, t o s tudy the f e a s i b i l i t y of r e - i n s t a l l i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c gene ra t ing l a c l l i t i e s a t t h e e x i s t i n g Jackson Bluff D a m w i th f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from t h e DOE.

The C i t y ' s proposal was approved by t h e DOE and t h e g r a n t was awarded t o t h e C i t y wi th t he f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy work t o be performed pursuant t o t h e agreement between t h e C i t y and t h e DOE.

' .. The s t u d i e s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s undertaken i n con junc t ion wi th t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y assessment have included :?-

s i t e reconnaissance , system loads , growth r a t e , s i t e hydrology, conceptual p r o j e c t arrangements and layouts , power ou tpu t , e s t i m a t e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ' c o s t s and annual c o s t s , economic ana lyses , development of a design and cons t ruc t ion schedule and a pre l iminary environmental review of t h e proposed P r o j e c t .

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

I n January 1927, t h e Federql Power Commission i s sued a License @PC P ~ o j e c t No. 682) t o t h e Cen t r a l F lo r ida Power and Light Company f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of a h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y a t Jackson Bluff on t h e Ochlock- onee River , near t h e C i t y of Bloxham, F lo r ida , about 20 mi l e s west-southwest of Tal lahassee a s shown on Exhibi t A. The Ochlockonee River has a d ra inage a r e a o f 1,720 square mi l e s above t h e dam s i t e and has an average annual f low of 1 ,692 c f s f o r t h e per iod of water yea r 1927 through 1975. The P ro j ec t was const ructed i n 1928 and 1929 and c o n s i s t s of a powerhouse o n t h e sou th s i d e of t h e r i v e r ad jo in ing a l imestone b l u f f , a ga ted conc re t e sp i l lway occupying t h e main p a r t of t h e r i ve rbed , an e a r t h dam extending n o r t h e r l y from t h e spi l lway a c r o s s t h e f l o o d p l a i n t o t h e low l y i n g h i l l s beyond and a low sadd le dam which l i e s nor th of t h e n o r t h end of t h e main dam.

The main dam has a l e n g t h o f 3,600 f e e t and a c r e s t a t El 77. The s a d d l e dam i s approximately 550 f e e t long, l oca t ed about 1 ,000 f e e t n o r t h of t h e main dam, wi th a c r e s t e l e v a t i o n 4.7 f e e t below t h a t of the main dam (El 72.3). The s e r v i c e sp i l lway has a n ogee-shaped c r e s t and seven r a d i a l ga t e s . The c r e s t e l eva t ion of t h e sp i l lway i s E l 52.0 and t h e t o p o f t h e g a t e s a r e l oca t ed a t El 69.

The P r o j e c t was opera ted a s a hydropower p l a n t by t h e Cen t r a l F l o r i d a Power and L igh t Company, and its successor , t h e F l o r i d a Power Corpora t ion , u n t i l 1970. Not ice f o r Surrender of License by t h e F lo r ida Power Corpora t ion was received by t h e Fede ra l Power Commission on November 4, 1969 when t h e former Licensee donated t h e r e s e r v o i r and 30,060 a c r e s of l a n d t o t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a f o r u se a s a p u b l i c park. A t the time of t h i s t r a n s f e r o f r i g h t s , a l l t u rbogene ra to r s were removed by t h e former Licensee. The c u r r e n t r i g h t of ownership i s he ld by t h e S t a t e o f F lo r ida , Departurent of Natura l Resources.

PROPOSED PROJECT ARRANGWENT

The Jackson Bluff Hydroe lec t r i c P r o j e c t would c o n s i s t of t h e r e i n s t a l l a t i o n of power genera t ing equipment a t t h e Jackson Bluff powerhouse, a d d i t i o n of e l e c t r i c a l l y d r iven h o i s t s f o r f i v e sp i l lway g a t e s and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a fuse-plug type a u x i l i a r y spi l lway.

The new power gene ra t ing equipment would be comprised of t h r e e turbine-genera tor u n i t s along with accessory t ransformers , swi tching gea r and o t h e r mechanical and e l e c t r i c a l equipment a s shown on Exhibi t B. It is c u r r e n t l y proposed t o r e i n s t a l l f i xed b l ade p r o p e l l e r t u rb ines s i m i l a r t o those removed i n 1970, thus e l imina t ing t h e need f o r any mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse s u b s t r u c t u r e o r supe r s t ruc tu re . The P ro j ec t would have an i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of 8,800 kW, c o n s i s t i n g of two 3,200-kW u n i t s and one 2,400-kW u n i t , t h e same s i z e a s i n s t a l l e d previous ly , ope ra t ing under a n e t head of 32 f e e t . The dependable capaci ty from t h e P r o j e c t de l ive red a t t h e C i t y ' s load c e n t e r would be 6,659 kW. The average annual energy is 2&,92@,000 kwh o f which 6,753,000 kWh i s considered f i r m (prime), de l ive red a t t h e load cen te r .

At t h e p re sen t t ime t h e 7 r a d i a l g a t e s a t t h e s e r v i c e sp i l lway a r e opera ted mechanically from 2 hois t - ing g a n t r i e s which a r e moved manually from g a t e t o g a t e o n t h e sp i l lway ope ra t ing deck. These two e x i s t i n g g a n t r i e s would be permansntly i n s t a l l e d over two g a t e s and 5 new motorized g a t e h o i s t s would be i n s t a l l e d over t h e remaining 5 g a t e s . The new h o i s t s would r e q u i r e e r e c t i o n of a s t r u c t u r e suppor t ing frame fo r each.

A permanent conc re t e c o n t r o l s i l l would be cons t ruc t ed on a 1,000-foot long e a r t h overpour sec t ion . This overpour s e c t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being considered f o r cons t ruc t ion by t h e S t a t e of F lo r ida a s a dam- s a f e t y r e l a t e d i t em a s d iscussed below. The saddle dam would be replaced by a 550-foot long e rod ib l e fu se plug embankment s e c t i o n . The c r e s t e l e v a t i o n f o r t h e overpour s e c t i o n c o n t r o l s i l l would be 72.3 f e e t , The c r e s t a t t h e t o p of t h e f u s e p lug would a l s o b e 72.3 f e e t w i th t h e f u s e p lug s i l l e l e v a t i o n at 66.5 f e e t . The width of t h e f u s e p lug c r e s t would be 1 5 f e e t w i th s i d e s l o p e s o f 2 t o 1.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above P r o j e c t - r e l a t e d i t ems , t h e S t a t e of F l o r i d a is c u r r e n t l y consider ing const ruct - ing c e r t a i n s a fe ty - r e l a t ed measures f o r Jackson Bluff Dam inc lud ing r e p a i r s t o , o r replacement o f , a down- s t ream w a l l on t h e no r th s i d e of t h e sp i l lway ; a d d i t i o n o f a three-foot high r e t a i n i n g wal l on the south s i d e o f t h e powerhouse; improvements t o t h e approach w a l l cond i t i ons a t t h e no r th end of t h e spi l lway, and t h e excavat ion of a n e a r t h overpour emergency ( a u x i l i a r y ) sp i l lway i n t h e s add le dam a rea .

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS . It i s es t imated t h a t t h e Jackson Bluff Hydroe lec t r i c P r o j e c t , f o r an October 1983 scheduled on-line

d a t e , would have a t o t a l investment c o s t of $9,882,000 (equal t o $1,123/kW i n s t a l l e d a t t h e time frame) not i nc lud ing t h e S t a t e s a f e t y r e l a t e d measures which have been e s t ima ted on a broad b a s i s t o c o s t $552,000 a t c u r r e n t p r i c c l c v c l s .

The es t imated t o t a l annual c o s t o f t h e P r o j e c t f o r t h e f i r s t year o f ope ra t ion i s $1,155,000, based on 30-year, 6.5% f inancing. An economic a n a l y s i s of t h e P r o j e c t shows a benef i t -cos t r a t i o of 1.27 during the f i r s t yea r of o p e r a t i o n when compared t o , t h e most economic a l t e r n a t i v e of an equ iva l en t new simple-cycle combustion t u r b i n e u n i t (dependable c a p a c i t y and f i r m energy) , combined wi th f u e l replacement of e x i s t l n g o l d e r o i l -burning steam u n i t s (secondary energy). Th i s economic a n a l y s i s f o r t h e f i r s t year of ope ra t ion is shown i n Table A. A comparison of t h e P r o j e c t t o t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e over t h e f i r s t t e n yea r s of P r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n shows a t o t a l ten-year p re sen t worth s av ings (October 1983 l e v e l ) of $4,486,000. This savings and t h e bene f i t - cos t r a t i o a r e reduced r e s p e c t i v e l y t o $4,160,000 and 1.23 i f t h e c o s t s of t h e s a fe ty - r e l a t ed remedia l measures now being considered by t h e S t a t e a r e reimbursed a s p a r t of t h e c o s t of t h e P r o j e c t ,

CONCLUSION

The P r o j e c t poses no unusual t e c h n i c a l problems and no s i g n i f i c a n t adve r se environmental e f f e c t s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d . It shows s u f f i c i e n t promise o f t echn ica l , economlc and f i n a n c i a l f e a s i b i l i t y t o j u s t i f y the C i i y e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e nex t phase of work, t h e FERC License Application, , a s soon a s p o s s i b l e so t h a t t h e P r a j e c t can be completed w i t h i n t h e proposed time frame., Concurrent ly w i th t h i s , t h e C i ty should i n i t i a t e e f f o r t s t o a r r ange f inanc ing f o r t h e P r o j e c t inc luding making a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e DOE f o r a demonstration p r o j e c t g ran t under t h e second PON, responses t o which w i l l b e s o l i c i t e d s h o r t l y .

TABLE A JACKSON BLUFF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ANNUAL PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS (1) '

With Reimbursement of S a f e t y - R e l a t e d ICems

C u r r e n t l y Being Cons ide r ed I t em by S t a t e

PROJECT ANNUAL COSTS:

T o t a l A m o r t i z a t i o n Cos t ........... $ 786,000 ' $ 830,000 O p e r a t i n g C o s t s ................... 370,000 370,000

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ............... $1,156 ,000 $1,200,000

PROJECT ANNUAL BENEFITS:

C a p a c i t y Value ( 2 ) ................ $ 331,000 $ 331,000 F i rm Ene rgy Va lue ( 3 ) ............. 423,000 423,000 Seconda ry Ene rgy Va lue ( 4 ) ........ 716,000 716,000

TOTAL PROJECT BENEFITS .,.......... $1,4 70,000 $1,470,000

BENEFIT-COST RATIO ..................... 1 .27 1 .23

( 1 ) - V a l u e s shown a r e f o r t h e f i r s t y e a r o f o p e r a t i o n , Oc tobe r 1983 t h r o u g h September 1984 .

( 2 ) - 6,326 kW (6 ,900 kW l e s s 3 .5% f o r t r a n s m i s s i o n l o s s e s and 5% Forced Outage R e s e r v e s ) a t $52.30/kW.

(3 ) - 6,753 ,000 kwh (6 ,998 ,000 kwh l e s s 3.5% f o r t r a n s m i s s i o n l o s s e s ) a t 62.7 mil ls /kWh.

( 4 ) - 18,167 ,000 kwh (18 ,826 ,000 kwh l e s s 3.5% f o r t r a n s m i s s i o n l o s s e s ) a t 39.4 mil ls /kWh.

River

Gulf

of Mexico

\

. I ,,*-- KEY MAP VICINITY MAP

EXHIB IT A: PROJECT LOCATION . . .

LEGEND:

m. dulpmnt

. . -. - ,. .. . - -

.. .

L A

PLAN

SECTION A-A

R W. BECK mrd ASSOCIATES fN61NfIU AND CONSULTANTI

S.ml0. Wahiqmn D."rr. Cob.O

bml*: 1- Bulm, m XMLI(Dn SSIOL

c r r y OF TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA

JACKSON BLUFF IWOROELECTRK: PROJECT

PROJECT MAJOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

DATE:

w.e.19m1 EXHIBIT B

NORMANSKILL HYDROELECTRIC F A C I L I T Y

GUILDERLAND, N. Y .

N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. a n d C i t y o f W a t e r v l i e t , N. Y . J . K e n n e t h F r a s e r a n d A s s o c i a t e s , P. C .

PRDA P r o p o s a l C o n t r a c t No. 1 7 6 5

I. INTRODUCTION

The N o r m a n s k i l l H y d r o e l e c t r i c F e a s i b i l i t y A s s e s s m e n t h a s b e e n a m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n p o t e n t i a l a t t h e . s i t e a n d t h e a s s o c i a t e d e c o n o m i c r e c r e a t i o n a l , e n v i r o n m e n t a l , h i s t o r i c a l , r e g u l a t o r y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s .

The s i t e i s a w a t e r s u p p l y r e s e r v o i r w i t h l i m i t e d r e c r e a t i o n a l a c c e s s . A h o l l o w r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e dam i m p o u n d s 1 . 6 b i l l i o n g a l l o n s . G r o s s head o f t h e s e l e c t e d p r o j e c t i s 6 4 . 4 f e e t w i t h a d e s i g n f l o w o f 2 0 0 c u b i c f e e t p e r s e c o n d . An e x i s t i n g p u m p i n g s t a t i o n s e r v e d b y a 48 i n c h s t e e l p e n s t o c k h o u s e s t w o S. Morgan S m i t h h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e s r a t e d a t 1 1 0 H.P. e a c h . T h e s e t u r b i n e s , o f 1 9 1 6 v i n t a g e , p o w e r c e n t r i f u g a l pumps s u p p l y i n g w a t e r t o t h e C i t y o f W a t e r v l i e t some 2 0 m i l e s d i s t a n t .

1 1 . ASSESSMENT

The h y d r o l o g i c a n a l y s i s h a s u s e d a s t o c h a s t i c s t r e a m f l o w mode l e x t e n d i n g t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a b a s e a n d c r e a t i n g a 500 y e a r s t r e a m f l o w t r a c e . The r e s e r v o i r o p e r a t i o n has b e e n e x t e n s i v e l y s i m u l a t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i m p a c t s o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n u p o n w a t e r s u p p l y a n d r e c r e a t i o n .

A m a r k e t s u r v e y p e r f o r m e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o s t f q a s i b l e c o n s u m e r o f p o w e r g e n e r a t e d w i l l b e t h e C i t y o f W a t e r v l i e t i t s e l f , u s i n g t h e p o w e r f o r s t r e e t l i g h t i n g a n d m u n i c i p a l b u i l d i n g s . E x c e s s power w i l l b e s o l d t o t h e N i a g a r a Mohawk Power C o r p o r a t i o n .

D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f o p t i m u m c o n f i g u r a t i o n has i n v o l v e d d e t a i l e d t e c h n i c a l a n a l y s i s o f e i g h t s i t i n g o p t i o n s . F u r t h e r d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s e o p t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o i n t a k e t y p e , p e n s t o c k s i z e , m a c h i n e t y p e , m a c h i n e s i z e , a n d s w i t c h g e a r r e s u l t e d i n a n a l y s i s o f a t o t a l o f 78 d i s t i n c t a l t e r n a t e s . O f t h e e c o n o m i c a l l y r a n k e d a l t e r n a t e s , t w o w e r e c h o s e n f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t , P r o j e c t A, r e p r e s e n t s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s ( p e n - s t o c k , p o w e r h o u s e , e t c . ) t o t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e . The s e c o n d , P r o j e c t 6 , r e p r e s e n t s new c o n s t r u c t i o n u t i l i z i n g o n l y t h e dam a n d s u r g e p i p e , b u t d e v e l o p i n g t h e p o w e r p o t e n t i a l o f t h e s i t e t o a g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n P r o j e c t A.

A l l f a c e t s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s w e r e r e v i e w e d i n c l u d i n g p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f d rawdown on w i l d l i f e a n d v e g e t a t i o n a n d r e o x y g e n i z a t i o n e f f e c t s u p o n s t r e a m f l o w q u a l i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , a c u l t u r a l a s s e s s m e n t was p e r f o r m e d i n c l u d i n g p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s u p o n e x i s t i n g r e c r e a t i o n p a t t e r n s a n d known a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t are,a.

T h e p e r t i n e n t r e v i e w a g e n c i e s a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s h o r t - f o r m l i c e n s i n g w e r e d e t e r ~ r l i r ~ e d a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e F e d e r a l E n e r g y R e g u l a t o r y C o m m i s s i o n . A l l a g e n c i e s r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t h a v e b e e n c o n t a c t e d a n d a p p l i c a b l e r e v i e w d u r a t i o n s a n d a g e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n d e t e r m i n e d . The e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e l e c t e d p r o j e c t s has i n c l u d e d d e t a i l e d p r o j e c t i o n s f o r a l l e c o n o m i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g c a p i t a l c o s t , 1 i f e c y c l e l a b o r . o p e r a t i n g , m a i n t e n a n c e ,and r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s , While b o t h p r o j e c t s a r e ~ h n w n to be e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e , p o s s i b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h l i c e n s i n g o f t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o j e c t has e l i m i n a t e d i t f r o m r e c o m m e n d a t i o n .

An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o a p p r o p r i a t e m e c h a n i s m s f o r i m p l e m e n - t a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h c m o s t f e a s i b l e b e i n g c i t y o w n e r s h i p a n d b o n d i n g a s a w a t e r s u p p l y p r o j e c t . A p r e l i m i n a r y PERT a n a l y s i s h a s i n d i c a t e d a n e a r l i e s t o n - l i n e d a t e o f M a r c h 1 9 8 2 .

111. CONCLUSIONS

The f e a s i b l e p r o j e c t i n v o l v e s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a new i n t a k e a t t h e e x i s t i n g r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e dam, i n s t a l l a t i o n o f s t e e l p e n s t o c k b e n e a t h t h e e x i s t i n g r o c k s t r e a m b e d , t e r m i n a t i n g a t a b e l o w - s t r e a m b e d p o w e r h o u s e . S e l e c t e d m a c h i n e r y i n c l u d e s a h o r i z o n t a l t u b u l a r t y p e a x i a l f l o w a d j u s t a b l e b l a d e t u r b i n e a n d a 2400 v o l t s y n c h r o n o u s g e n e r a t o r . A n c i l l a r y e q u i p m e n t i n c l u d e s a u t o m a t e d c o n t r o l e q u i p m e n t . The f a c i l i t y w i l l h a v e a peak g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y o f 8 5 0 k i l o w a t t s . The a v e r a g e a n n u a l p o w e r p r o d u c e d b y t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l b e 70% o f t h e p o t e n t i a l power a v a i l a b l e a t t h e s i t e . The recommended p r o j e c t has a b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o o f 2 .36 a n d a r a t e o f r e t u r n o f 1 6 . 2 % . The n e t p r e s e n t w o r t h b e n e f i t t o t h e c i t y ( 5 0 y e a r s - - 8 % ) i s $3,300,000.

PENINSULAR PAPER COMPANY DAM ON THE W O N RIVER

Ypsilanti, MI

Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. Principal Investigator: Donald W. Lystra, P.E.

PRDA Proposal Contract No. EW-78-F-07- I766

I. INTRODUCTION

The Peninsular Paper Company dam is located on the Huron River in Ypsilanti, Michigan,.approximately twenty-five miles east of Detroit. The facility includes an abandoned hydroelectric powerhouse, a 240-foot wide weir dam and a 12-foot wide radial gate for the release of high flows. The average hydraulic head at the site is 13.0 feet.

Power was produced at the site beginning in the nineteenth century, however, the present powerhouse dates from 1918. It was originally equipped with two vertical Francis turbines directly connected to 4600-volt slow-speed generators, rated 450 and 550 kilowatts full load. Annual production from the plant averaged about 2.6 million kilowatt-hours, ranging from a high of 3.7 million kilowatt-hours to a low of 1.3 million kilowatt-hours.

1 - 8 * , - * .

Upstream View of ~eninbular Paper Company Dam Site

In 1971 electrical failures in the generators prompted the paper company to retire the plant. The power purchase agreement with the utility at that time was providing only about $13,000 annual gross revenue. In retiring the plant, the paper company removed and scrapped the generators and all related electrical equipment. In order to prevent the passage of water through the structure and to avoid a public hazard, the turbine pits were filled in with earth. It is not known at this time whether the turbines themselves were removed from the wheel pits.

11. HYDROLOGY

Based on extrapolated data from a U.S.G.S. permanent gaging station approximately seven mites upstream of the Peninsular Paper Company dam, hydrological parameters at the site are estimated os follows:

mean discharge 498 cfs mean annual flood peak 2441 cfs mean annual 30-day low flow 264 cfs

The flow-duration characteristics of the site are typical of those for sites in the midwestern United States. Average discharge during the wettest month of the year averages about five times that occurring during the driest month.

The hydroelectric powerhouse is located directly across the river from the paper company's production facility. This close proximity makes a direct service connection possible, allowing the hydro plant to directly offset electric energy that would otherwise be purchased through the normal utility service.

Based on a comparison of the paper company's daily and monthly electric consumption pattern and the projected production from various sized hydroelectric facilities, it is estimated that virtually 100 percent of the hydro plant output could be consumed directly by the paper mill, for any hydro plant having an installed capacity of 700 kilowatts or less.

Presently, the paper company receives electricity under a primary rate agreement with the local utility, the Detroit Edison Company. Under the terms of this agreement energy charges (inchding current fuel adjustment) are 2-3C per kwh on- peak and 1.7C per kwh off-pedr, monthly on-peak demand changes are $5.80 per kW, and maximum demand charges are $1.50 per kW per month. Customers receiving primary service from Detroit Edisun Campuny are permitted to receive power from an alterndte mil independent source of energy subject to a monthly surcharge of $1.75 per kilowatt of alternate capacity.

IV. DESIGN STRATEGY

An analysis of site hydrology estaM'ished that the storage capacity in the upstream impoundment (445 acre-feet) was not sufficient to gumantee a firm h a n d T i t y without experiencing unacceptable variations in lake level during draught conditions. It wm determined, for example, that a differential of only 100 cfs between natural runoff and dam discharge would, over 24 hours, cause a 34-inch change in headwater level. It was possible, however, to establish a limited amount of reliable monthly demand capacity based on natural stream flow.

The hPelled gener&tng a~paoily of the faciUty in x e t a t h to stream fJow characterristics WQS f m d to b e an important influence on project cost-effectiveness. The benefits from increased copacity were found to diminish rapidly above a given point due to the flow-duration characteristics in the river. The table below shows the relatianship between installed copacity and effective capacity G.a, average utilized capacity) at the Peninsular Paper Company dam site. It can be seen that the proportional increment in effective capacity decreases with each increment in plant size.

installed Capacity UtW3 100 300 500 700 900 Effective Capocity ( k W 96 228 287 326 35 1 l n c r m n t (kW) 96 132 59 39 25 Utilization 96% 66% 30% 2Q% 13%

V. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDIED

A total of six project alternatives were examined in detail. The alternatives were distinguished by the type, number and size of hydraulic turbine unib mpPoy& as fellows:

Turbine TVpe

Vertical Vertical Bulb Cross-f low Cross-f low Tubular

Number of Units - Output Per

Unit - Total Installed

Capacity

The vertical turbine designs were based on the re-use of the existing powerhouse; all other designs assumed the construction of a completely new and structurally independent powerhouse. All designs, except that employing the bulb turbines, were based on units having variable gates or blades to allow the output to be e t ched with stream flow. The bulb turbine design, on the recommendation of the manufacturer, was based on units having fixed btades and a single operating point. All designs were based on the use of synchronous generators, ~onnected thrculgh speed increasers t o the low-speed turbines.

Table I below presents a cost summary of the six design alternatives studied.

TABLE I

COST SUMMARY OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR DEVELOPING THE PENINSULAR PAPER COMPANY

DAM SITE FOR H.YDROELECTRlC GENERATION

One 340 kW Two 340 kW Two 126 kW One 195 kW Two 195 kW One 400 kW Vertical Vertical Bulb Cross-f low Cross-f low Tubulor Turbine Turbines Turbines Turbine Turbines Turbine

Total Project Cost $452,000 $708,000 $809,000 $493,000 $756,000 $795,000 Total Equipment Cost 205,000 380,000 396,000 300,000 489,000 432,000 Civil/Structural Cost 110,000 110,000 1136,000 76,000 96,000 116,000 Project CostIkW 1,329 1,041 3,210 2,528 1,938 1 ,988 Equipment CostIkW 603 559 1,571 1,538 1,254 1 ,080 CIS CostIkW 324 162 540 390 246 290

VI. PROJECT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Table 2 below presents a benefitlcost summary of the six project alternatives. After taking account of projected expenses for operation and maintenance, benefitlcost ratios were calculated ranging from 9.6% for the single vertical turbine alternative t o 3.8% for the dual bulb turbine alternative.

TABLE 2

BENEFITICOST SUMMARY OF VARIOUS HYDROELECTRIC PLANT DESIGNS AT PENINSULAR PAPER COMPANY DAM

TYPE OF TURBINE Vertical Bulb Cross-f low

C 0 .- (340 kW) (126 kW) (193 kW)

n Project Cost $452,000 $493,000 c Projected Annual Revenue 58,900 40,100 5 Projected Annual O&M Expense 15,600 18,100 a, Projected Net Revenue r 43,300

22,000 6 Benefi t/Cost 9.6% 4.5%

0

Project Cost $708,000 $809,000 $756,000 + Projected Annual Revenue 71,900 51,600 63,900 'E Projected Annual O&M Expense 19,900 20,900 22,900 2 Projected Net Revenue 52,000 30,700 41,000 3 BenefitICost .I 7.3% 3.8% 5.4% I-

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

A detailed environmental impact assessment was conducted using an impact matrix methodology of "non- development" and "development" alternatives. The environmental assessment concluded that the development of the facil ity would have very slight environmental consequences due to the small scale of the facil ity and the fact that a "run- of-the river" operating strategy would be followed. The main consequence which was identified was the enhancement of public safety due t o the structural repairs to the dam and the projected high level of future dam maintenance. The vertical turbine design alternatives, which would involve the refurbishment of the existing powerhouse, would have additional positive consequences relating to site aesthetics, and the preservation of an historically significant structure.

Tubular (400 kW)

VIII. RECOMMENDED DESIGN

I f the Peninsular Paper Company dam-site isdeveloped as a hydroelectric resource it is recommended that the design incorporate the feotures of the alternative showing greatest cost-effectiveness, as follows:

- type of hydraulic turbines: vertical - number of generating units: one - size of generating units: approximately 340 kW output full load - type of generators: synchronous - generator speed: either low speed or standard speed through a gear drive - method of installotion: in existing powerhouse - use of power: feeding owner's production facility, in parallel with normal ut i l i ty service.

The following table gives a summary of project costs and operating characteristics of the recommended design.

Estimated Project Cost $452,000 Installed Capacity (kW) 340 - Effective Average Capacity (kW) 234 Utilization Factor ' 68% Cost/lnstalled kW $ 1,329 Projected Annual Production (MkWhr) 2.1 Average Monthly Demand Capacity (kW ) 293 Projected Annual O&M Expense $ 15,600 O&M Cost/kWhr Produced 0.74c

The following figures give.0 projected financial summary of the recommended project, on a cash basis, for the first year of operation.

Revenues

Energy Monthly On-pcak Demand Majtimum Demand Stand-by Surcharge

Expenses

Operating Labor $ 7,300 Maintenance Insl.~ronce Interest on Construction.Loan (10%)

$ ;;;:: $45,200

Net Profit (Loss)

No property tax expense was included based on conversations with State and local. government officials and the expectation that the project would qualify for a property tax exemption under the Michigan Industrial Redevelopment Act.

IX. CONCLUSION - The development of the Peninsular Paper Company low-head dam site as a hydroeleciric facility was determined by

this study to be a feasible project in terms of engineering, environmental, and institutional factors. From an economic standpoint, however, i t was determined to be non-cost-effective in terms of the economic factors pertinent to the owner, a private industrial concern. Conceivably, a combination of tax credits, low interest loans, and/or construction grants reducing costs and expenses by approximately 25 percent would place this project within a financially feasible range.

WOODRUFF NARROWS DAM ON THE BEAR RIVER

Uinta County, Wyoming

Utah Board of Water Resources Utah Divis ion of Water Resources, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Engineering Co. Inc . , & Utah Water Research Laboratory

Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-78ID01767

I. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The Utah Water and Power Board was c r ea t ed by t h e Utah L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1947 and charged wi th t h e respon- s i b i l i t y of prepar ing and implementing p l ans which would b r ing about t he f u l l development and u t i l i z a t i o n and promotion of t h e very v i t a l , bu t l i m i t e d , water resources of t h e S t a t e . The Board was charged wi th t h e review and coordinat ion of f e d e r a l l y funded water programs, and i n a d d i t i o n was given a Revolving Const ruct ion Fund f o r t h e development uE water ULI a s111all p r o j e c t b a s i s .

I n 1967, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e changed t h e Board's name t o t h e Board of Water Resources, r e t a i n i n g a l l of t h e ass igned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and named t h e Board's fu l l - t ime s t a f f t h e Divis ion of Water Resources and placed i t wi th in a newly c rea t ed Utah S t a t e Department of Natura l Resources. S ince then, a s t h e need has grown and a s t h e e f f i c i e n t u se of water has become more c r i t i c a l , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s have added new r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The l a t e s t was by t h e 1978 L e g i s l a t u r e which c rea t ed t h e "Water Conservation and Development Fund" a t an i n i t i a l funding of $25 m i l l i o n and charged t h e Board and Divis ion t o develop l a r g e r water s t o r a g e p r o j e c t s , i nc lud ing t h e cons t ruc t ion of h y d r o e l e c t r i c gene ra t ing p l a n t s . It is under t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e Utah Divis ion of Water Resources i n i t i a t e d t h i s s tudy t o a s s e s s t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of h y d r o e l e c t r i c power development a t t h e e x i s t i n g Woodruff Narrows Dam and Reservoir . .The r e s u l t s of t h i s s tudy w i l l a l s o ' provide some i n s i g h t f o r p o t e n t i a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c power development a t o t h e r e x i s t i n g and planned dam s i t e s i n t h e S t a t e of Utah.

To a s s i s t i n t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy of h y d r o e l e c t r i c power gene ra t ion a t t h e Woodruff Narrows s i t e , t h e ~ t a h ' Divis ion of Water Resources, wi th t h e coopera t ion of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Engineering Company of San Francisco and Utah Water Research Laboratory a t Utah S t a t e Un ive r s i t y , responded t o a U.S. Department of Energy Program Research and Development Announcement number ET-78-D-07-1706 which r e s u l t e d i n Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC07-78ID01767 Woodruff Narrows Power P l a n t .

11. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A. LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING. Woodruff Narrows Dam and Reservoir is loca t ed on t h e Bear River i n Uinta County, Wyoming, near t h e Utah-Wyoming s t a t e l i n e approximately 20 mi l e s no r th of Evanston, Wyoming.

The Bear River i s an i n t e r s t a t e stream which d r a i n s an a r e a of 4,776,000 a c r e s i n t h e s t a t e s of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. I t s headwaters a r e but 90 mi l e s from i ts mouth, y e t i t meanders 500 mi l e s i n a c i r c u i t o u s course i n reaching Great S a l t Lake. I n i t s t r a v e l s i t makes f i v e s t a t e l i n e c ros s ings i n t h r e e s t a t e s . The Bear River i s t h e l a r g e s t t r i b u t a r y t o t he Great S a l t Lake and t h e l a r g e s t s t ream i n t h e North American Continent t h a t does no t reach t h e ocean. The mean annual inf low t o t h e Great S a l t Lake from t h e Bear River is approximately 1,000,000 ac re - f ee t . The mean annual streamflow of t h e Bear River a t Woodruff Narrows Reservoir i s approximately 150,000 ac re - f ee t .

Approximately 500 i r r i g a t i o n o rgan iza t ions own and ope ra t e s e p a r a t e i r r i g a t i o n systems i n t h e Basin, supplying i r r i g a t i o n water f o r ha l f a m i l l i o n a c r e s of land. There a r e p re sen t ly 5 h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s on t h e Bear River system wi th a t o t a l gene ra t ing capac i ty of 125.5 MW owned and opera ted by Utah Power and Light Company. The p l a n t s and genera t ing capac i ty a r e a s fo l lows: Soda - 14 MW, Grace - 44 MW, Cove - 7.5 MW, Oneida - 30 MW, and Cu l t e r - 30 MW. Municipal and i n d u s t r i a l withdrawals f o r a popula t ion of 100,000 (1970 census) a r e a l s o made i n t h e Basin. The Nat ional Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge i s l oca t ed a t t h e mouth of t h e Bear River .

B. PRESENT CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES. Woodruff Narrows Dam is a homogeneous compacted e a r t h f i l l dam. The dam is 58 f e e t i n he igh t above t h e s t ream bed. The hydrau l i c head from t h e spi l lway c r e s t t o normal t a i l w a t e r l e v e l is 32 f e e t . The dam has a c r e s t l eng th of 600 f e e t and a c r e s t width of 20 f e e t w i th a f r o n t s i d e s l o p e of 2-1/2:1 and backside s l o p e of 2 : l . The dam embankment is i n good condi t ion . The spil1.way was r n n s t r ~ ~ c t e d hy excavat ing through a rock abutment. The spi l lway was l i n e d only a t t h e upper end near t h e overflow c r e s t . The unlined po r t ion of t he sp i l lway has had some e ros ion from use over t h e

years. The spillway is in fair condition, but will need to be lined or replaced sometime in the future, possibly in the next 5 to 10 years.

The outlet works consists of an intake structure and two rectangular reinforced concrete conduits. The intake structure was repaired in November 1977, which included replacing the existing trash racks and providing additional air vents to the intake gates from the gate house at the top of the dam. This was done to alleviate a cavitation problem under the intake gate thimble. The outlet conduits are showing some signs of deterioration and will need to be repaired or replaced in the future.

C. HISTORY AND USE. The Woodruff Narrows Dam and Reservoir was constructed in 1961 by the Utah Board of Water Resources to provide supplemental irrigation water for approximately 36,000 acres of meadow hay in the Upper Bear River Valley primarily in Rich County, Utah. The total storage capacity of the reservoir is 28,000 acre-feet, of which 22,500 acre-feet is used for irrigation, 4,000 acre-feet is used for fish conservation for maintaining a minimum flow release from the reservoir of 10 cfs to the main stem of the Bear River during the nonirrigation season, and 1,500 acre-feet is used for ldead storage for fish conservation in the reservoir. Recreation facilities at the reservoir include a parking lot, rest rooms, and a boat ramp. The principal recreation uses are fishing and duck and goose hunting.

Of the 22,500 acre-feet of storage for irrigation, 18,240 acre-feet is generally used as active storage each year, and 4,260 acre-feet is reserved for hold-over storage for use in drought years. The irrigation season generally begins about the first of May. Flows below the reservoir from spills and/or releases ranging from 500 cfs to 700 cfs are required to maintain the irrigation canals to their capacity depending upon tributary inflow and irrigation return flows. Irrigation of the meadow hay generally continues until . approximately the 10th of July, when the flow from the reservoir is reduced to approximately 30 cfs for stockwatering and fishery purposes. The reservoir releases remain low until approximately the 20th of August when releases of 600 to 700 cfs are made from 5 to 10 days to provide for an additional irrigation on the meadow hay and pasture to increase production for fall .grazing. If sufficient water is not remaining in the reservoir above the hold-over storage for at least 5 days of irrigation, no late season releases are made. The late season water is available only about 50 percent of the time. The hold-over storage is generally not used for late season irrigation but is saved for low water years for use in June or early July.

The Division of Water Resources has designed an enlargement of the present dam and reservoir to increase the storage capacity from 28,000 acre-feet'to 53,200 acre-feet. Application has been made to the Wyoming State Engineer for a construction permit to enlarge the reservoir. Acquisition of reservoir right-of-way for the proposed enlargement is approximate1.y 90 percent completed. The 25,000 acre-feet of new storage will be used for supplemental irrigation of land in Rich County, Utah. Construction of this project is scheduled to begin as soon as water rights problems associated with the Bear River Compact can be resolved among t h e states of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

111. HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL

A. POWER AND ENERGY. The purpose of this study is to determine if it is feasible to add hydropower facilities when the reservoir is repaired and enlarged. An alternative dam site a short distance downstream from the present dam (lower site) utilizing the same reservoir basin would yield a higher power head. Run- of-river hydropower alternatives were considered at both the present dam (upper site) and the lower site as well as a pumped storage alternative using the lower site as a holding pond.

The srreamflow released from the reservoir during the fall and winter months of September through March generally ranges between 10 to 60 cfs. During this period, the reservoir level is generally low resulting in very little potential for power development. During the spring and summer mdnths of April through August, the flow generally ranges between 300 and 1,000 cfs.

A computer simulation model based on mean monthly values, utilizing 26 years of recorded streamflow into the reservoir, was used to determine the mean annual energy potential for the following configurations: (1) present dam, (2) the proposed enlarged dam (alternative I), (3) a new dam at the lower site with a maximum head of 65 feet which has approximately the same storage as the proposed enlarged dam (alternative 2), and (4) a new dam at the lower site which would store water to the.same elevation as the proposed enlarged dam (alternative 3). Results of the simulation study show that the average annual energy potential of the above four configurations are respectively 3.4, 5.0, 7.1, and 8.3 gigawatt hours. The corresponding maximum power capacities are respectively 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, and 4.5 megawatts. The average annual energy production for the pumped storage alternative is 7.6 GWH with a pumping requirement of 5.6 i;WH resulting in a net average annual energy production of 2.0 GhW. The maximum power capacity for the pumped storage alternative is 3.0 megawatts.

B. TURBINE AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY. For alternative 1, with a maximum net head of 48 feet, a standardized pre-designed ready-made tube turbine was selected on the basis of cost, availability, simple installation and easy maintenance. For alternative 2, which has a maximum net head of 65 feet, a horizontal bulb type turbine was selected because the operating head of more than 60 feet is beyond the range of a

standard tube turbine and also because a vertical Kaplan type turbine would be more costly. For alternative 3, which has a maximum net head of 75 feet, a vertical Kaplan turbine was selected because the operating head is higher than the normal range for a bulb turbine. For the pumped storage alternative, a tube turbine similar to alternative 1 was selected which would be modified to serve also as a pump. It was concluded for the Woodruff Narrows site that as the maximum power head is increased the cost of the turbines that are suitable for the corresponding heads and the other power development costs rises faster than the value of the additional energy generated by the additional head.

IV. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. POWER MARKETING STUDY. Five potential users in the area were contacted to see what price they would be willing to pay for the energy that could be developed at the Woodruff Narrows site. The energy generated at the site would be available only on a seasonal basis in the spring and summer since the winter flow of the Bear River is small and would not justify keeping a power plant operating through the winter months. Under alternative 1, an enlarged reservoir at the existing site, the mean annual energy produced would be 5 GWH and would be available as shown in the table below.

April !!?Y June July August Total Mean Energy Gen. (GWH) 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.9 0.3 5.0 Mean Energy Gen. (%) 18 26 3 2 18 6 100 Max. Power Gen. (MW) . 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.6 1.8

This pattern of energy production is dictated by the irrigation releases from the reservoir. Unfortu- nately, all the energy is non-firm, since nothing is produced in the wintertime. Furthermore, the peak production does not coincide with the peak demands on the potential users' systems. Thus, the energy simply replaces the equivalent amount of fossil fuel and there is no reason for potential customers to pay a premium price.

An optimistic estimate of the current value of the energy that could be produced at the site is approximately 30 mills per KWH. The power company in the area did not show much interest in purchasing the power but is willing to wheel the power at approximately 9 mills per KWH for a maximum plant capacity output of 3.0 megawatts based on a charge o f $15 ner KW-yr and an annual generation of 5 CWH. Therefore, the estimated net value of the energy produced at the Woodruff Narrows site is approximately 21 mills per KWH.

B. COST OF PRODUCING ENERGY. The cost of repairing and enlarging the present dam is estimated to be $1.835 million. The cost of repairing the dam without the enlargement would be approximately $1.6 million. The irrigation benefits from agriculture from the reservoir enlargement are estimated to be $214,000 per year which when capitalized over a 50 year period at a discount rate of 4 718 percent w6uld amount to $4.0 million. This is a benefit to cost ratio of 2.2 for repair and enlargement of the present reservoir. The discount rate of 4 718 percent is used by the Utah Division of Water Resources in economic analyses of projects built by the Utah Water Conservation and Development Fund. The agriculture interests would pay all of the costs of the reservoir enlargement and repairs.

The estimated cost of providing a power facility on the enlarged reservoir (alternative 1) which would be capable of producing 5.0 GWH per year is $2.625 million. This cost estimate includes all the power features required for the project including a transmission line to the nearest area power company transmission lines. The estimated costs of a new dam for alternatives 2 and 3 respectively are $2.805 and $3.275 million. The estimated costs of the power features for alternatives 2 and 3 respectively are $3.820 and $4.550 million. The net cost for the power development after subtracting the cost for enlarging and repairing the present dam for alternatives 2 and 3 respectively are $4.790 and $5.990 million. These costs result in a capital investment per installed kilowatt for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 respectively of $1,090, $1,370, and $1,500.

The cost of producing energy for the three alternatives on a mills/KWH basis was computed using a 50 year repayment period for amortizing the power facilities for various interest rates and adding the annual operatiuri and maintenance cosrs. The annual operation and maintenance costs of each alternative were estimated at 1.5 percent of the capital cost for the power development. The figure below shows these costs as a function of interest rate for the three alternatives. A shorter repayment period such as 35 years would increase the cost about 2 to 5 mills/KWH depending upon the interest rate. The wheeling costs are not included in the figure. The net value of energy (21 millslKWH) shown on the figure is the current value of the energy (30 mills/KWH) less the wheeling cost (9 mills/KWH). The cost of producing energy by alternatives 2 and 3 is greater than the net value of the energy produced even with no interest. The cost of energy produced by alternative 1 is 51 mills per KWH based on an 8 percent return on investment. If the wheeling charges are added, the total.cost of producing the energy is 60 mills per KWH. The rate of return on investment for alternative 1 is less than one percent based on the current net market value of 21 mills/KWH for the energy. Alternatives 2 and 3 are even less favorable than alternative 1. The cost of producing power by alternatives 2 and 3 based on a rate of return on investment of 8 percent including wheeling charges is over 75 mills per KWH. Based on a discount rate of 4 718 percent used by the Utah Division of Water Resources for economic analyses of projects built by the Water Conservation and Development Fund the cost of producing

power for alternative 1 would be 34 mills per KWH. This is more than 60 percent higher than the estimated net market value of the energy.

The cost of a reregulating reservoir at the lower site for allowing for peaking power production along with the additional cost of increased power plant capacity and increased wheeling charges would make power peaking an even less favorable alternative.

The pumped storage alternative would be similar to alternative 1 except that the unit would be a pump-turbine and a downstream reservoir would be required. No additional generating capacity would be provided, but firm power would be produced throughout the year. The net energy produced by this type of development would be less than by a run-of-river energy plant. For the pumped storage alternative the total capital cost is estimated to be $3.695 million. This is a capital investment of 10 $1,540 per installed kilowatt. When the capital costs are amortized over a period of 50 years using an interest rate of 8 percent 0

and added to the operation an maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

costs including wheeling charges and energy INTEREST RATE (%) purchases, the resulting cost of producing the energy is 60 mills/KWH. This is iden- ticel to the cost ~f producinz energy by Cost of Producing Energy at Woodruff Narrows alternative 1

V. INSTITUTIONAL, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The only institutional problem of any magnitude is the water right problems associated with the tri- state Bear River Compact. The Bear River Commissioners of each state in December, 1978 signed an Amended Bear River Compact that would alleviate this problem. The Amended Compact has now been ratified by the legislatures of each of the three states. None of the alternatives under consideration would have significant negative social impacts. The proposed alternatives would result in little or no change in present patterns of water and land use, income, population, and employment. The very slight positive impacts from any of the alternatives would not result in any significant changes of the social structure or character of the area. Based on an assessment of ecological variables that would reflect stream ecosystem integrity, it is judged that hydropower development at the Woodruff Narrows site would have negligible impact on the Bear River ecosystem over and above existing structures and stream operations. Flow patterns, quality, and quantity would be essentially unchanged. Sensitive ecological factors appear nonexistent for that segment of the Bear River system.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Both the upper site and lower site locations at the Woodruff Narrows Reservoir are geologically sound , and acceptable from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint for hydroelectric power development. However, none

of the three basic run-of-river or the pumped storage alternatives for hydroelectric power development are economically feasible at this time. Enlargement of the existing Woodruff Narrows Dam and Reservoir for agricultural purposes is economically feasible to construct. It is, therefore, recommended that enlargement of the existing dam and reservoir be pursued at this time without the addition of hydroelectric power development. If the market value of electric energy in the project area should rise at a rate much faster than inflation of construction costs, it may be feasible in future years to add hydroelectric power generation facilities at the.Woodruff Narrows Dam and Reservoir site. If the hydroelectric power development were economically feasible, funding most likely would be arranged by the State of Utah through the Utah Board of Water Resources from the Revolving Construction Fund and/or the'water Conservation and Development Fund.

LOWELL CREEK

Seward, AK

CH2M HILL

Thomas S . Small. P.E. Utilities Engineer, Anchorage Regional Office

PRD A Proposal Contract No. ET-78-D-07- 1768 _ I . INTRODUCTION

The City of Seward, Alaska, i s current ly i n a precarious position regarding i t s power supply. Since 1961 the a t y has purchased most of i t s power from the Chugach Electric Association (CEA); the city's only other power source is a city-owncd diesel plant with a capacity of 5,500 kilowatts for s tandby power. On 15 January 1979 CEA notified Seward that i t s power contract had terminated, under the terms of the contract itself, and that prices in any fu ture wholesale power contract could increase b y a s much as 300 percent .

Consequently, the a t y i s investigating other sources of electrical energy. CH2M HILL has assisted the city in i t s investigations b y s tudying the feasibiljty o'f hydroelectric power development on Lowell Creek, a stream that passes through Seward. Lowell Creek was selected for s tudy because of i t s s teep gradient and resulting head potential a s well a s i t s proximity to the city. The s tudy was conducted under Cooperative Agreement No. EW-78-F-07-1768 between the U.S. Department of Energy and the City of Seward.

The s tudy began with compilation and research of maps, data, and other reports to develop concept designs and establish the available head. The hydrologic data were analyzed to estimate available energy throughout the year . Long-term temperature and rainfall data were examined to correlate the available streamflow data to t h e long-term average.

From the head and flow for alternative s i tes , t h e energy potential was computed for each site. Concepts and layouts were then developed for each s i t e . The concept development included a s t u d y of dam safety, environmental impacts, and permit requirements. Project costs were approAmated from cost quotations for major equipment items and general reconnaissance-level unit price cost data for the construction work. Finally, annual costs were estimated and applied to the project energy output .

11. EXISTING FACILITIES ON LOWELL CREEK

Lowell Creek has been the s i te of several dams and diversion projects, and t h e facilities that remain were assessed as par t of the s t u d y t o determine their potential for use in a hydroelectric project. One project consisted of a valve house, penstock, and powerplant built in 1905 by Seward Light and Power, a privately owned utility, to generate power for Seward. Another was a flood control diversion dam and tunnel that t h e U .S. Army Corps of Engineers began building in 1938. The s i tes of the facilities that still exist a r e shown in figure 1 along with the locations of the alternative project layouts developed during the s tudy . I t was determined by a physical inspection that the only abandoned hydroelectric facility that might be still usable is the valve house. However, the Corps of Engineers flood control project would be useful and has been incorpor- a ted into two of the alternatives developed during t h e s tudy.

111. POWER POTENTIAL OF CREEK

Lowell Creek initially appeared suitable for hydroelectric power because it has a s teep gradient (about 400 feet per mile), i s fed from a large snowfield, and has two significant drops. One drop i s formed b y the Corps of Engineers diversion dam, and the second drop, of about 65 feet, i s a t the termination of the diversion tunnel. The canyon sides also a r e s teep, and during high-water periods, vast quantities of rock debris a r e washed down the channel. Corps of Engineers feasibility reports on the diversion tunnel show estimates of 27,000 cubic yards p e r year of material moved downstream b y the rampaging creek. No intake or diversion could be considered without a means to handle the bedload of rock, gravel, and sand . Generally, the re is little bedload for flows of 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) o r less , so that if t h e design flow for a new facility

'

is 60 cfs, excess flows could be 'used to convey the bedload o r to flush sediments from the sediment t raps.

There i s reasoli Lo believe that a substantial percentage of the Lowell Creek runoff disappears into t h e alluvium and flows below t h e surface the remaining distance to Resurrection Bay. If a project proves feasible, a s l u r r y trench o r similar cutoff to maximize surface flow should be considered.

Lowell Creek was gaged for 3-112 years , from May 1965 through September 1968, a t the outlet of Lowell Creek near Resurrection Bay. The maximum flow was 1,200 cfs on 21 August 1965, and the minimum flow was 1.0 c f s for several days in January 1966. To extrapolate the 1966:68 flow records to a longer period, a corre- lation was made with long-term rainfall records. Daily streamflow data for 1966 through 1968 were used to compile a flow-duration curve, which was then corrected to represent a 30-year average. An examination of the 30-year-average curve showed that , during winter freezeup, flows a re too low for operation of a plant. A plant would be s h u t down about 30 to 40 percent of the time, from about November to April each winter. In addition, about 10 percent of the time the flows a r e high enough (greater than 75 cfs) to c a r r y a gravel and rock bedload that would be too large for a plant to be operated.

Ilsing the flow-duration data , t h e potential power and energy production was computed for several sizes of powerplants. This information i s plotted i n figure 2 and shows that plants with rated flows larger than 60 cfs would provide almost no gain in energy production. Data from this figure were used to arr ive at t h e alternative plant sizes discussed below.

IV. ALTERNATIVE PLANTSITES A N D DESIGNS

~ h i e e alternative s i tes for hydroelectric plants were considered. All were limited to a low head, less than 66 feet , and all a r e run-of-river type projects. The locations of the alternatives a r e shown in figure 1. Basic components common to each alternative include a n intake with rock separation and a sediment t rap, a penstock pipeline, a turbine and generator, accessory equipment, buildings, a tailrace, and power t ransmission. A schematic of a typical induction generator i s given i n f igure 3. T h e plant characteristics a re summarized in table 1.

The powerplant in alternative A , which is far thest upstream of the th ree alternatives considered, i s located a t the s i te of the abandoned Seward Light and Power intake and valve s t ruc ture about 1 mile upstream from t h e west edge of Seward. The design consists of rebuilding t h e old intake (only t h e old valve house is partly useful) , constructing a 36-inch pipeline running about 0.25 mile downstream, a n d building a new powerhouse

,

close to t h e north side of the valley. This alternative has about 60 feet of head available.

For alternative B, t h e powerplant would be located a t t h e diversion dam a n d entrance to .the tunnel. Because of the restr ic ted space around the tunnel entrance, t h e powerhouse would be sited on the south side. I t would be a reinforced concrete s t r u c t u r e with a vertical shaft casing, housing a n axial flow o r mixed flow turbine, and driving a vertical shaf t induction generator a t 720 rpm. The generator would be ra ted 100 kW. This plan would use the head of about 30 feet between t h e stream level and tunnel invert .

Table 1. PLANT CHARACTERISTICS

Alt. A

Flow (cfs) Design 60 Usable minimum 12

Head (f t ) Maximum static 6 5 Net rated 60 Net minimum 60

Capacity (kW) Rated (kW = QHl14 app.) 250 Rated (HP = 413 kW) 330

Speed (rpm) 720 Specific Speed (N ) 7 8 Power Conduit

Length ( f t ) 1.300 Diameter ( in . ) 42

Alt. B Alt. C

Alternative C would take water from the diversion tunnel exit through a bar screen, rock t rap , and penstock t o a powerhouse sited between the rock cliff and the road, for a total head of about 60 feet. The tailrace would t h e n be through a culvert under the road to t h e beach. This alternative was considered i n more detail than alternatives A and B because i t has the best potential for eventual feasibility. A schematic layout of this alternative is shown i n figure 4.

For all the alternatives a fast-track schedule was prepared i n which studies, designs, equipment manufacturing, and construction r u n concurrently to t h e greatest extent possible to expedite completion. The total elapsed time, from a decision t o proceed with licensing t o s ta r tup and test ing, would be about 39 months. If fhe manufacture of small hydropower units i s developed to s tandard designs allowing a 1-year delivery, the project schedule could be shortened to about 27 months. I t was assumed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license process would take 8 months af ter an application is submitted.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACT.S A N D REQUIRED PERMITS

The development of a low-head hydroelectric generation facility would not adversely affect the natural o r manmade elements of the environment in the Lowell Creek drainage or. in the City of Seward. The creek has few existing human uses, and those tha t do occur , such a s recreation, a re infrequent and without accompanying support facilities. T h e creek supports no fisheries, and t h e State of Alaska has placed no restrictions on the creek t o protect t h e wildlife habitat.

The safety of the existing Corps of Engineers diversion dam was recently verified b y a Corps safety inspection. However, a hydroelectric dam built on t h e beach a t Resurrection Bay, as in alternative C, .would suf fe r damage during a n earthquake similar to the 1964 event .

The Corps diversion dam and tunnel a r e listed i n t h e National Register of Historic Places, so that a permit would be required for construction of alternatives B and C. All three alternatives would depend on acquisition of a water use permit from the State of Alaska. An application for Diversion of Present National Stream would also need to be submitted for alternative C and possibly for alternatives A and B. Alternative C would require a Corps of Engineers permit for construction occurring 10 feet below mean higher high water.

VI. COSTS A N D VALUE OF POWER

Reconnaissance-level cost estimates were prepared for the alternatives and a r e summarized i n table 2. The capital costs a r e based on a single quotation for a package turbine-generator-control unit and unit prices for construction items such as excavation, reinforced concrete, s t ructural steel, pipelines, buildings, road materials, electrical switchgear, and power transmission lines.

Table 2. COSTS A N D VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES Energy

Rated Annual Capital Unit Annual Cost Capacity Energy Cost Cost C o s t 3 (Mills1

Alternative (kW) (MW) ( $ x 10 ) ($lkW) ( $ x 10 ) kwh)

A . Upper Plant (Abandoned Valve House) 250 800 1,526 6,104 150 188 B. Middle Plant (Tunnel Inlet) 100 420 828 8,280 9 8 232 C. Lower Plant (Tunnel Outlet) 250 800 976 3,904 110 137 D . Other Sources

Present cost of energy from CEA 14 Grant Lake project 34 to 40 Incremental cost of direct fuel a t present price of 51BIgal. 4 0

The production of a 250-kW plant would be only about 800,000 kwh per year , compared to the ,city's electric system purchases of about 5,000 kW peak and 20,000,000 kWh per year . The average annual growth of Seward demand i s probably about twice the amount of a 250-kW plant. Thus , t h e city really needs a hydroelectric plant to supply the total present system plus allowance for fu ture loads created b y industry desiring to locate in Seward.

The value of the alternative plants developed for this s tudy must be compared with the incremental cost of acquiring much larger blocks of power and energy. The values of alternatives A , B , and C a re compared in table 2 with the existing values of CEA power, power from a hydroelectric project recently studied for Seward a t Grant Lake (about 30 miles north of Seward), and power from expanded generation at the city's diesel plant. The least costly new hydroelectric plant on Lowell Creek would have nearly 10 times the present cost of energy from the CEA, and about 4 times the cost of energy from the Grant Lake project.

VII. SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS

None of the three alternatives approaches feasibility a t this time. Major influencing factors a re the high . cost of energy a t over 13 cents per kwh, t h e winter freezeup resulting i n plant shutdown from November to April, and a large amount of rock sediment carried b y t h e stream and requiring expensive intake s t ruc tures to skim off the rocks.

T h e most promising alternative (alternative C), which would have a capacity of 250 kW and would produce about 800,000 kwh p e r year, would fill less than 5 percent o f ' t h e city's present energy needs. The plant would cost nearly $1 million and produce energy a t about 137 mills per kwh. This alternative is the best of the th ree from the standpoint of lower cost, best access via existing all-weather road, least exposure to ava- lanche and rockslides, and proximity to existing powerlines.

The apparent nonfeasibility of a Lowell Creek project was recognized at the midpoint of the s t u d y and discussed with the city and the representative of the Department of Energy. The recommendation was made. and all agreed, to shorten the s t u d y , thereby avoiding fur ther expenditure of t h e grant monies supporting this s tudy . The s tudy was then brought to a conclusion with the preparation of the report .

EXISTING AlternativeA Intake Diversion

Alternative A Pipeline ,

Alternative A Powerhouse

EXISTING CORPS

Alternative B DIVERSION D A M

Intake & Vowerhouse

Alternatove C I__.

1000 2000

Scale In Feet

FIGURE 1

FACILITIES ON LOWELL CREEK

FLOWATRATEOOUTPUT (OR) (cfs)

1200, 0 2 30 40 50 60 70 ,

NOTES: RATED OUTPUT I kW)

Net Head l H N ~ = 56ft . Total Efficiency ( ET) = 84 %

Adjusted flow based on plant shutdown when 0>100 cfs because of heavy transport o f sediment.

FIGURE 2 POTENTIAL POWER & ENERGY VS FLOW

Power Circuit Induction Transformer Breaker Generator

12.500 V 1480 V

LEGEND - Running CB

@ Instant OC

Over Voltage

A Ampmarar 8 @ Ampmeter Switch

@ Watt Meter m, Watt-Hour Meter

FIGURE 3 TYPICAL INDUCTION GENERATOR

Toe of'Slope I

Foundation for Package Power Unit

Intake &,Rock Skimmer

Packaged Turbine, Generator & Controls

Rock Skimmer ~ransformer &

36': Pipe' Primary Switchgear

Sediment Trap

Tailrace Pipe

PROFILE

FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE C SCHEMATIC LAYOUT PLAN / ,."

THE CARLYLE RESERVOIR ON THE KASKASKIA RIVER

Car l y l e , I l l i n o i s

C i t y o f Ca r l y l e , I l l i n o i s Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y Barnes, Henry, Meisenheimer and Gende, I n c .

PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. EM-78-F-07-1769

I. INTRODUCTION

Th is proposed p r o j e c t i s l oca ted on C a r l y l e Reservo i r i n C l i n t o n County, I l l i n o i s very near t o t h e C i t y o f Ca r l y l e , I l l i n o i s . The s i t e i s approximately r i v e r m i l e 107 o f t h e Kaskaskia R i ve r and approximately 50 m i l es due eas t o f t he major me t ropo l i t an area o f S t . Louis, M issou r i .

The proposed p r o j e c t would be owned and operated by t he Car l y l e , I l l i n o i s Municipal E l e c t r i c U t i 1 i t y . The r e s e r v o i r ' s ope ra t i on i s p resen t l y and w i l l cont inue t o be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e St . Louis D i s t r i c t O f f i c e o f t h e U.S. Corps o f Engineers. By the co-opera t ion o f these two o rgan i za t i ons , t h e produc- t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy by C a r l y l e Reservo i r w i l l be added t o t h e present f unc t i ons o f t he C a r l y l e Reservoir . The C i t y o f Ca r l y l e , I l l i n o i s has been granted a p r e l i m i n a r y pe rm i t f rom the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission f o r t h e purposes o f s tudy ing t h i s proposed p r o j e c t .

C a r l y l e Reservo i r has an ear then embankment whose l e n g t h of c r e s t i s 6,610 ft. w i t h an e l e v a t i o n a t the t op of t he dam o f 472.0 ft. MSL. The r e s e r v n i r ' s ope ra t i on c a l l s f o r a maximum pool e l e v a t i o n f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l o f 462.5 f t . MSL. Normal pool e l e v a t i o n f o r t he summer months i s 445.0 compared t o 443.0 f o r t he pe r i od from December 1 s t through A p r i l 30 th o f each year . The s p i l l w a y f o r the r e s e r v o i r i s o f t h e ogee c r e s t type and has f o u r ( 4 ) t a i n t e r gates, each w i t h a 38 ft. wid th . The s p i l l w a y c r e s t e l e v a t i o n i s 425.0. The ope ra t i on o f these gates i s determined by t he St. Louis D i s t r i c t O f f i c e o f t h e U.S. Corps o f Engineers i n accordance w i t h t h e Reservo i r Regu la t ion P lan V I I and s p e c i f i c a l l y Appendix B f o r C a r l y l e Reservoir . Under P lan V I I , the range o f gross heads a v a i l a b l e f o r genera t ing equipment a t t h e r e s e r v o i r i s between 10 f t. and 35 f t . w i t h flows which range from a minimum o f 50 c f s t o a maximum o f 10,000 c f s . The weighted average o f p roduc t i on under t h i s range o f gross ope ra t i ng cond i t i ons i s a p o i n t of 23.9 ft. head and 3,492 c f s . .

The s i t e on the dam which was se lec ted f o r development o f t he conceptual p l a n t design i s l oca ted immediately ad jacent t o and west o f t he s p i l l w a y s t i l l i n g bas in f o r t he r e s e r v o i r . I t w i l l r e q u i r e two 13.5 ft. diameter holes t o be bored through the non-overf low w a l l s which a re a t t h a t l o c a t i o n . These ho les would be approximately 33.5 ft. i n length . On the upstream s i d e o f t h e non- ove r f l ow wa l l would be a rec tangu la r box type of bas in i n l e t w i t h t he p l a n t l oca ted downstream of t h e non-overflow w a l l . The d ischarge from the proposed p l a n t would be an open channel and would r e q u i r e removal o f a p o r t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g s p i l l w a y west r e t a i n i n g w a l l .

The s t r u c t u r a l d iscuss ion of t he s tudy was t h e r e s u l t o f a thorough inves- t i g a t i o n o f several s i t e s a t which t o l o c a t e - t he h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t . The se lec ted l o c a t i o n o f t h e p l a n t f o r development o f t h e conceptual design was based on a s i t e t h a t was s u i t a b l e bo th t o h y d r a u l i c cons idera t ions and t o s t r u c t u r a l cons idera t ions .

The development o f t he f i n a l conceptual design f o r t he p l a n t , cons is ted o f thorough b u t p r e l i m i n a r y s t r u c t u r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o s i t e cond i t i ons , subsurface s o i l and rock cond i t i ons , and the a n t i c i p a t e d h y d r a u l i c and s o i l load ings. The s t r u c t u r a l development o f t h e conceptual design discusses i n d e t a i l many o f t he f ea tu res t h a t w i l l be requ i red t o cons t ruc t t he hydro p l a n t i n t he area o f t he west abutment o f t h e gated ' sp i l lway o f t he r e s e r v o i r . Hydrau l ic and s o i l load ings were developed t o an ex ten t t h a t was s u f f i c i e n t t o determine requ i red s i zes and phys i ca l d e t a i l s o f the var ious types o f s t r u c t u r a l elements and members.

The p o s s i b i l i t y o f u t i l i z i n g cas t - i n -p lace post tensioned concre te con- s t r u c t i o n th roughout t he s t r u c t u r e was i nves t i ga ted . The phys ica l shapes and s izes o f t he s t r u c t u r a l members i nc luded i n t he conceptual design would be app l i cab le t o t h e post- tensioned method.

I t i s po in ted o u t t h a t t he c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t he f a c i l i t y w i l l be a d i f f i c u l t p r o j e c t . The c o n s t r u c t i o n and design d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e discussed i n d e t a i l . None of t he d i f f i c u l t i e s discussed, however, a r e considered t o be insurmountable The conceptual design i s considered t o be thorough enough to .ensu re t h a t t he f a c i l i t y can be const ruc ted w i t h i n t he c o s t es t imate provided.

Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f ou r p r e l i m i n a r y design, the p l a n t f a c i l i t y i n c l u d i n g the var ious types o f s t r u c t u r e s invo lved, i s t h e optimum s o l u t i o n t o p rov id ing h y d r o e l e c t r i c genera t ion a t t h e C a r l y l e Reservo i r .

The equipment which has been proposed t o be u t i l i z e d i n t h i s f a c i l i t y i s o f t he h o r i z o n t a l s h a f t , f i x e d vane, ad jus tab le blade propel l e r - t y p e h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e connected through a speed- increasing gear box t o a 4,375 KW genera tor . There w i l l be two ( 2 ) o f these u n i t s requ i red t o take advantage o f a range o f ne t ope ra t i ng head between 14.5 ft. and'34 ft. The f l o w which w i l l be u t i l i z e d by t h i s equipment ranges between 500 and 1,300 c f s a t a 14.5 f t. o f ne t head, and a t the h ighe r head c o n d i t i o n u t i l i z e s between 750 and 1,900 c f s . The e l e v a t i o n f o r t h e t u r b i n e c e n t e r l i n e o f 418.5 f t . MSL i s be l i eved t o q i v e c a v i t a t i o n - f r e e ope ra t i on over the e n t i r e range o f ope ra t i ng cond i t i ons .

This p r o j e c t as concep tua l l y designed i s expected t o r e q u i r e f o r t y - f i v e (45) months f o r development f rom the i n i t i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o the u l t i m a t e product ion o f e l e c t r i c i t y . The e a r l y phases o f t he p r o j e c t w i l l r e q u i r e an ex tens ive eng ineer ing des ign p e r i o d which w i l l be fo l lowed by a d e t a i l e d review o f t h a t design by t h e U.S. Corps o f Engineers. The es t imated p r o j e c t cos t i n c l u d i n g t h e ex tens ive development phase i s approximately $7,550,000, o r an average o f $863.00 pe r i n s t a l l e d k i l o w a t t .

The a n t i c i p a t e d annual p roduc t i on by t h i s proposed p r o j e c t i s an average 21,500,000 k i l o w a t t hours per yea r w i t h a maximum a n t i c i p a t e d h o u r l y ou tpu t o f 7,400 KW. Operat ion o f t he proposed f a c i l i t y w i l l be by t he present personnel o f t h e C a r l y l e Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y . The p l a n t would be s t a r t e d up manually, b u t then i t s ope ra t i on w i l l be monitored and c o n t r o l l e d remotely a t t he e x i s t i n g c o n t r o l cen te r f o r t he C a r l y l e Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i 1 i t y l oca ted a t t h e C a r l y l e Power P lant , approximately 3,000 ft. from t h e s i t e f o r t he proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t . The water used f o r genera t ing e l e c t r i c i t y w i l l be determined by t he St . Lou is D i s t r i c t O f f i c e o f t he U.S. Corps o f Engineers i n accordance w i t h t h e i r Reservo i r Regu la t ion Plan V I I . No a d d i t i o n a l water s torage w i l l be requested f o r t h e purpose o f power genera t ion . By ope ra t i ng under t h i s premise, i t i s be l i eved t h a t t h e proposed p r o j e c t can be compat ib le w i t h t he present f unc t i ons o f C a r l y l e Reservo i r . The p roduc t i on f rom t h e f a c i l i t y would be u t i l i z e d i n t h ree ( 3 ) seperate d i s t r i b u t i o n systems as f o l l ows ; f i r s t , t h e C i t y o f Ca r l y l e , then t h e C i t y o f Breese, I l l i n o i s and f i n a l l y excess power would be t ransm i t t ed t o t he l a r g e p r i v a t e u t i l i t y i n t he area, I l l i n o i s Power Company. Any excess p roduc t i on du r i ng years o f h i gh water can e a s i l y be u t i l i z e d i n t h i s network and a l l u t i l i t i e s i nvo l ved have expressed an i n t e r e s t i n r e c e i v i n g such power i f i t cou ld be j u s t i f i e d on an economic bas i s and l oad ing cond i t i ons w i l l pe rm i t i t s usage.

The ope ra t i on o f t h i s proposed f a c i l i t y under t he present r e g u l a t i o n p lan a l ready i n e f f e c t w i l l assure t h a t any impact on the environment w i l l be i n accordance w i t h t h a t a l ready being exper ienced as a r e s u l t o f r e s e r v o i r ope ra t i on . Also development i n t he area o f proposed highway FAP 409 should be compat ib le w i t h t h i s proposed p r o j e c t . The new c e n t e r l i n e f o r t he proposed highway i s t o be p a r a l l e l t o and 401 ft. south o f t he access o f t he dam f o r the r e s e r v o i r . I f the re should be any c o n f l i c t between the t a i l r a c e o f t he proposed power p l a n t and t h e b r i dge over t he s p i l l w a y e x i t channel f o r t h e highway, t h i s c o n f l i c t i s be l i eved t o be minimal and can be worked ou t du r i ng f i n a l design o f bo th p r o j e c t s .

11. FEASIBILITY

The average c o s t o f f u e l and purchased power f o r t he C a r l y l e Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y has increased approx imate ly 14.8% s ince the f i s c a l yea r ending A p r i l 30, 1975. Th is t r end o f i nc reas ing cos t i s expected t o cont inue, a l though probab ly a t a lower ra te . For t h e purposes o f t he f e a s i b i l i t y study, a combined f u e l and purchased power. c o s t increase averaging 6.4% pe r yea r was used. When combined w i t h the remaining c o s t p r o j e c t i o n s , an annual increase i n t o t a l opera t - i n g expenses o f , 5 % per yea r resu l t ed . The study was developed on the bas is t h a t t h e proposed p r o j e c t would produce a t i t s average annual l e v e l w i t h o u t any f l u c t u a t i o n . For t h e twelve months ended A p r i l 30, 1985, an es t imated 18,466,600 k i l o w a t t hours f rom the proposed p r o j e c t cou ld be used by Ca r l y l e , and approx i - mately 2,284,800 k i l o w a t t hours cou ld be used by Breese, as w e l l as 748,600 k i l o w a t t hours cou ld be used by t he I l l i n o i s Power Company. By u t i l i z i n g 18,466,600 k i l o w a t t hours o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c genera t ion i n 1985, t he C a r l y l e Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y would exper ience an es t imated reduc t i on i n t o t a l opera t ing expenses o f $531,328 from $1,526,598 p ro jec ted under present opera t ions t o $995,270 o f t o t a l ope ra t i ng expenses p ro jec ted based on u t i 1 i z i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy as much as poss ib le . The a d d i t i o n a l energy which would be t ransmi t t ed t o t he Breese Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y has been es t imated t o produce another $51,600 i n revenue f o r t he proposed p r o j e c t , and t h e energy t ransm i t t ed t o t he I 1 1 i n o i s Power Company should produce a d d i t i o n a l revenue o f $9,900 f o r f i s c a l year 1985. Combining the revenues from excess h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy, t he reduced expenses which would be exper ienced by C a r l y l e by u t i 1 i z i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy and the Net Operat ing Income which the C a r l y l e Munic ipa l E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y should probably exper ience f o r t h a t year , approx imate ly $798,700 would be a v a i l a b l e f o r r e t i r i n g debt se rv i ce o f t h i s proposed p r o j e c t f o r t he f i s c a l year 1985. These p ro jec t i ons were cont inued through the yea r 1990 and h e l d constant a f t e r ' t h a t year . For t h e purposes o f t he study, debt se rv i ce requirements were based on a 35 year s e r i a l m a t u r i t y a t 7+77 ' interest f o r $8,495,000. This t o t a l debt i s based on $7,550,000 i n p r o j e c t cos ts , $1,095,000 f o r re fund ing present debt l e s s $150,000 o f e x i s t i n g funds. Assuming a s e r i a l m a t u r i t y , t he t o t a l funds a v a i l - ab le f o r debt s e r v i c e over t he 35 yea r l i f e o f t he bonds were $36,200,000 compared t o a t o t a l p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t requirement o f $24,200,000. Th is i s an es t imated coverage r a t i o of 1.49. This assumes main ta ined product ion a t the average annual r a t e .

111. U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEER'S APPROVAL

Th is proposed p r o j e c t w i l l r e q u i r e a thorough rev iew by the U.S. Co.rps o f Engineers. Th is review i s be l i eved t o f a l l ' i n f o u r ( 4 ) phases. I n i t i a l l y , t he Corps o f Engineers would be approached t o approve the proposed p r o j e c t based on the conceptual design presented i n t he f e a s i b i l i t y study. This i s an i n t e r i m approval and i s be l i eved t o be acceptable t o the Corps on the bas is t h a t t h a t agency w i l l reserve the r i g h t o f u l t i m a t e approval of any f i n a l design f o r t he p r o j e c t . This i n t e r i m approval wduld be necessary f o r t h e Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1 icense a p p l i c a t i o n and a l s o f o r any con t rac t s needed i n t he development phase of t he p r o j e c t such as f o r fund ing o r f o r co -o rd ina t i on between u t i l i t i e s and between t h e C i t y of C a r l y l e and the Corps o f Engineers. The second phase o f approval by t h e Corps of Engineers i f f o r a complete eng ineer ing design t o be submit ted f o r t h e p r o j e c t which would s p e c i f i c a l l y de f i ne a l l o f t h e eng ineer ing d e t a i l s of the. proposed p r o j e c t . The Corps o f Engineer 's te rm f o r such a design, i s a Feature Design Memorandum. Th is

memorandum would be reviewed a t t h e D i s t r i c t O f f i c e l e v e l , t he D i v i s i o n O f f i c e l e v e l and t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Ch ie f o f t he ' co rps o f Engineers. Once each of these l e v e l s o f a u t h o r i t y has reviewed the memorandum, r e v i s i o n s w i l l p robab ly be requ i red and a re -submi t t a l through the th ree l e v e l s o f Corps a u t h o r i t y w i l l be necessary. The t h i r d phase o f Corps o f Engineer approval w i l l be t he const ruc- t i o n plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s which a r e necessary f o r c o n t r a c t o r ' s proposals on the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t . Th is t h i r d phase approval w i l l r e q u i r e review a t t he same th ree l e v e l s o f a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e Corps o f Engineers. This rev iew should be somewhat qu i cke r , s i nce i t w i l l co inc ide w i t h t he approvals under t he previous phase. Dur ing cons t ruc t i on , t he Corps' f i n a l phase approval w i l l be experienced as they w i l l mon i to r and approve cons t ruc t i on i n progress.

I V . FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE APPLICATION

The p r n p o z ~ d p r o j e c t w i l l r e q u i r e approvals f rom numerous f e d e r a l , s t a t e and l o c a l agencies, however these w i l l be summarized as a l l being p a r t o f t he u l t i m a t e l i c e n s e which would be granted by t h e Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Th is l i cense i s a two-phase procedure o f which the C i t y o f C a r l y l e has a l ready accomplished the f i r s t phase. A p r e l i m i n a r y permi t has been granted t o t he C i t y o f C a r l y l e t o s tudy t h i s proposed p r o j e c t . Th is pe rm i t was issued November 1, 1978 f o r a pe r i od o f e igh teen (18) months. l'he nex t phase would be t o app ly f o r a l i cense f o r t h i s p r o j e c t . Such app l i cd t ' i on wuulcl requ- i re ya the r i ny t h e review comments o f such agencies as t h e I l l i n o i s Department o f Conservation, t h e i n t e r i m . approval mentioned p rev ious l y o f t he U.S. Co rps ,o f Engineers, t he I l l i n o i s Department o f T ranspo r ta t i on and t h e I l l i n o i s H i s t o r i c P rese rva t i on O f f i c e r t o name a few. Approvals f rom these agencies w i l l r e q u i r e some time, and the re fo re they should be contac ted as soon as t he p r o j e c t rece ives a u t h o r i z a t i o n f rom the C i t y of Ca r l y l e . It i s probab ly t o t h e p r o j e c t ' s advantage t o o b t a i n i t s l i c e n s e p r i o r t o t he e x p i r a t i o n o f t he p r e l i m i n a r y permi t , however, t h i s i s n o t be l ieved t o be c r i t i c a l t o t he p r o j e c t ' s u l t i m a t e development.

PROBLEMS v . P

As a r e s u l t o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study o f t h i s proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t on C a r l y l e Reservoir , severa l problem areas havc bcen i nd i ca ted . While t h e p r o j e c t appears t o be ab le t o r e t i r e i t s a n t i c i p a t e d debt requirements based on i t s average annual p roduct ion , t he re i s no guaranty t h a t t h e p r o j e c t w i l l produce a t t h i s l e v e l . Therefore, some p r o v i s i o n must be made i n order t o assure debt s e r v i c e requirements a re met du r i ng years o f low product ion . Another area o f d i f f i c u l t y f o r t h i s proposed p r o j e c t i s t he ex tens ive reviews which w i l l be requ i red by t h e U.S. Corps o f Engineers. That agency's rev iew w i l l p robab ly r e q u i r e t h e s i n g l e g r e a t e s t l e n g t h o f t ime i n t h e p r o j e c t ' s development, bu t t he re does appear t o be an arrangement whereby the l a c k o f f i n a l approval f rom t h a t agency would n o t h inde r t h e issuance o f a l i c e n s e f o r t h i s proposed l i cense . None o f these problems a r e be l i eved t o prevent t h i s p r o j e c t f rom be ing developed.

RESTORATION OF FROG HOLLOW MILL HYDROELECTRIC PLANT

M i d d l e b u r y , Vermon t

C e n t r a l Vermon t P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n T o w n s c a p e , I n c .

T i p p e t t s - A b b e t t - M c C a r t h y - S t r a t t o n

PRDA C o o p e r a t i v e A g r e e m e n t No. EW-78-F-07-1770

I . INTRODUCTION

C e n t r a l Vermon t P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n (CVPS) , a p r i v a t e u t i l i t y company p r o v i d i n g e l e c t r i c i t y t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50% o f V e r m o n t ' s p o p u l a t i o n a n d T o w n s c a p e , I n c . . , a p r i v a t e d e v e l o p m e n t company l o c a t e d i n M i d d l e b u r y , V e r m o n t , h a v e a g r e e d j o i n t l y t o p u r s u e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g a s m a l l h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g s i t e known a s F r o g H o l l o w , l o c a t e d o n O t t e r C r e e k i n t h e Town o f M i d d l e b u r y , V e r m o n t . E l e c t r i c power g e n e r a t i o n was f i r s t d e v e l o p e d h e r e i n 1 9 1 7 a n d t e r m . i n a t e d i n 1 9 6 4 d u e t o m a j o r b r e a k d o w n s i n e q u i p m e n t . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e r e w e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s o u r c e s o f e l e c t r i c a l power a v a i l a b l e a t a c o s t l o w e r . t h a n t h a t o f c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n o f r e h a b i l i t a t e d e q u i p m e n t . The s i t e was f i r s t d e v e l o p e d t o p r o d u c e m e c h a n i c a l power i n t h e l a t e 1 7 0 0 ' s . The s i t e i s n o t p r e s e n t l y p r o d u c i n g a n y e l e c t r i c p o w e r .

With t h e a d v e n t o f t h e A r a b O i l Embargo a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g d r a m a t i c i n c r e a s e i n t h e c o s t s o f f o s s i l f u e l s , o u r i n t e r e s t s h a v e r e t u r n e d t o t h e p o s s i b l e d e v e l o p m e n t o r r e - d e v e l o p m e n t o f h y d r o s i t e s i n o u r a r e a . We h a v e t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y a s p r e s e n t e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y (DOE) t o s t u d y t h e low-head h y d r o f e a s i b i l i t y i n M i d d l e b u r y . On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 7 8 , we f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h t h e DOE f o r a g r a n t t o e x a m i n e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f F r o g H o l l o w . O n , A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 7 8 , we w e r e n o t i f i e d o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f o u r a p p l i c a t i o n a n d t h e i s s u a n c e o f a g r a n t .

CVPS a n d Townscape I n c . e n g a g e d a c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m , T i p p e t t s - A b b e t t - M c C a r t h y - S t r a t t o n (TAMS) o f New York C i t y t o e x a m i n e t h e h y d r o l o g y , c i v i l f a c i l i t y l a y o u t , e n v i r - o n m e n t a l i m p a c t , a n d c o s t o f t h e p r o j e c t . CVPS a n d Townscape w e n t f o r w a r d w i t h t h e e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s a n d t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e n d e r i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t .

11. SUMMARY

Work p e r f o r m e d d u r i n g t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y h a s i n c l u d e d s t u d i e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e p r o - - j e c t a r r a n g e m e n t s and r e l a t e d c o s t e s t i m a t e s , a n a l y s i s o f h y d r o l o g y a n d power o u t p u t s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t a r r a n g e m e n t s , a t o p o g r a p h i c s u r v e y , c o l l e c t i o n o f r i v e r f l o w d a t a , t h e d r i l l i n g o f a t e s t h o l e t o a s c e r t a i n f o u n d a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , a n a s s e s s m e n t o f e n v i r o n - m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s s i t e , a n d t h e a n a l y s i s o f l o a d s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e power s u p p l y s o u r c e s . T o g e t h e r t h e s e e l e m e n t s ' s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e e c o n o m i c f e a s i b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g t h e F r o g H o l l o w s i t e .

Of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s s t u d i e d , t h e o n e w h i c h a p p e a r s a t t h i s t i m e t o h a v e t h e g r e a t e s t p r o m i s e i s t h e o n e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y . T h i s a r r a n g e m e n t i n c l u d e s t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f two 750 KW t u b e t y p e t u r b i n e s w i t h a n a v e r a g e a n n u a l e n e r g y p r o d u c t i o n o f 8 , 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 KWH'S ( a n n u a l p l a n t c a p a c i t y f a c t o r 6 5 . 6 % ) .

The t o t a l i n v e s t m e n t c o s t f o r t h e p r o j e c t i s e s t i m a t e d t o b e $ 3 , 4 0 9 , 0 0 0 w h i c h a m o u n t s t o $2273/KW a s s u m i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d t o m e e t a n i n - s e r v i c e d a t e o f November 1 9 8 3 .

Th.e e c o n o m i c f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o j e c t was a n a l y z e d by c o m p a r i n g t h e a n n u a l c o s t o f s u p p o r t i n g t h e 1 , 5 0 0 KW o f t h e F r o g H o l l o w c a p a c i t y w i t h t h e a n n u a l c o s t o f a n e q u i v a l e n t amoun t o f c a p a c i t y f r o m ( 1 ) a n o i l [ i r e d g a s t u r b i n e , ( 2 ) a hase intermediate c o a l p l a n t , a n d ( 3 ) a n u c l e a r p l a n t o v e r a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y o n e y e a r s .

. . The a n n u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n d o l l a r s a n d t h e c u m u ' l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t h e F r o g ' H o l l o w a l t e r n a t i v e w e r e t h e n c o m p a r e d o v e r t h e s t u d y p e r i o d by p r e s e n t w o r t h i n g t h e s e d o l l a r s b a c k t o t h e a n t i c i p a t e d f i r s t f u l l y e a r o f p l a n t o p e r a t i o n , 1 9 8 4 .

I n a l l c a s e s , t h e r e s u l t s ' s h o w t h a t d u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f t h e p r o j e c t ' s l i f e , t h e c o s t s o f d e v e l o p i n g F r o g H o l l o w a r e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s .

On a p r e s e n t w o r t h b a s i s when c o m p a r i n g F r o g H o l l n w a g a i n s t t h e C o a l alternative, i t t a k e s a b o u t 1 6 y e a r s t o b r e a k e v e n a n d a t t h e e n d o f t h e 2 1 y e a r s t u d y p e r i o d ( 2 0 0 4 1 , F r o g H o l l o w shows a n a p p r o x i m a t e $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a d v a n t a g e . When c o m p a r e d w i t h a Gas T u r b i n e a l t e r n a - t i v e , t h e b r e a k e v e n p o i n t f a l l s s l i g h t l y b e y o n d t h e s t u d y p e r i o d . A f t e r t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e , t h e a d v a n t a g e f o r F r o g H o l l o w s h o u l d g r o w r a p i d l y a s t h e c o s t o f f u e l f o r t h e Gas ~ " r b i n e s i n c r e a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y .

When c o m p a r e d w i t h a 1 9 8 3 n u c l e a r u n i t , t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f F r o g H o l l o w a r e n o t n e a r l y a s a p p a r e n t a s i n t h e c a s e s w h e r e f o s s i l f u e l s w e r e u s e d . B a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n s u s e d . i n t h i s s t u d y , we e s t i m a t e t h a t t h e b r e a k e v e n p o i n t f o r F r o g H o l l o w v s N u c l e a r wou ld b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 5 - 27 y e a r s a f t e r t h e u n i t g o e s i n t o s e r v i c e . I n o u r o p i n i o n , t h i s r e p r e s e n t s m a r g i n a l e c o n o m i c s . However , o v e r t h e n o r m a l l i f e t i m e o f 5 0 y e a r s f o r a h y d r o p l a u L , i t s h o u l d show l o n g - t e r m a d v a n t a g e s .

We b e l i e v e t h e p r o j e c t shows good t e c h n i c a l a n d e n g i n e e r i n g f e a s i b i l i t y ; h o w e v e r , a s e g m e n t o f t h e c i t i z e n r y o f t h e Town o f M i d d l e b u r y h a s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e d i v e r s i o n o f w a t e r f r o m t h e n a t u r a l f a l l s a r e a t o t h e w a t e r c o n d u i t o f t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g e q u i p m e n t . O b v i o u s l y , a n y commi tmen t f o r c o n t i n u o u s d i s c h a r g e o f w a t e r o v e r t h e f a l l s f o r a e s t h e t i c r e a s o n s w i l l f u r t h e r l e s s e n t h e e c o n o m i c a d v a n t a g e o f t h e p r o j e c t , a s now f o r e s e e n .

B a s e d on c o n v e n t i o n a l p r i v a t e u t i l i t y f i n a n c i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o j e c c i s m a r g i n a l l y e c o n o m i c d u r i n g i t s e a r l y l i f e ; h o w e v e r , o v e r i t s f u l l l i f e t i m e , we a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t i t w i l l p r o v e t o b e a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e .

We a r e d e e p l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e , e n e r g y s i t u a t i o n a n d a r e a n x i o u s t o e x p l o r e ways b y w h i c h a m a r g i n a l p r o j e c t s u c h a s t h i s c o u l d b e made t o b e c o m e ' m o r e e c o n o n i i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e . As f a r a s f i n a n c i n g t h e p r o j e c t i s c o n c e r n e d , a s e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n v e n t i o n a l u t i l i t y f i n a n c i n g w o u l d be t o d e v e l o p a p r o g r a m w i t h i n t e r i m c o n s t r u c t i o n n e e d s t o b e f i n a n c e d t h r o u g h a p r o j e c t f i n a n c i n g a g r e e m e n t w i t h a c o m m e r i c a l b a n k w h i c h l a t e r o n , a n d upon c o m p l e t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , w i l l b e f i n a n c e d t h r o u g h a l e a s e a r r a n g e m e n t o r a p r i v a t e p l a c e m e n t . f i n a n c i n g .

I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a n y t y p e o f p r i v a t e f i n a n c i n g w i l l n o t i m p r o v e t h e e c o n o m i c s o f a h y d r o p r o j e c t . Unde r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t may be n e c e s s a r y t o s e e k g o v e r n m e n t a l l o a n s o r g r a n t s i f i t i s t h e c o u n t r y ' s g o a l t o d e v e l o p power f r o m r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e s a n d l e s s e n o u r d e p e n d e n c e on f o r e i g n o i l . I n t h i s l C g h t , i t i s o u r c o m p n n y ' o i n t e n t t o a c t i v e l y p u r s u e a n y g r a n t o r l o a n p r o g r a m s t h a t may b e a v a i l a b l e f o r d e v e l o p i n g h y d r o p r o j e c t s .

111. CONCLUSIONS

A . From a n e n g i n e e r i n g a n d t e c h n i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , t h e p r o j e c t a p p e a r s t o b e f e a s i b l e

B . I n o u r o p i n i o n , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t t o t h e r i v e r s h o u l d b e m i n i m a l , h o w e v e r , we d o r e c o g n i z e t h a t a s e g m e n t o f t h e c i t i z e n s o f M i d d l e b u r y i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e a e s t h e t i c i m p a c t . I n t h i s r e g a r d , we w i l l c e r t a i n l y work c o o p e r a t i v e l y . w i t h t h e Town o f M i d d l e b u r y t o r e s o l v e t h i s c o n c e r n . I f t h e v i s u a l i m p a c t o f t h i s p r o j e c t o n t h e a r e a i s u n a c c e p t a b l e a n d i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e d u c e p r o j e c t s i z e , a f u r t h e r e c o n o m i c e v a 1 . 1 1 a t i o n w i l l be r e q u i r e d .

. C . We b e l i e v e t h i s p r o j e c t t o be m a r g i n a l l y e c o n o m i c when c o m p a r e d t o t h e b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e , i . e . a 1 9 8 3 n u c l e a r p l a n t . When c o m p a r e d w i t h f o s s i l f u e l a l t e r n a - t i v e s , t h e p r o j e c t i s more a t t r a c t i v e . However , o v e r t h e f u l l l i f e t i m e c y c l e o f t h e p r o j e c t , i t s h o u l d b e a v i a b l e o n e a s c o m p a r e d t o a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s .

D . Due t o marginal economics o f t h i s p r o j e c t , f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n shou ld be made o f a l t e r n a t i v e f i n a n c i n g methods.

Central Vermont P u b l i c S e r v i c e and Townscape, based upon the r e s u l t s o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy t o d a t e , are encouraged t o proceed w i th the fur ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s p r o j e c t .

I V . PROPOSED PROJECT

FROG HOLLOW RESTORATION

PROPOSED PROJECT 2-750 KW UNITS

S E C ~ sa ma. m n U Y., III.I.I.I.1..

FRENCH Wffi DAM ON THE W O N RIVER

Van Buren Township, MI

Ayres, Lewis, Morris 8 May, Inc. Principal Investigator: Donald W. Lystra, P.E.

PRDA Proposal Contract No. EW-78-F-07- 1772

I. INTRODUCTION

The French Landing dam is located on the Huron River in southeastern Michigan, approximately ten miles east of Detroit. The facility was constructed in 1925, the last in a series of five dams on the Hwon River developed for hydroelectric generation by the Detroit Edison Company.

The facility includes a powerhouse, two adjustable sector gates for the release of high flows, and a 181-foot-long reinforced-concrete multiple-arch dam for control of the impoundment (see Figure I). The height of the dam from the bottom of the footlngs to the arch crest is 35 feet. The powerhouse was originally equipped with two vertical Francis turbines, directly connected to 4600 volt slow-speed generators, rated 1200 and 2400 kVa. Annual production from the plant averaged about 7.5 million kilowatt-hours, ranging from a high of 12.7 million kilowatt-hours in 1950, to a low of 7.2 million kilowatt- hours in 193 1.

Figure I Upstream View of French Landing

Darn Site

In 1962 the facility was taken ollt of service. The generators and all related electric equiprr~ent were remved from the powerhouse. The turbine units were left in place in the wheel pits, however to prevent rotation, the shafts were welded to the guide bearing housings and the runner buckets were burned off. The gate casings, guide vanes, and gate operating mechanisms were left in an operational condition so that they could be used to control the discharge of water through the structure.

In 1973 the French Landing facility was turned over to Van Buren Township. The transfer agreement included a provision which prohibited use of the dam site "for the generation of electric power for resale at any time." Since 1973 the Township has owned and operated the facility with its own funds.

11. HYDROLOGY

Based on data from a U.S.G.S. permanent gaging station twenty-two miles upstream of the French Landing facility, hydrological parameters at the site are est imnt~r l os follows:

mean discharge 518 cfs mean annual flood peak 2530 cfs mean annual 30-day low flow 275 cfs

The flow-duration characteristics of the site are typical of those for sites in the midwestern and eastern United States. Average discharge during the wettest month averages about five times that occurring in the driest month.

The impoundment reservoir above the dam site is seven-mile-long Belleville Lake, covering an area of 1425 acres. Downstream of the dam the Huron River Valley broadens out into a wide shallow floodplain which is' largely undeveloped.

Ill. MARKETS

Two feasible markets for the sale of power were identified: I ) the local electric uti l i ty, Detroi t Edison Company, and 2) a group of manufacturing concerns located in a nearby industrial park. (NOTE: In view of the current energy situotion, the Detroit Edison Company readily agreed to waive the provision in the 1973 agreement which prohibited the use of the site to generate power.) A substantial difference was found to exist in the potential revenues from each market, based on the fact that the ut i l i ty would only agree to purchase power based on gross energy (average 16 mills per kWhr), whereas the industrial concerns could purchase power based on both energy and demand charges (19.3 mills per kilowatt-hour, $5.80 per kilowatt peak monthly demand, based on offsetting the utility's primary supply rate). In general the projected revenues from the industriol markets for any given fnci l i ty design averaged about 50 percent higher Il.~url the projected revenues from the ut i l i ty market.

IV. DESIGN STRATEGY

An analysis of site hydrology established that the storage capacity in the upstream impoundment was not sufficient to guarantee a f i r m demand capacity without experiencing unacceptable variations in lake level during drought conditions. I t was possible, however, to establish a l imited amount of reliable monthly demand capacity based on natural stream flow. Figure 2 on the following page is a conceptualization of a proposed operating strategy for the facil ity in relation to the flow duration curve.

I t was found that the installed generating capacity of the faci l i ty in relation to stream flow characteristics has an important influence on project cost-effectiveness. The benefits from increased capacity were found t o deminish rapidly above a given point due to the flow-duration characteristics in the river. The table below shows the relationship between installed capacity and effective capacity (i.e., average util ized capacity) a t the French Landing dam site. I t can be seen that the proportional increment in effective capacity decreases with each increment in plant size.

Installed Capacity (kW) 500 750 1000 1500 Effective Capacity (kW) 448 596 703 844 Increment (kW) 448 148 107 14 1 Util ization 90% 59% 43% 28%

A deta'iled benefitlcost analysis was conducted t o identify the optimum faci l i ty size in terms of incremental costs and revenues. I t was found that the most cost-effective design contained a relatively small amount of production capacity, in relation to ovailoble water power, with a correspondingly high util ization factor. Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual model upon which the benefitlcost analysis was based. I t can be seen that the civi l and structural costs were found to be relatively stable whereas the equipments costs were found to be highly variable with faci l i ty size.

V. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDIED

A total of seven project alternatives were examined in detail. The alternatives included different production capacities, different hydroulic turbine designs, and equipment by different manufacturers. One alternotive involved refurbishment of the existing vertical turbines.

From an engineering standpoint i t was found that items of equipment needed to recommission the site ore readily available from both U.S. and foreign manufacturers. The one possible exception is slow-speed vertical generators which, although st i l l available, require special fabrication. A satisfactory alternative to the slow-speed units is available, however, through the use of standard speed generators operated through speed increasers.

The project alternatives which were examined included vertical, bulb, and tubular turbine designs. Equipment costs were found t o be relatively independent of turbine design; estimated costs for two 750 KW, units, including generators and governors, averaged about $430 per KW. One exception was the James E. Leffel Company of Springfield, Ohio, whose equipment was significantly less expensive than that of other manufacturers.

FlbURE 2 OPEUATINC. L W b P A C T E ~ I J T I L 9 O F & 5MALL RUN - OF R I V L O HYDROILECTUIL P L A N T IN

I 1 R E L A T I O N T O F L O W D U R A T I O N CUUVL

k Y;&Y PLOW* h X H A E 4 t P OVER M M

AVEaA!aE RELIAELE MONTHLY PeMPI.:P

INlMUM OLCOPTA

. COhTINUOU3 1 INTtOMlTTWT ' TURelNE OPERATION TURblNe OPtOATlON

. . YEY .

w~.rca '~owaa CONVBUTLD TO E L I C ~ L P L meuby WATER P W S O LO./r DUE TO MINIMUM PLOW MAINTENANCL

FIGUZE 3 I CONCEPTUAL MODEL OC Y I~OeLELTRIC

SbClLlTy ECONOMlLj

VI. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

An analysis of financial feasibility concluded that there are several cost-effective alternatives for recommissioning the site based on the use of vertical turbines and the sale of power to nearby industrial markets. Projected gross annual revenues ranged from 12 t o 16 percent of estimated project casts. After accounting for expenses for operation and maintenance and debt service (including amortization of principal), the net return on investment, on a cash basis, ranged from -0. I percent to 3.2 percent.

In terms of the bulk sale,of power to the local electric uti l i ty, no cast-effective alternatives were found to exist.

A major burden on project cost-effectiveness wos found to be the relatively large costs for structural repairs to the dam and powerhouse needed to insure a 25-year service life. These costs amounted to $309,000; or fram 21 t o 38 percent of the project costs of the alternatives studied. Pr.esumably, many of these costs, since they are related to matters of dam safety, would have to be incurred regardless of whether the facil ity is developed for hydropower.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

A detailed environmental impact assessment was conducted using an impact matrix methodology of a "no-action" and a "recommended-action" alternative. The environmental assessment concluded that the development of the faci l i ty for hydroelectric generation would have important positive impacts related to improved impoundment. and flow management techniques, as well as enhanced public safety due to the structural repairs to the dam.

VIII. RECOMMENDED DESIGN

I f the French Landing dam site is developed as a hydroelectric resource i t is recommended that the design incorporate the following features:

- type of hydraulic turbines: vertical - number of generating units: two - size of generating units: each rated 500 to 830 kilowatt output ful l load, depending on manufacturer - type of generators: synchronous - generator speed: either low speed, or standard speed through a gear drive - method of installation: in existing powerhouse - market for power: nearby industrial consumers, in parallel wi th normal u t i l i ty service

The following table gives a summary of project costs and operating characteristics of the recommended design.

Estimated Project Cost (X1000) $ 1,242 Installed Capocity (kW) 1,660 Effective Average Capacity (kW) 80 1 Plant Factor 48% Cost/lnstalled kW $ 748 Cost/Effective kW $ 1,551 Projected Annual Production (MkWhr) 7.0 Average Demand Capacity (kW) 1,069 Projected Annual O&M Expense $39,500 O&M Cost/kWhr Produced 0.56c

The following gives a projected financial summary of the recommended project, on a cash basis, for the f i rst year of operation.

Revenues Energy Soles $126,000 Demand Sales 74,400 Standby Surcharge ( $ 34,800)

Expenses Operating Labor $ 14,600 Maintenance 18,900 Administration, Insurance 6,000 Debt Service 106,600

Net Prof i t (Loss)

1.6% Return on Investment

The projected revenues are based on sale of electricity to private industrial concerns, offsetting charges for normal service under Detroit Edison Company's primary supply rate, with a standby surcharge imposed by the ut i l i ty of $1.75 per k i lowatt per month.

The annual debt service is based on 7%, 25-year financing fram the sale of Township revenue bonds, and includes amortization of principal.

ZUMBRO DAM ON THE SOUTH FORK ZUMBRO RIVER

h c h o s t e r , Minnesota

C i t y of Rochester, Minnesota K. W . Beck and Assoc ia t e s

PRDA Cooperative Agreement No. EW-78-F-1 773

T.. INTRODUCTION

Th i s r e p o r t summarizes t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y assessment s tudy under a DOE Rrant f o r the City of Rochester, Minnesota t o de termine i f i t i s economical t o add t h e t h i r d gene ra t ing u n i t i n t h e empty s t a l l a t t he e x i s t i n g powerhouse a t Zumbro Dam on t h e South Fork Zumbro River. The s t u d i e s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have included s i t e reconnaissance, system loads , growth r a t e , s i t e hydrology, conceptual p r o j e c t arrangemerits and l a y o u t s , power ou tpu t , e s t i m a t e s o f cons t ruc t ion c o s t s and annual c o s t s , economic ana lyses , development of a des ign and c o n s t r u c t i o n schedule and a pre l iminary environmental review o f t h e proposed P ro j ec t a l t e r n a t i v e s .

11. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

The e x i s t i n g Zumbro Hydroelec t r ic P r o j e c t is loca t ed i n sou theas t Minnesota on the South Fork Zumbro River approximately 1 5 mi l e s no r th o f t h e C i t y o f Rochester and approximately 70 mi les southeas t .of the Min- neapolis-St. Paul metropol i tan a r ea . The l o c a t i o n o f t h e P r o j e c t i s shown i n Exhibi t 1. The South Fork Zumbro River has a dra inage a rea o f 811 square mi l e s above t h e dam s i t e and over t h e 48-year period of 1931- 1978 t h e flow a t t h e s i t e h a s averaged 361 c f s .

Th i s e x i s t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t is owned and opera ted by the C i t y of Rochester. The p l an t was completed i n 1919 and has been i n cont inuous ope ra t ion by t h e C i t y s i n c e t h a t t ime. The e x i s t i n g P -~o jec t consists of a conc re t e g r a v i t y weir s e c t i o n , 440-feet long. w i th a n uncontro l led c r e s t and s h o r t non-overflow s e c t i o n s a t each abutment. An i n t a k e and powerhouse s e c t i o n i s l oca t ed near t he l e f t abutment and is an in- t e g r a l p a r t of t h e water b a r r i e r . Two turbine-genera tor s e t s a r e i n s t a l l e d a t present and a n empty s t a l l is a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n of a t h i r d gene ra t ing u n i t .

The e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e s a r e 12-vaned, Francis- type wheels and a r e each r a t e d a t 1,350 hp under a ne t head of 44 f e e t and were designed t o o p e r a t e a t a synchronous speed o f 225 rpm. The e x i s t i n g gene ra to r s a r e each r a t ed a t 1,150 kVA which, w i t h a 0.80 power f a c t o r , r e s u l t s i n a r a t e d output of 920 kW. Over the pas t 18 yea r s t h e e x i s t i n g p l an t h a s produced, on a n average b a s i s , about 7,400,000 kwh annual ly .

111. PROPOSED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT

The proposed development w i l l c o n s i s t o f adding t h e t h i r d u n i t a t t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse a t t h e Zunbro ~ i d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t ; i n s t a l l i n g two f e e t of f l a shboa rds t o t h e sp i l lway ; i n s t a l l i n g a new 3-phase t r a n s f o r m e r a t t h e p l a n t ; and the i n s t a l l a t i o n of a new step-down t ransformer a t t h e Zumbro River Substa t ion in . Rochester.

The new F r a n c i s t u rb ine w i l l be r a t e d a t 2,350 hp under a n e t head of 52.3 f e e t , and opera t ing a t a synchronous speed of 200 rpm. Discharge a t f u l l g a t e ou tpu t would be about 461 cfs. , and a t bes t g a t e ope ra t ion a d i scha rge o f 392 c f s would produce about 2,160 hp. The maximum diameter of t h e runner ( a t d i s c h a r ~ e r i n g ) would be s l i g h t l y l e s s than 66 inches which corresponds t o t h e e x i s t i n g s c r o l l c a s e and d r a f t tube design. Some p o r t i o n of conc re t e was omit ted du r ing t h e o r i g i n a l cons t ruc t ion t o enable convenient i n s t a l l a t i o n of embedded p a r t s f o r t h e proposed new u n i t . Small amounts of e x i s t i n g conc re t e might r e q u i r e removal and s c a r i f i - c a t i o n of some s u r f a c e s w i l l be r equ i r ed , but i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e new u n i t s can be i n s t a l l e d with l i t t l e

' a d d i t i o n a l work. Proposed mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e powerhouse a r e shown i n Exhibi t 2. '

The new gene ra to r w i l l b e r a t e d a t 2,000 kVA with a 0.9 power f a c t o r , which corresponds t o a r a t ed output of 1,800 kW. Vol tage of t h e new gene ra to r w i l l b e t h e same a s t h e two e x i s t i n g u n i t s s o t h a t a l l t h r e e u n i t s can be connected i n t o a 2.4-kV bus. Power a t t h e e x i s t i n g p l a n t is transformed from genera tor vo l t age to U.8- kV f o r t r ansmis s ion t o t he C i t y ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n system. The t ransmiss ion l i n e i s in su la t ed f o r 34.5-kV and i t is proposed t o i n s t a l l a new three-phase, 34.5-kV t ransformer r a t ed a t 4,500 kVA t o reduce t ransmiss ion lo s se s . A second t ransformer w i l l be r equ i r ed a t t h e Zumbro River Subs t a t ion i n Rochester t o step-down the 34.5-kV t r a m mis s ion - to d i s t r i b u t i o n vo l t age .

I n the past a s much a s a two-foot height of the flqshboarda on the a p A l l ~ 7 has been used tr, lacrease cut- put from the plant. However s ince about 1951 t h i s pract tce h4s been dlscont%nued, X t & proposed to hc r ea se the reservoir l eve l during peak load months a t E l 922 by mwns of &nstal&ng two f e e t h5gh Llashbtlqwda on the spillway c res t . The flashboards w i l l be designed s o that by manual pemwal of one pin cormectSon, progressSve f a i l u r e w i l l occur i n event of a flood occurring while t he Plashboards a r e h place.

The three-unit plant w i l l therefore have an i n s t a l l ed capacity of 3,640 kW, consisting of two existing units, each of which is rated a t 920 kW, and a new un i t rated a t 1,800 kW. The dependable capacity from the plant, delivered a t the ci ty 's load center, w i l l be 3,227 kW. The average annual energy from the p l a t , de- l ivered a t t he City's load center w i l l be 10,661,000 kWh, of which 3,652,000 kWh w i l l be firm (prime).

IV. PROJECT OPERATION

The Zumbro Hydroelectric Plant is current ly operated a s a run-of-the-river i n s t a l l a t i on with pondage avai lable f o r da i ly and weekly operation. Historical ly, t he reservoir has been subjected t o wkde v a r i a t i m s in surface elevat ions with t he reservoir being drawn down to as low a s E l 910. The proposed development would continue t o operate a s a run-of-the-river ins ta l la t ion . However, the reservoir l eve l would generally be min- tained within a two-foot operating range f o r any month t o increase the average annual energy and capacity from the development. During periods of extreme low flow, the Project a l t e rna t i ve would operate for limited periods from streamflow and pondage and increased drawdown would occur.

V. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Four a l te rna t ives of development a t the exist ing Zumbro P lan t were compared. The f i r s t three of these involve various modifications t o the ex is t ing two-unit i n s t a l l a t i ons , together with t he addit ional power from thermal generation, t o match t he output of t he proposed third un i t i n s t a l l a t i on (Alternative W), The costs of t he addit ional f i rm energy and dependable capacityneeded f o r the f i r s t three a l te rna t ives is based on the most economical subs t i t u t e of p a r t of a new simple-cycle combustion turbine ins ta l la t ion , The cost of the ad- di t iona l secondary energy needed is equated t o those of f ue l replacement of current ly operated o i l and coal- f i r ed plants.

For the scheduled on-line da t e of October 1983, considered t o be the e a r l i e s t p rac t ica l date, the Total Investment Cost of i n s t a l l i ng t he th i rd un i t and other work f o r Alternat ive W is estimated to be $1,718,400, equal t o $954/kW ins ta l led a t t ha t time frame, The annual cost f o r the f i r s t f u l l year (October 1983 - Sep- tember 1984) of operation of t h e three-unit plant i s $238,800 using 40-year, 7% in t e r e s t revenue bond financ- inp .

The proposed Alternat ive I V shows about t he same f i r s t year cost a s t he next l e a s t cos t ly a l te rna t ive (111). Over t he f i r s t t en years of operation t he proposed a l te rna t ive shows a present worth savings of $129,800 i l d i ca t i ng economic f e a s i b i l i t y of the Project.

V I . ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

An i n i t i a l assessment has been made of the environmental impacts expected to occur a s a r e su l t of the proposed development. There i s no apparent evidence to ind ica te t ha t the project w i l l a f f e c t current land uses, f i s h and wi ld l i fe , water qual i ty, archaeological h i s t o r i c resources o r socio-economic conditions i n the project area. The r e l a t i ve ly s tab i l ized reservoir operation is considered t o be a beneficial irnpact to the recreat ional use of Zumbro Lake. A minimum re lease during non-generating periods has been scheduled to support the modest ta i lwater f i shery and t o maintain water qua l i ty downstream.

V I I . CONCLUSION

The proposed development poses no unusual technical problems and no s ign i f ican t adverse environmental ef- f e c t s a r e anticipated. It shows suf f ic ien t promise of technical, economic and f inanc ia l f e a s ib i l i t y , t o jus- t i f y t h e City entering i n to t he next phase of work, t he FERC License Application, a s soon a s possible so that the i n s t a l l a t i on can be completed by October 1983. Concurrently with t h i s , the City should mke applicat ion to the DOE f o r a demonstration project grant under the second Project Opportunity Notice, responses to &ich w i l l be so l i c i t ed short ly.

I n s t a l l a t i on of the new transformers a s soon a s possible w i l l provide addit ional economic benefi t to the City which could be real ized i n advance of the scheduled on-line da te of October 1983,

gill*a Omvity Dam

PLAN - ! O A T I?'

Scok

R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ~ N t S &No COrm(LTM7I

-.wamwm -.ow0

P n r * l & T ~ Y * u y I m w l

CITY OF ROCHESTER MINNESOTA

ZUMBRO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

INSTALLATION OF THIRD UNIT MAJOR EQUIPMENT

DAni MARCH 1070 Exhibit 2

BIG BLUE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Big Blue River, NE

Nebraska Municipal Power Pool Acres American Inc.

PRDA Prop@sal Contract No. 1774

The B ig Blue River Co-Dependent Hydroelect r ic Development f e a s i b i l i t y study has been under'taken by Acres American Incorporated under the terms o f a contract w i t h Nebraska Municipal Power Pool (NMPP) dated August 17, 1978. The study has been j o i n t l y funded by the Department o f Energy (DOE) and NMPP under Cooperative Agreement No. EM-78-F-07-1774. The development comprises a ser ies o f seven e x i s t i n g dams on a 65-mile s t r e t c h o f the Big Blue River i n Nebraska. The ob jec t i ve o f the study was t o es tab l i sh the technica l and economic f e a s i b i l i t y of developing the hydroe lec t r i c power po ten t ia l a t the seven s i tes .

This paper presents the r e s u l t s o f the f e a s i b i l i t y study f o r the development and deals w i t h the concep- t u a l design a1 ternat ives, const ruct ion cost estimates and schedules, pre l iminary environmental and safety assessments and power marketing studies f o r the proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n s . The p r o j e c t w i l l i nvo lve const ruct ion and/or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f hydroe lec t r i c generating f a c i l i t i e s a t each o f the seven selected s i t e s on the Biq Blue River. To ta l ing up t o 3900 kW i n capacity, these s i t e s are located t o the south and southwest of Lincoln, Nebraska and con t ro l a t o t a l o f 4,444 square miles o f drainage area. The power p lan ts w i l l u t i l i z e gross headf a t the e x i s t i n g dam s i t e s ranging from 10 t o 20 fee t . Ex is t ing f a c i l i t i e s inc lude overf low dams and power - houses a t each s i t e i n various s tates o f repai r .

The NMPP Pro jec t Manager f o r t h i s study was Mr. H. Steve Wacker, ass is ted by Mr. Stan Feuerberg. The Pr inc ipa l Inves t iga to r f o r Acres was Mr. John D. Lawrence, P.E., assisted by Mr. Parimal S. Pal.

-.. . Assistaqce i n the study i n the compilat ion o f l oca l s i t e and environmental data, surveys and mapping was m d e d by Olssen Associates o f Lincoln, Nebraska, and i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. Dr. Wi l l iam T. Tr ick, Consult ing Engineer, ca r r ied ou t on behal f o f Acres the'necessary inspect ions o f e x i s t i n g power generating f a c i l i t i e s a t a l l seven s i tes . The assistance o f Dr. T r i ck i n formulat ing the p r o j e c t design a l te rna t i ves i s a1 so g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged.

Geotechnical explorat ion work and t e s t i n g o f mater ia ls was undertaken by Western Laboratories, a lso o f Lincoln, Nebraska.

The cooperation and assistance o f the fo l low ing current owners o f the s i t e s are a lso acknowledged:

- ABC E l e c t r i c Company, Inc. - Nebraska State Game and Parks Commission - C i t y o f Crete - John D. Zwonechek - Robert L. Cunning - Nebraska Publ ic Power D i s t r i c t - Nor r i s Publ ic Power D i s t r i c t

2. CONCEPTUAL PROJECT DESIGNS

The B ig Blue River Co-Dependent Hydroelect r ic Development has been found t o be a techn ica l l y feas ib le concept, f o r both redevelopment and i n some cases r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f seven e x i s t i n g s i tes . The proposed redevelopment p r o j e c t wi 11 inc lude seven i n s t a l l a t i o n s w i t h a wcomnended nominal ly ra ted redeveloped capacity o f 3,920 kW ranging from 120 kW a t the northernmost s i t e i n Seward County t o 1500 kW a t Barneston. The average annual gross generat ion expected from the seven redeveloped s i t e s t o t a l s 11,555,000 kwh. It i s estimated t h a t the t o t a l cost o f redevelopment o f these seven s i t e s w i l l be $14,090,000 a t 1979 p r i c e levels , prov id ing power a t an average l e v e l i z e d cos t o f about 5.3 cents per kwh based on 7 percent cost o f money, a mid-1983 comnis- s ion ing date, and a l lowing f o r funds dur in const ruct ion and cost escalat ion over a 30-year period.

R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f o r i g i n a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s a t Crete, Dewi tt, Blue Spr ings and Barneston i s t e c h n i c a l l y f eas ib le f o r a t o t a l i n s t a l l e d capac i t y o f 1,415 kW w i t h annual average gross genera t ion o f 6,675,000 kwh. The t o t a l cos t of t h i s r e h a b i l i . t a t i o n i s es t imated as $3,372,000 a t 1979 p r i c e l e v e l s , o r about 2.4 cents pe r kwh, l e v e l i z e d on a s i m i l a r bas is .

R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t he Barneston s i t e a lone f o r an i n s t a l l e d capac i t y o f 760 kW and annual genera t ion o f 3,581,000 kwh i s both t e c h n i c a l l y and economical ly f eas ib le . The t o t a l es t imated cos t o f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s $668,000 p r o v i d i n g power a t a cos t o f about 1.9 cents pe r kwh a t 1979 p r i c e l e v e l s . The bene f i t / c o s t r a t i o f o r Barneston r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i s es t imated as 1.23.

2.1 Desc r i p t i on of Proposed F a c i l i t i e s : The proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c redevelopments w i l l be l oca ted on a 65- m i l e cont inuous s t r e t c h o f the B i g Blue and West Fork R i ve rs i n Nebraska, west and south o f t he C i t y o f L i nco ln .

The seven s i t e s a re c u r r e n t l y i n va ry ing s t a t e s o f r e p a i r and a re owned by va'rious p r i v a t e and p u b l i c e n t i t i e s , as f o l l o w s :

- . P l a n t S i t e No. 2, Seward Co.; ABC E l e c t r i c Co., Inc . - Shady T r a i l , Sa l i ne Co.; Nebraska S ta te Games and Parks Commission - C i t y o f Crete. Sa l i ne Co.; C i t y o f Crete - Dewi t t , Gage Co.; John D. Zwonechek - Holmesv i l le , Gage Co.; Robert L. Cunning - Blue Spr ings, Gage Co.; Nebraska P u b l i c Power D i s t r i c t - Barneston, Gage Co. ; N o r r i s Pub l i c Power D i s t r i c t

Dams a t t h e above s i t e s have been breached o r a re beyond r e p a i r , w i t h t he except ion o f Crete, Holmes- v i l l e and Barneston. The B i g Blue R ive r a t Crete has been d i v e r t e d around the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . O f t he above s i t e s , o n l y Dew i t t , Blue Spr ings and Barneston power p l a n t s a r e o r h a v e . r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y been i n oper- a t i o n . The p l a n t s a t t he o t h e r s i t e s a re non -ex i s ten t o r beyond r e p a i r . The e x i s t i n g power p l a n t s a t Dewi t t , Blue Spr ings and Barneston a re amenable t o r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . The o r i g i n a l powerhouse s t r u c t u r e a t Cre te i s i n good enough c o n d i t i o n t o be redeveloped w i t h u n i t s o f s i m i l a r s ize .

The proposed redevelopment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n schemes a t each s i t e and p r e l i m i n a r y cos t es t imates a re summarized i n Tables 1 and 2. New ove r f l ow dams a re proposed a t f i v e s i t e s . On o t h e r than rock foundat ions , the:? dams w i l l cons<st o f h igh-s t rength , weather - res is tant , s t e e l sheet p i l e s t r u c t u r e s w i t h r o c k f i l l upstream slopes and r o c k f i l l gabion aprons downstream.

On rock foundat ions the dams w i l l be const ruc ted o f r o c k f i l l gabions w i t h concrete f a c i n g and prov ided w i t h e f f e c t i v e drainage systems. A l l dams w i l l be res to red t o the o r i g i n a l c r e s t l e v e l and w i l l be capable o f be ing s a f e l y overtopped.

2.2 A1 t e r n a t i ves Considered: a t each o f the s i t e s were:

The f o u r bas i c op t i ons considered f o r development o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l

- r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t he e x i s t i n g powerhouse and genera t ing equipment; - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g powerhouse and replacement o f t he genera t ing equipment a t a

s i m i l a r capac i ty ; - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g powerhouse s t r u c t u r e and i n s t a l l a t i o n o f genera t ing equipment o f

a d i f f e r e n t type and/or s i ze ; - complete redevelopment o f the powerhouse and genera t ing equipment.

I n the i n t e r e s t s o f economy, equipment s e l e c t i o n was conf ined e s s e n t i a l l y t o the a v a i l a b l e standard manufactured u n i t s . Four bas ic types o f u n i t were found t o be s u i t a b l e f o r use a t the s i t e s :

- v e r t i c a l , open-flume prope l leF; - h o r i z o n t a l , s i ng le - regu la ted Kaplan ( t ube ) ; - min i -hyde l , Franc is ; - v e r t i c a l , open-flume Franc is .

A v a r i a t i o n o f the v e r t i c a l , open-flume p r o p e l l e r u n i t , w i t h ad jus tab le blades and a x i a l i n take , was - a l s o considered. I n equipment se lec t i on , emphasis was p laced on ach iev ing maximum economy through commonality

of designs and u n i t s .

No s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s e x i s t i n t he e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s f o r passage o f f i s h . Consequently, no p r o v i s i o n has been made i n t he proposed development f o r such f a c i l i t i e s o t h e r than i n t he i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e l y s i zed t rashracks a t i n takes and t a i l r a c e s t o prevent passage o f f i s h through the power p l a n t s .

2.3 P lan t and U n i t Size Se lec t i on : The p l a n t and u n i t s izes have been se lec ted on t h e bas i s o f a v a i l a b i l - i t y and c o n d i t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , o r i g i n a l pond water l e v e l s , the h y d r a u l i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t he

e x i s t i n g and proposed water passages, i n takes and t a i l r a c e channels, t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y and v a r i a t i o n o f r i v e r f lows, and comparat ive power values. The se lec ted i n s t a l l a t i o n s a t each s i t e a re considered t o provideopt imum usage of t he a v a i l a b l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l . I n i t i a l p l a n t s i z e o p t i m i z a t i o n and comparison o f a l t e r n a t i v e s was based on p r e l i m i n a r y power values pub l ished by t he FERC f o r a1 t e r n a t i v e combustion t u r b i n e ,. combined c y c l e and c o a l - f i r e d sources i n t h e Mi d-Cont inent Area R e l i a b i 1 i t y Coord inat ion Agreement (MARCA) reg ion.

I n i t i a l assessments of f i r m capac i t y and average annual genera t ion were based on r u n - o f - r i v e r ope ra t i on of p l a n t s w i t h no use of pondage f o r f l o w augmentation. The a d d i t i o n a l energy t o be gained w i t h f l o w augmen- t a t i o n from d a i l y pond drawdown was subsequently est imated. A summary o f t he r e s u l t s o f these eva lua t i ons f o r the se lec ted schemes i s presented i n Table 1. The p r e l i m i n a r y eva lua t i ons were made f o r purposes o f s e l e c t i o n o f number and s i z e o f u n i t s a t each s i t e . I n general i t was found t h a t t he re was l i t t l e o v e r a l l economic d i f f e r e n c e between the two o r t h ree most f avo rab le op t i ons a t each s i t e . U n i t s e l e c t i o n was the re fo re made w i t h a view t o ach iev ing g rea tes t commonality o f designs.

The se lec ted p l a n t c a p a c i t i e s were l i m i t e d t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t by the dimensional c o n s t r a i n t s and h y d r a u l i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t he e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s and the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a p p r o p r i a t e l y s i zed t u r b i n e - generator equipment. Attempts were made i n t he s tudy t o s e l e c t as rep resen ta t i ve a v a r i e t y o f types o f u n i t s as poss ib le . Generators were gene ra l l y assumed t o be standard design h igh speed machines, coupled t o t u rb ines through app rop r i a te speed increasers . The s e l e c t i o n o f p l a n t s i z e and c o n f i g u r a t i o n wi 11 n o t be s i g n i f i c a n t l y in f luenced by any l i k l e y d i f f e rences i n power values. Nevertheless, f u r t h e r s c r u t i n y o f op t imized p l a n t s i z e may be warranted i n l a t e r phases of p r o j e c t eva lua t i on when pnwer va l~ res APP mnrP s p ~ c i f i c a l 1 . y def ined.

A t y p i c a l example o f a p l a n t conceptual design i s shown on P la tes 14 and 15.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULES

3.1 General: D e t a i l e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t es t imates have been prepared f o r a l l seven s i t e s , together w i t h t y p i c a l schedule data on f o u r se lec ted s i t e s f o r t he B i g Blue Development. These cos ts and schedules were developed t o a degree o f d e t a i 1 such t h a t f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d economic eva lua t i on as we1 1 as f inance and schedule p lann ing may proceed w i t h an acceptable l e v e l o f conf idence.

3.2 Cost Est imates: Summary c o s t es t imates f o r redeve lo~men t a l t e r n a t i v e s considered f o r a l l seven s i t e s and f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s considered f o r f o u r s i t e s a re presented i n Table 2. D e t a i l e d c o s t e s t i - i i~a tes f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e have been prepared f o r a gene ra l l y cons i s ten t l e v e l o f developlilent i n each case r e l a t i v e t o p l a n t f a c i l i t i e s , access, p r o v i s i o n o f maintenance f a c i l i t i e s and automated opera t ion . Construc- t i o n cos t s were based on c o s t l e v e l s app l i cab le t o t h e type o f work i nvo l ved and l o c a l cond i t i ons i n t he Nebraska area and r e f l e c t f i r s t qua r te r 1979 costs .

3.3 Schedules: Typ ica l p r o j e c t schedules a re shown i n t h e i r two p r i n c i p a l phases on P l a t e 23, Engineer ing Schedule, and P l a t e 27, Const ruc t ion Schedule (Barneston). The Engineer ing Schedule i s e s s e n t i a l l y based on concur rent l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing design and equilpment procurement a c t i v i t i e s t o r e s u l t i n the sho r tes t c o n s t r u c t i o n l ead t ime. The Engineer ing Schedule i s app l i cab le gene ra l l y t o each s i t e and i s cont ingent upon r e c e i p t o f a Federal Energy Regu la tory Commission (FERC) l i c e n s e no l a t e r than week 88 o f t he concur rent case.

The l i c e n s i n g phase o f t he schedule i nc ludes a 15-week p repa ra t i on p e r i o d i n p a r a l l e l w i t h t he i n i t i a l eng ineer ing design a c t i v i t i e s . The i n i t i a l design a c t i v i t i e s wi 11 i nc lude f i n a l i z i n g the p r o j e c t arrangement and p repa r i ng tu rb ine-genera tor procurement documents. It i s es t imated t h a t the c u r r e n t t ime requ i red f o r issuance o f l i censes f o r p r o j e c t s o f t h i s s i z e i s 12 t o 15 months. Receipt o f l i c e n s e by week 88 i s there fore a reasonable expecta t ion .

Consecu t i ve l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing a c t i v i t i e s would lengthen the schedule consi 'derably. However, the FERC r e c e n t l y in t roduced a new shor t - fo rm l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n procedure f o r smal l hydro p r o j e c t s (1500 kW o r l e s s ) . The requirements f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n a re in tended t o s i m p l i f y and shor ten the pe r i od necessary f o r p repa ra t i on and approval o f hydropower p r o j e c t l i censes . With t h i s new l e g i s l a t i o n FERC hopes t o reduce the l i c e n s i n g p e r i o d t o t h ree months. On t h i s bas i s t he o v e r a l l schedule, assuming consecut ive l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing a c t i v i t i e s f o l l o w i n g the i n i t i a l 15-week p repa ra t i on per iod , w i l l be lengthened by an es t imated 18 weeks.

The c r i t i c a l p o r t i o n o f the Const ruc t ion Schedule a t each s i t e i s t he demo l i t i on and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g powerhouse and dam which have been t y p i c a l l y scheduled f o r t he r e l a t i v e l y d r y p e r i o d o f October through December. I t i s planned t h a t r i v e r f lows w i l l be d i v e r t e d f o r these cons t ruc t i on a c t i v i t i e s by temporary cofferdams.

Timely d e l i v e r y o f t u r b i n e s and genera tors and assoc ia ted equipment are a l l c r u c i a l t o t he r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e schedules shown. Procurement o f these i tems has t h e r e f o r e been scheduled du r i ng the l i c e n s i n g per iod. and s u f f i c i e n t l y i n advance o f t he c i v i l cons t ruc t i on c o n t r a c t t o a l l o w app rop r i a te manufactur ing l ead t ime i n each case.

3.4 P r o j e c t Cbsh Flows: With a conservat ive assumption o f consecut ive l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing a . c t i v i t i es , mid-1983 commercial se rv i ce dates are reasonably a t t a i n a b l e f o r a l l developments considered.

Typ ica l cash f low requirements were developed f o r t h e f o u r l o c a t i o n s f o r which cons t ruc t i on schedules have been prepared. The c a l c u l a t e d allowance f o r funds du r i ng cons t ruc t i on (AFDC) has been es t imated assuming a 7 percent annual cos t o f money and end o f p e r i o d payment. The c o s t bas i s i s f o r p r i c e s r u l i n g a t the end o f March 1979, a p p r o p r i a t e l y esca la ted t o 1983 l e v e l s assuming 6 percent annual i n f l a t i o n .

4. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

4.1 E x i s t i n g Cond i t ions : The proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c redevelopment and/or r e h a b i l i a a t i o n p r o j e c t s w i l l a l l be l oca ted a t p rev ious l y developed s i t e s on the B i g Blue and West Fork R ivers i n Nebraska ( P l a t e 1) . The seven s i t e s are c u r r e n t l y i n va ry ing s t a t e s o f r e p a i r and a r e owned by var ious p r i v a t e and p u b l i c e n t i t i e s .

Dams a t f o u r o f t h e s i t e s have been breached o r a re beyond r e p a i r and a t a f o u r t h s i t e the r i v e r has been d i v e r t e d around the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . Power p l a n t s which were o r i g i n a l l y i n s t a l l e d a t a l l seven s i t e s have been abandoned a t a l l bu t t h ree and o f these o n l y one i s c u r r e n t l y ope ra t i ve .

4.2 P re l im ina ry Environmental Assessment: The proposed redevelopment and/or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l a t t h e seven s i t e s w i l l have n e g l i g i b l e impact on the present t e r r e s t r i a l and aqua t i c systems both du r i ng c o n s t r u c t i o n and ope ra t i on o f t he f a c i l i t i e s .

The proposed developments a re a l l r e l a t i v e l y smal l i n capac i ty , t he l a r g e s t a t Barneston being 1500 kW. L i cens ing f o r a1 1 s i t e s may t h e r e f o r e be undertaken us ing r e c e n t l y i n t roduced FERC sho r t - f o rm procedures. A d e t a i l e d environmental impact r e p o r t w i l l t h e r e f o r e n o t be requ i red as p a r t o f t he l i c e n s i n g process. The c u r r e n t study has been b r i e f and p r e l i m i n a r y and has been adapted t o t he l e v e l o f f e a s i b i l i t y assessment '"

app rop r i a te a t t h i s t ime. The study cons i s ted o f a p r e l i m i n a r y rev iew o f p e r t i n e n t environmental r e p o r t s , a - s i t e reconnaissance and contac ts w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s f rom l o c a l , s t a t e and federal . .agencies having expe r t i se on t h e t e r r e s t r i a l and aqua t i c ecosystems found w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t area.

4.3 P re l im ina ry Safe ty Assessment: Const ruc t ion o f t he proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s w i l l p o t e n t i a l l y impact on the s a f e t y o f t he p u b l i c as w e l l as cons t ruc t i on workers i n t he immediate v i c i n i t y o f the powerp lan t t o a minor degree. Appropr ia te precaut ions w i l l t h e r e f o r e be necessary t o min imize these r i s k s . Design and ~ p e i - a t i n g procedilres w i l l be fo rmula ted t c ensure t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t chiinge, and i n severa l ins tances a, r educ t i on i n r i s k s t o p u b l i c sa fe t y , wi 11 a r i s e du r i ng ope ra t i on o f t he h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

5. MARKETING STUDIES

The essen t i a l r o l e o f t h e Nebraska Munic ipa l Power Pool (NMPP) i s t o pool t h e resources o f p a r t i c i p a n t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t h e s t a t e t h a t r u n and opera te t h e i r own e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s . S tud ies author ized by NMPP i n 1977 and 1978* have determined t h a t poo l i ng o f resources o f 25 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t he pool w i l l prove t o be economica l ly advantageous. The r e l a t i v e l y smal l s i zes o f t he seven proposed B i g B l ue Hyd roe lec t r i c Develop- ments a r e such t h a t t h e optimum use o f t he power w i l l be i n p a r t i c i p a n t systems which a re p h y s i c a l l y c lose, thus l i m i t i n g t ransmiss ion losses. No f i r m commitments have been made f o r purchase o f t h e power produced by t h e proposed p r o j e c t s a t t h i s t ime. The market ing p o t e n t i a l has, t he re fo re , been assessed by comparison w i t h t he a l t e r n a t i v e power sources a v a i l a b l e t o p o t e n t i a l NMPP p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f each s i t e . .

The t h r e e northernmost s i t e s a re c l o s e s t t o t h e C i t y o f Crete, a NMPP p a r t i c i p a n t . The four remain ing s i t e s a re c l o s e s t t o Beat r ice , a l s o a p a r t i c i p a n t . The NMPP Power Study i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f u t u r e power requirements o f each o f these p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l i n c l u d e s i g n i f i c a n t power purchases from the Nebraska Pub l i c Power D i s t r i c t (NPPD). The economic v i a b i l i t y o f a l l seven proposed p r o j e c t s has t h e r e f o r e been assessed on t h e bas i s o f a comparison w i t h t h e f u t u r e cos t s o f NPPD power purchases. For NMPP t o suppor t any of these developments a s . i g n i f i c a n t c o s t b e n e f i t should be r e a l i z e d by s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e power ou tpu t from t h e proposed p l a n t f o r an equ i va len t amount,of purchased power.

5.1 P ro jec ted Power Costs: The l i f e o f a comple te ly redeveloped hydro s i t e i s conse rva t i ve l y es t imated as 40 years. Considerably l onge r per iods a re 1 i ke ly . For r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s some d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e may take p lace i n t h i s per iod , b u t 40 years i s s t i l l considered a reasonable l i f e expec- tancy f o r f i n a n c i a l p l ann ing purposes. However, a maximum 30 yea r pe r i od f rom 1983 has been adopted f o r developed l i f e - c y c l e c o s t comparisons w i t h purchased power a l t e r n a t i v e s . Annual f i x e d cos ts and ope ra t i on and maintenance expenses f o r 1983 have been assumed f rom data pub l ished i n t h e FERC F ina l D r a f t Hyd roe lec t r i c Power Eva luat ion Report dated August 1978. These cos ts were considered f o r comparison purposes as wholesale power cos ts exc lus i ve o f payments i n l i e u o f taxes o r any a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and general cos t s which may be added

* Power Supply Study, Phase I ( J u l y 1, 1977 j 'and Phase I 1 (January 15, 1979) f o r NMPP, by Burns and McDonnell

t o consumers' b i l l s . Operat ion and maintenance cos ts f o r subsequent years were assumed t o esca la te a t 5.3 pe rcen t per annum. ( S i m i l a r t o NPPD capac i t y charge esca la t i on f o r 1983 t o 1993). Accumulated present wor th va lues f o r 1983 were es t imated on t h e bas i s o f a 7 percent pe r annum i n t e r e s t r a te .

The wholesale munic ipa l power r a t e s o f NPPD were assumed t o be based on average system cos ts and t o con t i nue t o be so f o r t he p e r i o d o f t h e study. The power sources o f NPPD a r e fuel-dependent, predominant ly o i l o r c o a l - f i r e d . For study purposes, capac i t y and energy cos ts f rom 1983 through 2013 were assumed t o e s c a l a t e a t average annual r a t e s of 5.3 and 7.5 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y , as i n d i c a t e d i n t h e Power Study. The NPPD demand charges a r e based on monthly peaks. For study purposes the va lue o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c power f o r each s i t e was conse rva t i ve l y based on es t imated annual f i r m capac i t y and t o t a l annual generat ion. Leve l i zed power values were aga in est imated f o r t he 30 year per iod.1983 through 2013 assuming a 7 percent annual i n t e r e s t r a t e .

5.2 Comparison o f A l t e r n a t i v e s : It i s ev iden t f rom the r e s u l t s o f t h e ana l ys i s t h a t o n l y the Barneston P r o j e c t w i l l prove t o be more economic than NPPD purchased power on the bas i s o f t he assumptions made w i t h regard t o f u t u r e power cos t and va lue esca la t i ons . I t should be noted however t h a t t h e f u t u r e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f NPPD power a t the cos ts assumed, and o f t h e f u e l s necessary t o produce t h a t power, has n o t been considered a t t h i s t ime. F u e l . s c a r c i t i e s and c o s t increases beyond those assumed may w e l l render more o f t h e p r o j e c t s v i a b l e over a 30 yea r per iod .

Annual power costs f o r the Bluesprings h j e c t Rehabilitation a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l be f avo rab le compared w i t h NPPD power purchases by t he e a r l y 2000's and a l s o probably economic on a l i f e c y c l e bas i s over t h e 40 t o 50 yea r l i f e o f t h e p r o j e c t which may be a n t i c i p a t e d . Th is p r o j e c t may t h e r e f o r e be considered m a r g i n a l l y economi c.

Al though favo rab le on a n e t annual c o s t b a s i s by about t h e yea r 2010, t h e B lue Spr ings Redevelopment a1 t e r n a t i ve i s l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f rom an economic s tandpo in t . However, f u tu re cons ider - a t i o n o f o t h e r lower c o s t a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r tu rb ine-genera tors may be warranted.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

It i s recommended t h a t NMPP i n i t i a t e d iscuss ions w i t h t h e N o r r i s PPD and Bea t r i ce a t an e a r l y date w i t h ' a v iew t o l i c e n s i n g and development o f t h e Barneston P ro jec t . I t i s a l s o recommended t h a t f u r t h e r s tud ies be undertaken t o op t im ize t h e development a t Barneston and t o cons ider f u r t h e r t h e p o t e n t i a l development a t B lue Spr ings.

TABLE - I 81G BLUE HYDROELECTRIC OEVELWENT

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC COMPARISONS (1979 DOLLARS IST QUARTER)

S i t e O p t l m I n s t a l l e d Firm Annual Capaclty Level I zed Leve I I red Benef I t- (1) c a t

Capacity Capaclty Generat I m Factcr Annual Annual

C t C 2 ) 3 R a t l o

(KW) (KW) (KWXIO~) (%) ( c ~ / K w ~ ) ( X R w h ) Seward Redev. 280 26 1 619 25 9.1 3.5 0.38 Shady Tral l Redev. 310 233 639 24 10.2 3.1 0.30 C l t y d Crete Redev. 315 315 1.016 37 7.8 2.8 0.36

Rehab. 125 119 767 70 5.5 1.9 0.35 Dew I tt Redev. 375 375 935 28 7.9 3.4 0.43

Rehab. 190 190 66 1 40 4.2 2.7 0.64 ~ o l r & s v l l l e Redev. 520 520 2.193 48 4.5 2.4 0.53 B lue Sprlngs Redev. 620 620 2,260 42 5.8 2.6 0.45

Rehab. 340 340 1,666 56 3.0 2.2 0.73 Barnes tm Redev. 1.500 1.259 3,893 30 2.8 2.9 1.04

Rehab. 760 739 3,581 54 1.1 2.2 2.00

' I n t n I 8 Redev. 3,920 3.583 1 1.555 33.6 5.3 2.8 0.53

Rehab. 1,415 1,082 6,675 53.9 2.4 2.2 0.92

NOTES : - (1) AdJusted fcr f l o r augmentatim f ron pmdage. (2) Mld-1979 P.W. casts, based m mld-1983 camnisslmlng, 30 year perlcd, MM casts escalated a t 5.3%

per annum, 1979 1 s t quarter c a t levels, 7% In te res t . (3) Based m NPPO parer purchases, 1979 P.W. levels, capaclty charge ( i983) 18.58AW-math escalated

5.3% per annum, energy charge (1983) 12.14 ml l ls/KW escalated 7.5% per annum, 30 year p e r l d , 7% In te res t .

TABLE 2

Acccunt Number Large

Item - Rcdev. Redev. Redev. Rehab. -- -- Redev. Rehab. ---- Redw. Rehab. Unit Rehab.

Land and Land --- -- - --- --- --- -- --- --- -- --- Rights

Structures L Imprcuements 275.9

Reservoirs, Dams L Waterways 242.9 379.9 424.3 320.9 177.2 182.1 165.3 416.9 364.6 229.3 82.8

Access ay E l e d r l c a l Equ 1 plnent 149.0 149.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 60.0 1 n.0 150.0 90.0 177.0 90.0

Mlsc. Pcuer Plant Equlpmnt 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 - 15.0 8.0 15.0

Access Rosds 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.3 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

Sub-Stat I m Equlpment 21 .O 21 .O 21.0 21.0 40.0 50.0 -- 70.0 -- - - - 21.0 10.0 - - - - --- Sub-Tota I 912.2 1,070.5 1.310.6 687.3 1,207.8 426.6 1,581.2 2,145.7 767.2 1,574.1 470.4

Cmtlngencles (15%) 136.8 160.6 196.6 103.1 181.2 64.0 237r2 321.8 115.1 236.1 70.6

Tuta l PrqJect Capltal Cost 1.311.3 1,538.9 1.884.0 988.0 1,736.3 613.3 2.273.0 3.084.4 1,102.9 2,262.8 676.3

IDAM, SPILLWAY AND POWERHOUSE LOOKING UPSTREAM - . ' n

rn BARNESTON DAM SITE. BIG BLUE RIVER n

,

. ' L -

/ I I / C._._._I / !SUB . ' Ls!--g!l f

l/ r / I / I

I EXISTING WATER LINE

.-I=.=

3 WAITER UNE

- I

I

FMY -

I

4;105a7 #44 WlE 14 . .- . - .

SITE PLAN 0 3 0 0

. : .I.

me W R W a R C P - o E P m o E M ~ =lsPn*nr FSUMlUrf llERWll

eQRNEsToN SITE GENERAL ARRAb(6EMPIT

WLW P0'wE.P FACILITY ON FOX RIVER

App k f m, WLek;oas.ia

KimberZy-Clark Corporation Kiraberly-Clark Corporation & Mgad and Hwt, Tnc.

PRD& Proposal. Contrace. Na. EW 78-7-07-1775

Wean tly&aelec~Lc pzsject is- Loe&& em the npt-fzh h:de o f the Fox R%WE in @F%I~S%V, WLsc~ap&, a d &s w2tU'p 349 E e ~ t & ehe ,WCP~~'S

hy&&eotx&c faeil i&y - &sta3l.& in ehe year 1852.

Qperat- of the VtaZaan Hy,&X~€d~kWt~i~ pl$nt 8agm LR b9OQ w4tk at bt9~pzww~ii-~a! i n EW 3-s 3~915 k h g i n g it@ eaciti-3r: go 2350. EBJ ~ 25, cp&e power. Pawem @ememWZ a t eh&s s i t e was! ~ t i l i ~ d the %d;5~ezz~t IWberly- Clark Atfw RLll: w2th the swplus beim tr-.ansm&ti.t&. t o a: dmmaSzeam Khberly-' Clark M i l l afz KiraWrly. Beth ope~at5oas &&~iti&l&y utZlized 25, cyc2s pmez ezclusively . A s wj or wpwrsions, equipment and process chases occurred. it bm@m neasa&qr to rely public u.til&Gy 60 0yc1.e pwer to aeet the growing enezgy damanda. The gradual cmversion to 60 cycle, reduced power plant effici;en.cFes and deteriorating c iv i l works prompted a 1956 fecs ib i l i ty asseswent for possible reconsmotian o£ the VtiLcan plant. The study, conducted by Mead bc Hunt, hyd?z~ehct& specialists and caso&tmt.s, d e w d ;t.n~a major r&esastzusztiim a& eartvezsion to 60 cycle e c s n d c a l l y not feasible based upon the then current aad pr s&c td energy c a t s . The plant 's q e r a t i o n was tem%uated i n 1974 &tex 65 years of d c e . The eqpQment_ md bui1diq.s himsing t%e apexatLon remain in p l m .

The ~rppe~ For atad Wolf Wivero a d t b & z t~ibt@ried? cQnpx;ise a d ra inqe ares of &bout 6,027 square m i l e s above the Valcan pwer s i t e . The U. S . government controls the levels tkoughouE the wdEtercom8.e and with the ezrception of Lake Winnebago no mwjor e - - t s exist . Industries and u t i l i t i e s operate their water power drAven f ac i l f t i c s on a run-of-the-river basis. Average water flaws a t the A- Co;r?ps o f Engineers gaging s tat ion are raemded as 4,256 cfs for the pe.&iod of 1918 throvgh 1972.

'Ehe hedwater leveL is maintained by the, U.S. Upper Dm, operated by the Asray Corps of Engineers and nonnalfy regulated between elevations 737.6 feet and 738.1 feet .

The level of the tailwater is controlled by a privately owned middle dam with the top of gate elevation at 721.37 feet. The pool level for this'study has been assumed to be at a constant elevation of 721.4 feet for normal river flows.

D. NET HEAD AND USEABLE FLOW

Based on study and historical data, head curves show that net heads wil'l vary between 15.9 feet for low river flows and 13.8 feet with river flows of 5,000 cfs and canal discharge of 2,300 cfs.

E. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT

Having determined that it would not be feasible to attempt to salvage any of the equipment or the powerhouse structure, and in order to maximize the use of the potential water power, modern high-efficiency generating equipment should be installed in a new structure situated to minimize head losses.

Based upon head, size of unit, availability of service and parts, civil work required and total costs, it has been determined that a horizontal tube unit would.be most feasible. Bulb units 'do not compete in cost with other units for the particular size of units required. Vertical units were not selected because of the excessive civil works required for the draft tube">construction.

Recommended equipment includes the installation of two horizontal, hydraulic, adjustable blade, fixed vane, standard 2,750 mm tube turbines, each rated to develop 1100 KW under a net head of 13.5 feet. Unit discharge at rated output would be approximately 1,080 cfs.

Adjustable blade turbines were selected so that the units will operate over a wide range of flows with favorable efficiencies. The installation of two 2750 mm units will provide a maximum generating capacity of 2200 KW and will have a hydraulic capacity of 2,300 cfs at 13.5 feet head. Considering efficiencies, the annual generation would be about 14,000,000 KW in an average water year.

Since this would be a run-of-the-river plant,,firm capacity will be limited to power that can be generated during low-flow periods. Firm capacity, normally defined as the maximum power that can be supplied on demand for a three-hour period, could be increased if some draw-down could be made on the pool above the upper dam. Discussions with the Corps of Engineers indicate they may recommend approval of an application to install flashboards so the pool would always be above the minimum legal level, which is the crest of the dam.

The new powerhouse construction will improve water flow at both the intake and discharge ends.

F. MARKET POTENTIAL . .

The Atlas PaperMill, located adjacent to the Vulcan site,. is a1s.o. owned by Kimberly-C'lark Corporation. The mill has a load requirement of about 450 KW and uses approximately 3,000,000 KWHR per year. Generation from the redeveloped Vulcan plant will be used to supply these needs. Surplus power will be marketed.

G. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

It is proposed that the Vulcan plant be automated, thereby eliminating the need for a full-time operator. A part-time operator will be required to maintain oil levels, read meters, maintain a daily operating log, make routine switchgear inspections, clean racks and perform daily housekeeping duties. The duty will require approximately four hours per day, five days per week and be provided by the personnel from the adjacent Atlas Mill. Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at three mils per KWHR. This is equal to $42,000 per year beginning with 1981. .

H. PROJECT LIFE

The depreciable life of the project is to be 28'years with normal maintenance.

I. COST ESTIMATE AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT s

The estimated cost to construct a new powerhouse and install new operating equipment adjusted to the fourth quarter of 1979 is $3,360,000, which is $1,527/KW.

The discounted cash flow return on investment is estimated at' Q percent with a probable low of 6.1 percent and a.probable high of 15.1 percent. The payback for the project, which is an. expression of the number of annual cash flows required to equal the original investment, is 11.2 years. Paybacks range from 9.4 years for the.most favorable projection to 14.1 years for the least favorable.,, The most likely financial returns are based on the prediction that electricity prices in the Fox Valley of Wisconsin are likely to increase at an average annual con~pound rate of 10 percent.

J. IMPACT ON RIVER AND RESERVOIR

The construction and operation of a 2200 KW hydroelectric plant.at the Vulcan site will have.no impact on other perceived water resource needs of the area or on the current use of the reservoir or on the use of the area downstream from the proposed plant. The proposed plant will have no effect on the operation of other hydroelectric plants located either upstream or downstream. Recreational use of the river will not be affected.

K . ENV 1KC)NMEN'l'AL ASSESSMEN'L'

The environmental assessment, part of the feasibility assessment initially submitted, shows that the short- term use of the environment

through reactivation of the facility will have no detrimental effects; long-term productivity and self-sufficiency in energy resources is enhanced by the utilization of hydropower.

L. REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES

Regulatory bodies with jurisdiction and concerns for the proposed project redevelopment have been appraised of the study plans. Normal submission of the details developed upon project approval will meet requirements currently known and anticipated.

M. ACCEPTABILITY OF THE SITE

As the proposed redevelopment will be accomplished with only minor modifications to head and tail race canals of an existing facility which has served for 6 5 years, we anticipate no problems.

N. SCHEDULE

The redeveloped Vulcan facility could be on line 18 months after design commences.

111. BASIC CONSTRAINTS

A. RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Estimated rates used in this study and as offered for "on-peak" and "off-peak" surplus energy purchased by the utility are significantly , lower than conparable rates charged by said utility for purchased power. The most favorable projected return on investment based on current proposed surplus power credit results in a payback in excess of nine years. This payback is not within current Corporate acceptable guidelines.

B. SALE OF POWER

Under provisions of the recently enacted Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is now in the process of drafting regulations exempting qualified "small power production facilities" which market part or all of the power they produce from otherwise applicable federal and state public utility regulatory requirements. As we read this new act, the Vulcan project should qualify for these exemptions. In any case, Kimberly-Clark will assure that all necessary public utility restrictions and regulatory requirements are appropriately .fulfilled.

C. UNIQUE SITUATIONS

The proposed reconstruction will be accomplished on a proven watercourse with historically documented flow and level controls on a site which has served successfully for over 6 5 years. No new environmental constraints can logically be applied. The return of this proven and valuable renewal resource to active energy production is most critical in terms of our current national energy emergency.

.. MAX STARCKE PARK DAM

Seguin, Texas

C i t y o f Segui i~ A l f r e d H. Koebig

PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. EW-78-F-07-1776

The Max Starcke Park Dam i s l o c a t e d on Guadalupe R i v e r i n Seguin, Texas. The low-head dam made o f rock and concre te forms an impoundment w i t h a water l e v e l approximately 10 f e e t above the normal t a i l w a t e r l e v e l . The e x i s t i n g dam has an e x i s t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c u n i t i n opera t ion , a long w i t h a smal l a d d i t i o n a l power house s t r u c t u r e n o t r e a d i l y s u i t a b l e f o r a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s . The f l ows i n t he r i v e r a re regu la ted t o a l a r g e e x t e n t by o t h e r h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s on the r i v e r . The f e a s i b i l i t y assessment eva luated the a d d i t i o n o f one o r more hydro u n i t s t o t he e x i s t i n g dam.

11. RIVER FLOWS

The r e s e r v o i r formed by t he dam has no s torage capac i t y a v a i l a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e r a t e s a t which water can be passed through new t u r b i n e u n i t s . The impoundment i s f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes a constant l e v e l l ake . Flow r a t e s a v a i l a b l e t o pass through the t u r b i n e a re t he discharges t h a t now e x i s t i n t he r i v e r .

D a i l y stream f low records have been main ta ined on the Guadalupe R i v e r upstream from Seguin. These records show t h a t the average d ischarge has been approximately 700 cub i c f e e t per.second ( c f s ) f o r t h e 44 yea r p e r i o d o f record.

K i v e r f l o w pa t te rns a t Seguin have been g r e a t l y a l t e r e d by t h e c d n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Canyon Reservo i r a s h o r t d i s tance upstream. Flow r e g u l a t i o n a t Canyon Reservo i r began on J u l y 21, 1963. The minimum conservat ion pool l e v e l was f i r s t reached i n A p r i l 1968. The r e s e r v o i r has a t o p o f conservat ion capac i t y o f 382,000 ac re - fee t and a capac i t y a t t he f l o o d s p i l l w a y c r e s t o f 736,700 ac re - fee t . The average r i v e r f l o w r a t e s i nce t h e c l o s i n g o f Canyon Reservo i r has been some 13.5% g rea te r than the t o t a l p e r i o d o f record.

F low-dura t ion curves were developed f o r t h e Guadalupe R ive r a t Seguin and are shown on P l a t e 2. The 1965-1977 curve was ad jus ted down t o r e f l e c t the lower, r i v e r f lows t h a t have been exper ienced over t he t o t a l p e r i o d o f record .

D a i l y r i v e r f l o w p a t t e r n s are mod i f i ed by t h e ope ra t i on o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c u n i t s a t a dam immediately upstream from t h e Max Starcke Park Dam r e s e r v o i r . The ope ra t i on o f t he upstream h y d r o e l e c t r i c u n i t s r e s u l t s i n a regu la ted f l ow-du ra t i on curve as shown on P l a t e 2.

The Max Starcke Park Dam p r e s e n t l y has i n ope ra t i on a 250 KW hydro t u rb ine . The f l o w r a t e through the t u r b i n e i s approximately 300 c f s and t h e u n i t operates almost cont inuous ly . New u n i t s would opera te when f l ows g rea te r than 300 c f s occur. An automat ic s t a r t and s top ope ra t i on would be employed and would be governed by t h e water l e v e l i n t h e upstream impoundment.

111. PLANT LAYOUT

A. P l a n t Locat ion

The most advantageous l o c a t i o n f o r new hydro u n i t s was determined t o be south o f t he e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e u n i t and ad jacent t o t he south abutment. An o v e r a l l p l an view o f t he dam and the power p l a n t ' s l o c a t i o n near t h e south abutment i s shown on P l a t e 1.

B. U n i t Se lec t i on

The s e l e c t i o n o f t he type o f genera t ing u n i t s was based on severa l f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g ope ra t i ng cond i t i ons and economic cons idera t ions . Two types o f u n i t s meet ing t h e ope ra t i ng requirements were considered: a h o r i z o n t a l s h a f t tube type machine w i t h ad jus tab le blades and a v e r t i c a l machine w i t h ad jus tab le gates. High f l o o d water l e v e l s i n t h e r i v e r would necess i t a te ex tens ive c i v i l works t o p r o t e c t t h e h o r i z o n t a l tube type u n i t . The v e r t i c a l type machine can be so arranged t h a t t he generator and governor can e a s i l y be p laced above the h igh water l e v e l . The costs o f r equ i red c i v i l works, machinery cos ts , and ope ra t i ng performance i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e v e r t i c a l open f lume type u n i t s were more su i t ab le .

C. Number o f U n i t s and Capaci ty

Flow v a r i a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t f lows up t o 800 c f s a re p r a c t i c a l f o r hydropower development. Two u n i t s , each w i t h a f u l l gate f l o w r a t e o f approximately 400 c f s , were determined t o be more s u i t e d f o r t h e cond i t i ons a t t he s i t e than one s i n g l e l a r g e u n i t . The u n i t s would each have the a b i l i t y t o operate over a head range from 8.5 f e e t t o 10.5 f e e t and over a f l o w range from approximately 200 c f s t o 400 c f s . The capac i t y o f each u n i t would be 250 KW w i t h f l ows o f up t o 400 c f s . The l ayou t f o r the p l a n t i s shown on P l a t e 3.

I V . POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL

A. General

P ro jec ted power p l a n t ope ra t i on s tud ies were made t o determine t h e amount o f power t h a t cou ld be generated and the capac i t y t h a t cou ld be supp l i ed by t he two a d d i t i o n a l 250 KW u n i t s . The s tud ies covered a p r o j e c t e d 50 yea r pe r i od from 1982 t o 2031.

B. Power Generated

The power generated by the new u n i t s was based on the f l o w du ra t i on curves shown on P l a t e 2. The d i f f e r e n c e between the l ake water sur face and t a i l w a t e r l e v e l was used as be ing 10.5 f e e t a t 300 c f s and 8.4 f e e t a t 1,100 c f s . It was assumed i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f power generated t h a t 70 c f s would be pe rm i t t ed t o f l o w over t he dam du r i ng 12 d a y l i g h t hours d a i l y . The 70 c f s w i l l r e s u l t i n a depth o f f l o w over t he dam c r e s t o f about .2 f ee t . The 70 c f s was assumed t o f l o w over t h e dam so as no t t o e l i m i n a t e t he beauty o f t h e e x i s t i n g dam.

.Passing water through the new tu rb ines w i l l reduce the head water l e v e l i n t h e l ake and there fore t he head on the e x i s t i n g u n i t and the power generated by t he e x i s t i n g u n i t .

The reduc t i ons i n head on t h e e x i s t i n g u n i t w i l l reduce the power generated by approximately 4.5% o r 63,000 KWH annua l ly .

The average annual increase i n power generated by t he new u n i t s i s 1,700,000 KWH f o r t he 1982 through 2000 per iod . Th is va lue i s p ro jec ted t o decrease t o 1,575,000 KWH pe r year i n year 2010 because o f a n t i c i p a t e d d i ve rs ions from the r i v e r upstream, b u t then remains constant through the l i f e o f t h e p l a n t . The p l a n t f a c t o r i s .39 f o r t he new 500 KW i n s t a l l a t i o n du r i ng year 1982 bu t reduces t o .36 i n yea r 2032.

C. Dependable Capaci ty

An examinat ion o f t he h i s t o r i c a l f l o w pa t te rns and frequencies revea led t h a t on t h e average, t h e two ncw 250 KW u n i t s should supply a dependahlc capac i t y o f 200 KW.

V. ESTIMATED COSTS

Est imated costs were developed f o r . the requ i red i n s t a l l a t i o n . Costs were increased 8% annua l l y f rom present day costs t o account f o r i n f l a t i o n t h a t i s expected before c o n s t r u c t i o n can be accomplished.

The t o t a l o rde r o f magnitude i n s t a l l e d cos t f o r t h e f a c i l i t y i s $1,320,000. The t o t a l cos t equals $2,640 pe r KW o f capac i t y . The i n i t i a l c a p i t a l cos t p e r KWH produced annua l ly i s $0.78. The costs are based on f i e l d cons t ruc t i on d u r i n g 1981.

V I . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. ' General

The economic ana l ys i s f o r t he genera t ing f a c i l i t y i nc ludes the costs r e l a t e d t o t h e i n i t i a l cos t o f t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n , t he con t i nu ing ope ra t i ng and maintenance cost , and t h e va lue o f t h e power generated. Economic comparisons were developed t h a t take i n t o account t he cos ts (debt re t i r emen t and ope ra t i ng and maintenance cos ts ) and the b e n e f i t s (income from s a l e o f power). The economic l i f e o f t h e f a c i l i t y was assumed i n t he economic comparisons t o be 50 years. Economic comparisons were made on the bas i s of p resent value o f annual cos ts .

B. Cost o f t h e F a c i l i t y

The t o t a l cos t o f t he f a c i l i t y inc ludes costs f o r cons t ruc t i on , eng ineer ing serv ices , debt se rv i ce du r i ng c o n i t r u c t i o n , and in-house expenses t o be i n c u r r e d by t he C i t y before the p l a n t i s p u t i n t o opera t ion . The debt se rv i ce cos ts were based on an i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 6-112% and 25 equal and annual pdyllleflls.

C. Operat ing and Maintenance Cost

The 0 & M costs were increased 6% annua l ly t o account f o r expected increases i n cnst.z res1.11 t.ing from i n f l a t i o n .

D. Income from Sale o f Power

The genera t ion o f power was p r o j e c t e d t o produce cont inued income through the l i f e o f t h e p l a n t . The va lue o f t h e power generated was based on the p r i c e c u r r e n t l y pa id by t he C i t y f o r power- purchased from t h e Lower Colorado R ive r A u t h o r i t y (LCRA) and p r o j e c t e d increases a n t i c i p a t e d by LCRA.

The C i t y c u r r e n t l y pays LCRA approx imate ly 3 m i l l s per KWH f o r energy purchased, approximately 20 m i l l s pe r KWH as a f u e l charge and $2.75 p e r k i l o w a t t pe r month f o r a demand charge. The monthly demand charge i s based on peak demand r e a l i z e d du r i ng a month.

LCRA's p r o j e c t e d annual increase i n f u e l cos t i s approximately 6-112% f o r t he f o u r yea r pe r i od f rom June 1981 t o June 1985. Based on t h e present cos t s t o the C i t y and t h e p ro jec ted increases by LCRA, t h e January 1, 1982 charge f o r energy w i l l be approximately 5.2 m i l l s pe r KWH, the capac i t y charge w i l l be $57.50 per KW per year , and the f u e l charge w i l l be 21.9 m i l l s p e r KWH. (The 1982 va lue i s c i t e d because t h a t yea r i s p r o j e c t e d as the f i r s t yea r o f ope ra t i on f o r t h e new p l a n t . )

E. Economic Comparison

The economic comparison f o r t he new u n i t s considered annual cos t s ( cos t s f o r r e t i r emen t o f t he debt and annual costs. f o r ope ra t i on and maintenance). The economic comparison a1 so considered annual b e n e f i t s f o r t h e va lue o f power produced and t h e va lue o f the reduct i ,on i n peak power demand r e s u l t i n g from p l a n t o p e r a t i on. . .

The present values o f annual cos ts were p r o j e c t e d t o exceed t h e annual values o f t he b e n e f i t f o r the f i r s t twe lve years o f opera t ion . The present value o f t h e cumulat ive n e t b e n e f i t a t t he end o f 50 years o f ope ra t i on was determined t o be $982,363. The b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o was c a l c u l a t e d t o be. 1.60 a t t he end o f 50 years o f opera t ion .

The r e s u l t s o f the f e a s i b i l i t y as'sessment show t h a t an a d d i t i o n a l 500 KW o f genera t ing capac i t y a t t h e Max Starcke Park Dam i s economical ly j u s t i f i e d . However, the annual cos ts a re p r o j e c t e d t o exceed the, annual b e n e f i t s f o r t he f i r s t twe lve years o f opera t ion . The b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o over t h e p r o j e c t e d 50 yea r l i f e i s 1.60.

Diversion WON

X) 0 lo 20 30 40 -.

GUADALUPE RIVER ,

POWER PLANT LAYOUT

I

1

0 10 20 30 4 0 SO 60 70 80 90 100

% o f Time Flow ~ x c e e d s

72

h

CITY OF SEGUIM MAX STARCKE PARK DAM

DR HY O E W T R l C FEASIBILITY STUDY

FLOW DURATION CURVES' - FOR GUADALUPE RIVER

I a DEK'2C ' 1 DEC 1978 1 PL A T E 1

Steel Superstructure

SECTlOlJ A-A

5 0 5 I 0 15 - Stole in Feel CITY OF SEGUIN

MAX STARCKE PARK DAM HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY

PLAN

POWER PLANT PLAN 8 SECTION

DEY~ I DECl978 I PLATE 3

FOUR SITES ON THE MOUSAM R I V E R - . .-.- .. - - , - .- L. . \ .. * " . - * .- . ,

Kennebunk, ME

Kennebunk L i g h t and Power D i s t r i c t Fos te r -M i l l e r Associates, I nc .

PRDA- 1 706 Cooperative Agreement No. ET- 78-F-07 -1;777

I. INTRODUCTION

This study i s rev iewing the p o s s i b i ' l i t y o f redevelopment o f t he hydro- e l e c t r i c power p o t e n t i a l of f o u r dams on the lower Mousam River i n o r near the town o f Kennebunk, ME, and was undertaken on! beha l f o f t he Kennebunk L i g h t and Power D i s t r i c t , t he munic ipal ly-owned e l e c t r i ' c u t i 1 i t y suppalying the town and c e r t a i n ad jo in ing communities.

The study i s p r i n c i p a l l y funded'by the Department o f Energy and the . Pr inc ipa , , I n v e s t i g a t o r on beha l f o f the Kennebunk L i g h t and Power D i s t r i c t i s . ' Foster-Mi l .1er Associates, Inc. , of Wal tham, MA. The: Pr inc ipal : I n v e s t i g a t o r - _

subcontracted' po r t i ons of the study as fo l lows:

a,) Metcal'f andi Eddy,, 1.n~;. ,, Geotechni:ca:l: Assessment, C i vi, l ! Boston; MA. Co.nstruction Requi'sements. and' r-- . .

C .Geol ogi'c. Assessment fo.r8 Twine. , 4. : C Mil.:l. Dam: and! Rogers Mi':lil. Dam;.

b) JI. E. Edinger As~sociates, Inc., environment ail^ Assessments fo r1 Wayne, PA Twi'ne M i 111's Dam; and; Rogers

M i1 l ! l l Dam.

M i ke Harper, P: E., Determination) o f avai l lable; Peterborough, NH Energy, Development o f

Restorat ion, Concepts, Assess- ment of Turbine A l te rna t i ves , Assesssent o f Generator and U t i 1 i t y f I n te r face . Concepts, Economic* Assessment o f allil, s i t e s and product ion o f pre-4 1 im inary .drawings.

I n a d d i t i o n t o the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f thetPr inc ipa11 I n v e s t i g a t o r and the, subcontractors, t h e owner, Kennebunk L i g h t and Power D i s t r i c t , a l so i s . c o n t r i - b u t i n g l oca l , h i s t o r i c a l ! research, economic data, andchas c a r r i e d ou t physicall: i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f cond i t i ons a t c e r t a i n s i t e s . - . - * - - . - . . . . -

A,

I

11. SCOPE OF STUDY

he p resen t KL&PD system has a peak l o a d of about 10 mW, and growth appears t o have s t a b i 1 i z e d a t approx imate ly 5 percen t pe r .annum. Apa r t f rom

. t h e o u t p u t o f t h e e x i s t i n g 130 kW hydro u n i t a t Kesslen M i l l , a l l energy i s purchased f rom e i t h e r Cent ra l Maine Power Company o r from t h e 700 kW ( t o t a l ) p r i v a t e l y owned hydro p l a n t s a t New Dam and O ld F a l l s .

The p o t e n t i a l s i t e s covered by t h e s tudy a r e as f o l l o w s :

No. - Net Head Present

Meters Feet kW Operable

1. Dane Perk ins 2.43 8 0

2. Twine M i l 1 5.48 18 0

Twine M i l l 8.53 2 8 0 (Note 1 )

3. Kesslen M i l l 3.96 13 130 . .

4. Rogers M i l 1 6.09 22 0 (Note 2)

Note 1: The p resen t dam s t r u c t u r e a t Twine M i l l , i f r e b u i l t t o i t s o r i g i n a l he igh t , would r e s t o r e t h e ope ra t i ng head t o 5.48M (18 f e e t ) . However, i f t h i s dam was so r a i s e d as t o f l o o d back ove r t h e abandoned Dane Perk ins s i t e , t he head would be r a i s e d t o 8.53M (28 f e e t ) .

Note 2: The l i s t e d head a t Rogers M i l l o f 6.09M (22 f e e t ) i s t o t a i l wa te r l e v e l a t Mean High Spr ing Tide. The normal t i d a l range a t t h i s s i t e does n o t exceed 1.2M ( 4 f e e t ) , so t h a t t h e maximum design head w i l l range f rom 6.09M (22 f e e t ) t o 7.29M (26 f e e t ) . The l i s t e d head a l s o assumes t h a t Rogers M i l l dam would be so r e b u i l t as n o t t o r a i s e t a i l w a t e r l e v e l a t Kesslen M i l l .

111. SITE DESCRIPTIONS

The var ious s i t e s may be b r i e f l y descr ibed as fo l lows :

a ) Dane Perk ins

Th is i s an o l d sawmi l l s i t e and t h e wood c r i b s p i l l w a y s e c t i o n o f t he dam has f a i l e d a l though t h e masonary and concre te wings remain i n good cond i t i on . The u s e f u l head here i s o n l y 8 feet .

b ) Twine M i l 1

The wood c r i b dam here i s again, breached b u t t h e wing w a l l s r e q u i r e o n l y r e p a i r o f s p a l l e d areas t o r e s t o r e them t o se rv i ce . The head i s 18 f ee t and b r i e f cons ide ra t i on was g i ven t o r a i s i n g t h e dam t o g i v e a 28 f o o t head by f l o o d i n g back t h e Dane Perk ins s i t e ; however, t h i s approach proved economical l y u n a t t r a c t i v e .

The e x i s t i n g powerhouse s t i l l con ta ins the o l d Rodney Hunt tw in - wheel t u r b i n e and casing, i n s u f f i c i e n t l y good c o n d i t i o n t h a t r e s t o r a t i o n i s considered poss ib le , a l though the governor, generator, and switchgear have a l l - -- - - .. gone f o r scrap i n t he 18 years s ince the u n i t was l a s t operated.

c ) Kesslen M i l 1

This p l a n t comprises a v e r t i c a l sha f t u n i t r a t e d a t 130 kW a t 13 f e e t and had been o u t o f s e r v i c e f o r some 7 years u n t i l i t was success fu l l y r e s t a t e d through t h e i n i t i a t i v e of KL&PD8s General Manager i n 1977. New swi tchgear and c e r t a i n minor overhaul i tems a re requ i red .

d) Rogers M i l l

Th i s s i t e i s complete ly abandoned and the wood c r i b dam i s non- e x i s t e n t . Rebu i ld ing would e n t a i l t he re-escavat ion o f almost 1500 f e e t o f headrace, t h e cons t ruc t i on of a new power house and t h e c leanout of t he t a i l - race channel t o t idewater .

IV. STUDY :RESULTS

The r e s u l t s o f t he s tudy and t h e consequent recommendations are summarized i n t he folqowing tab le :

Head, ft

Present kW

present kWh/yr

(A) Maximum kWh/yr

Recommended ' kW

Increase kW

Dane Perk ins

Poss ib le kWh/yr 479,100

(B) Val ue of Increase $ 14,420

(C) Cap i ta l Cost $186,570

(D ) Cost o f Increase $ 19,682

( E ) Cost of Energy $0.0412

Best Value 3

Proposed Program Future

Twine M i l l

NOTES :

( A ) Based on 39 yea r average flows (B) A t p ro jec ted 1980 Centra l Maine Power purchase s o r t o f $0.0301/kWh (C) I n 1979 do1 l a r s (D) Based on 30 year amor t i sa t i on a t 7 percent i n t e r e s t (pe r year ) (E) Cost o f the increased energy i n $/kwh (F) Cost of necessary s a f e t y improvements - no energy increase.

Kesslen M i l l

Rogers M i l l

22

0

0

2,160,400

200

200

1,231,500

$ 37,000

$799,420

$ 84,338

$0.0683 '

4

Future

TREMONT DAM ON THE WEWEANTIC RIVER

Wareham, Massachusetts

R. F. Packard, Principal Investigator Town of Wareham, Massachusetts

& E. S. Wright, Hydro Program Manager United Technologies Research Center

PRDA Proposal Contract No. DE-FC07-78ID01778

INTRODUCTION

The site proposed for this project is the Tremont Mill Pond Dam located on the Wewewantic River in Wareham, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. This site is approximately five miles upstream from the river outlet at tidewater on Buzzards Bay and is located within two miles of the intersection of Routes 25 and 195.

The Weweantic River drains portions of Plymouth County in the towns of Middle- boro, Carver, and Plymouth before reaching Wareham. Its direction is primarily southerly into the sea. The drainage area totals 53 square miles and is relatively low and level. It consists of farms and woods with considerable swampy and boggy areas. Normally, large areas of swamps and bogs act as runoff reservoirs, moderating the flow of rivers during both the high and low rainfall extremes, and this factor strongly affects the flow of the Weweantic in a manner favorable to the generation of power. However, numerous areas of natural bogs have been converted to cranberry bogs and the artificial water flows in and out of these bogs at varhous times of the year tend to produce an uneven river flow.

The dam structure is 800 feet long, with a width across the top of 20 feet. The elevation is 62 feet above sea level. The dam is of earthen construction with granite block facing on the downstream side. The pond level is maintained at approximately 58 feet elevation by Town of Wareham municipal workers by manually adjusting two wooden gates at the spillways. The 39-acre Tremont Mill Pond is shallow and has very limited storage potential. A maximum of 24 feet is available, and the nominal operating head is 22 feet. There are 4 gates, controlling two overflow spillways each 14-feet wide and two underground water tunnels each 10 feet wide. All four lift gates are heavy timber con-

struction with timber rubbing surfaces set in massive vertical concrete foundation work. The gates are operated by ancient cast iron machinery which may be turned by hand or by electric motors through a clutch.

The earthen dam was originally.built in 1845. The concrete spillways and wooden gate structure were moved in 1918 from their original position to the present location. A concrete and brick powerhouse with two turbine wells was then built and Leffel turbines installed in 1923. The work was under the direction of the Charles T. Main Company, Engin- eers, of Boston. The powerhouse sits on a massive foundation below the damface at elevation 36.0 feet and is 45 feet high. The earthen dam, all the concrete work on the spillways and powerhouse foundation, and the wooden gates and gate operating machinery were all repaired or restored in a project that was completed in 1977. No hydroelectric generating equipment or water turbines are presently installed.

This study included an extensive survey of potentially applicable hydroelectric generating equipment, an intensive examination of the potential value of the power produced, and a determination of the environmental, social, institutional, and regulatory constraints and impacts. A comprehensive computer analysis was conducted and an optimized installation recommended for the site. The bulk of this feasibility study project was carried out by the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) in East Hartford, Conn. Some sections of the work were done by Engineering Department Staff Members of the Mass- achusetts Maritime Academy, by James Bell of Bell Hydropower, and Town-o.f Wareham staff.

11. EVALUATION PROCESS

Traditionally, small hydroelectric projects have been evaluated by'rule of thumb analysis. Stream flow duration curves were established from actual or extrapolated U. S. Geological Survey Data, the working head determined, and a plant capacity factor assumed. Average values of efficiency, value of power, etc. were used to establish estimated feas- bility and the evaluation of variations which might occur were limited to those which were hand calculable. Obviously, such procedures have little value in today's energy market where a high premium must be placed on cost effective electricity generation from indigenous, renewable resources.

Modern day energy systems analysis incorporates many powerful tools to insure system optimization in a wide variety of applications, and UTRC has conducted this type of systems analysis in a wide variety of potential applications for many years. As a result, it was believed that a comprehensive computer program could be developed for accurate analysis of small hydro sites. Consequently, an UTRC Corporate-sponsored program was developed during 1978. This computer program has been applied to the Tremont Mill Pond Dam Hydroelectric Feasibility Project and the results form the basis for all the economic feasibility conclusions reached in this report.

In brief, the program attempts to match a customer's demand with the water resources available, and, using real utility energy and demand rate schedules, and real efficiences, measures the cost savings (if any) compared to the costs to meet that demand solely from utility power.

111. CONCLUSIONS

(1) The expected configuration of the Tremont Dam Project is two hydroturbines installed in the present forebays, one of which is to be a reconditioned vertical Fran- cis unit and one of which is to be a new crossflow turbine. Each unit will drive a separate generator. The total capacity is to be between 200 and 250 kW divided approximately equally between the two units.

(2) For an estimated mean flow, this installation will deliver between 965,000 and 1,027,000 kWhrs annually depending on the actual capacity installed. Actual production will depend on the actual stream flow in any given year. The Project will operate essentially run-of-river, but has a limited capacity for peaking relative to a 4 foot permissible variation in the level of the 39-acre pond.

(3) The proposed hydropower installation will have a minimum impact on other perceived water resource needs of the area and on the current use of the pond.

(4) All &er produced is expected to be marketed directly to.New Bedford Gas and Edison Light Company under an agreement with the Town of Wareham which recognizes both the tangible and intangible benefits from the Project to both the Town and the Utility.

(5) The Town should immediately file an application for a minor license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Other local, State, and Federal agency requirements can be met without undue difficulty.

(6) The total capital investment is expected to range between $150,000 and $175, 000 which would equate to $600 to $800 per kilowatt. It is hoped that the Town will qualify for State or Federal grants which would reduce the Town's share of capital investment to below $500 per kW.

(7) For a 250 kW installation at $500/kW, the internal rate of return to the Town is 19 percent for a 30 year period and the payback time is 7 years, when all power is sold to the utility at 30 mills (using reasonable financial assumptions, inflation rates, and 7% financing). These figures decrease to 15 percent rate of return and 10 years payback period when the selling rate is 26 mills per kWhr. Unit costs are 24.1 mills per kWhr in the first year of operation, including capital, depreciation, operation, and maintenance.

(8) For the same installation, the net present value of the savings which the Town should realize from the Project are $6,651, $47,765, and $311,368 at the end of the first, sixth and 30th year, respectively, for an initial selling rate of 26 mills per kWhr and,

similarly, $11,707, $77,204, and $439,374 at 30 mills per kWhr. Total 30 year savings are projected at $1,431,593 for the 26 mill case and $1,948,803 for the 30 mill case.

(9) The anticipated annual operation and maintenaance costs are estimated at 4 mills per kWhr initially. This estimate assumes that the time of Town workers currently employed in regulating th,e pond level will not be charged to the project, that Project startup costs are separately accounted for, that supervisory personnel will be on Town overhead charges, and only those costs directly associated with the production of electricity will be charged to the project.

(10) The anticipated project life is assumed to be 30.years in all economic calculations, with a 15 percent salvage value. In actuality, the Project life is expected to be indefinite since the dam has existed for over 130 years and gives no siqn of failing.

(1i)~inirnal environmental damage and socio-inst.j . t~~t.j .onal impact is expected. The dam and pond have existed for years without conflict and pond regulation will not exceed present practice. cooperative interaction will be required with cranberry growers nearby.

(12) There is not expected to be a safety hazard associated with the rehabilitation of the hydroelectric power plant or with the day to day operation of it.

(13) The project site is acceptable from an engineering standpoint for hydroelectric power development.

(14) Suitable hydroturbine, generators, and accessories are presently available ..- for the recommended installation, but the availability of a suitable used vertical Francis . unit may change by the time it can be ordered and purchased by the Town. In the event that .. a similar new unit is required, the project will still be feasible, although its financial attractiveness will decrease, unless the utility electricity purchase contract is adjusted accordingly.

(15) The development plan for placing the Project on-line involves immediate approval by the Town to proceed, inciuding the filinq for a FERC min~r license. An appl.ioat.i.aii should be submitted to the State of Massachusetts for a $25,000 grant. This grant, if approved, could permit a start by July lst, 1979, for the purchase and installation of a good used rehabilitated vertical Francis turbine unit, provided the FERC license can be issued by then. This unit could be placed on line during the Fall of 1979. In addition, funding from the U. S. Department of Energy for 25% of the total project cost should be sought.

-Approval of such a DOE grant would then permit purchase of the crossflow unit which would be manufactured and installed no later than the 1st quarter of 1980. Thus, it appears that it is feasible to place the facility in full operation within one year provided the FERC license application involves no unforeseen delays.

(16) It is concluded that since no environmental or other barriers seem to exist to the restoration of hydroelectric capability at the Tremont Dam site, this Project should move forward as quickly as practicable because of the demonstrated significant financial benefits to the Town and because of the favorable possibilities as part of State and Federal demonstration programs that would promote the cost-effective utilization of indigenous, renewable energy pr-grams.

JOHASO1 LAaE INLET

The EelItrhl Nebraska Public PQwer snd Irr igation Dist.r.Le E. B. lkniilton

The Central WebiaeLca Power and Zrrigat-io6 PistxLet (Cetitral Dis t f ic t ) reviewed sweral pasrib$e low-head hy&.oeiectt%c s izes on' MePr eaw1 -seem. Of three which &owed pomise, the Jobmsa W e E d e t was chosen for a few&b%lity study.

Genera% D b t ? & t ome' a d a@s&ea a wat~r-&oSdage ~ & e m o & ~ , L&R Hdonoughy; a 75-mile w1ppQ ctmdx ootmmuzbq cut. e div#sioEl dam oai t b I"Latbe k%v.a@ near m r t h matte, Nebxaska; three hydroeleecric pl ies , JeFfksy,, J a h o s %. 1 a@ S-oa: No. 2; a PossLl fueled' stew eEecttic p f a t , &Ba?a&y; && d 6f"Srem- d da%%A%@ (L31d. Xat~ers'ls t@ deliver i r r iga t l aa -6er to S m a a it& Scgth-~entraa Wbraska. Each; of tbe exist ing k y a ~ e l e c t r i c p l aa t s hail a e8paciQ CS L8 tW, wla5le the Camiday pkeht has a capaciky oE EM BW. A Sodk4W, eiagl+unSfi & ~ ~ L e c e c h r i c power pLaW ie helng bedigned for ina&%Xation aC Ringsley Drus.

Johns& Igfre i e a liegeEatZlrg resenrokf f a t the Johneon No. f Tho iilZEe~ to tBe laXe is firm tke w~j~fy mxa~3 &mu$& at &%@%e t a w o r gs& &motuse, Qz@wxerp 1, 2 8 31. W e t n ke.re& % th9 0-1 is ni-&niikwd mas& sansQdne, as ehre is c irrr-hn c-l' beakl@ee- aF or& si&. F W fiboaBB. bhe serlieture d x k vaq- apstwam amid%- ti-, sueb & JeEf~ey Pl- 'laad..

Ths &sEy w a s made by CEW KZLL co t t sd fh& asgineess En C O Q ~ I W L Q - ~ C . ~ , ~ ~ wtth C m e ~ a l Distrzat 's s 3 a f f . '@I& sequesca' of twks t o be d e r e a k e a was as fdle~s:

1. Sate InspecaM 2. Data Collect-Eon 3. Perf 0m-e GlwsaeDei#ti& 4. Eauimeat Su@mV

9. * Impacts on Obhw Wker Uge 10. Capital Cost Estimate and Finenoing 11. Operation, Mabntenance, and Project Life 12. Econ-mic Feasibil i ty 13. Marketing Plan 14.* Permits and Licensing 15. * Schedule (for implementation) 16. Feasibil i ty Report

It was determined midway i n the study that economic feas ib i l i ty was not possible. The study was terminated and a report prepared. -

* Project was prwen infeasible before th is task was undertaken and i s not discussed i n th i s report.

Johnson Lake Inlet Looking North across the Inlet Gate, Supply Canal Left, to Johnson Lake Right, E65 Irrigation Lateral Head Gate Laver Left, Location for Eydro Unit beyond Inlet Gate.

Figure 1.

Johnson Lake Inlet Gate Looking Upstream, Location for Hydro Unit to Right of Inlet Gate.

Figure 2.

The gross head would vary from 8.5 t o 12.5 feet and average about 10 foot. Net head would be apgtaximately a foot less.

Canal flow varies frwm zero t o about 2000 cfs with an average 09 gboat 1000 cfs. A flow of 700 c f s was avatlable about 78 percent of the time.

b. GENEIULTXNG CAPACITY

Several hydraulic turbine-generator sizes were studied and E b i r re ls t ive economics campared, A 450-KW aingle unit at a 700 cfs flow was ee2ected a s the best of the alternates. Tbis w h i n e would generate down t o 250 c f s w9th fair efficiency.

Based on the turbine-generator as derrcrEbed, the average annual enecgy production would be 3,600,000 Kwh. Table 1, below, shows the generation and average flow by the month.

WLE 1. Amrage 0-1 Plow a d Power Generation W t e s t b l

Januarg Fabruary W u h

w 3um July AugusC Sapt&r Mober November December

Average Flaw 25-War Xonthily Mean

cps

990 J., 165 1,189 1,129 l ,OZ8 1 , Q B 1,253 1,866 $33

2,023 1,0?6 1,079

Average Power 0utput m

450 450 4.5 0 450 450 4.5'3 450 45 0 450 456 450 454

Ave- ,En- *** BWH

277,000 323,000 334,000 317, QQO 284,000 2% ,000 523,000 299, am 256, QQO 2861,000 ~ ~ , O Q O 302,OQO

The e&tbated annual .eapac&ty Laotor would *e 0.68. Flaw8 h31 below the d ~ h u m 250 c f ~ about three perseat of *he t i m e . Themfme, no f %mu oapacity can be rla%md.

Jul~uuorz Lake Inlet Gate from Upstream, Supply Canal mgnt Foreground, Lako i n Background, Location for Hydro Unit to Left of Inlet Gate.

Figure 3.

Vertical and horizontal shaft machines were comsidered. Francis type and propeller, fixed and adjustable, were checked. The tube type, horizontal shaft with adjustable blades was selected as the most reasonable. This 4-blade, 2,500 m i l l i - meter diameter turbine would f i t the head and flow conditions. A butterfly valve would be used t o shut off flow completely, for normal shutdowns, and for maintenance.

The generator, a 600-Ed induction unit operating a t 4,160 vol t , connecteo t o the turbine through a speed increase, would seem t o f i t the conditions. This could be connected to the local rural e lec t r ic distr ibution system.

f . CONTROL

The turbine-generator uni t would normally be on automatic control with remote monitoring and manual control possible. The automatic control would maintain the upstream water level essential ly constant. Flows beyond the 250 t o 700 c f s l imits of the turbine would be bypassed through the existing gate structure.

g. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Table 2, below, i s a slmmary of the construction costs including contingency, engineering and financial costs total ing $3,380,000.

TABLE 2. Construction Costs

On-Site Construction Equipment Total Total Annual Cost

h. FEASIBILI~ ANALYSIS

Energy and Capacity Benefits a re estimated a t 24 mills per Kwh for the f i r s t 300,000 Kwh, and 20 mills per Knh for a l l additional energy and $5.60 per Kn Month for capacity. The t o t a l annual benefits (1982) would be $116,600 for a Benefit-to- Cost Ratio of 0.39.

Resent worth benefits were computed for a 40-year period as $3,334,000 and Present Worth costs a t $3,978,000. This represents a Benefit-to-Cost Ratio of 0.84.

111. CONCLUSION

The economic f eas ib i l i t y of the project was not shown on a time-of-construction basis or a present-worth basis.

Reasons for lack of feas ib i l i ty i s high construction c o a . This includes: high machine costs per KW, significant coffer dam and dewatering cost , and high c i v i l con- s t ruc t ion costs since the water flow for generation must by-pass a mejor gate structure.

Continued project study was terminated, since economic f eas ib i l i t y was not shown.

PIQUA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT O N THE GREAT M I A M I RIVER

P iqua , Ohio

C i t y o f P iqua . R . W.. Beck and A s s o c i a t e s

PRDA P r o p o s a l C o n t r a c t No. EW-78-F-07-1780

INTRODUCTION

I n r e s p o n s e t o a Program and Resea rch Development Announcement by t h e Department o f Energy (DOE), t h e C i t y o f P iqua , Ohio ( C i t y ) s u b m i t t e d a p r o p o s a l i n Feb rua ry 1978 t o s t u d y t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of i n s t a l l i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s a t t h e e x i s t i n g C i t y o f P iqua Dam w i t h f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from t h e DOE.

The C i t y ' s p r o p o s a l was approved by t h e DOE and t h e g r a n t was awarded t o t h e C i t y w i t h t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y work t o be per formed p u r s u a n t t o Coope ra t ive Agreement No. EW- 78-F-07-1780 between t h e C i t y and t h e DOE.

The s t u d i e s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have i n c l u d e d s i t e r e c o n n a i s s a n c e , sys t em l o a d s , growth r a t e , s i t e hyd ro logy , c o n c e p t u a l p r o j e c t a r r angemen t s and l a y o u t s , power s t u d i e s , e s t i m a t e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s , development of c a p i t a l c o s t s , economic f e a s i b i l i t y , development of a d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e , and a p r e l i m i n a r y env i ronmen ta l r ev i ew o f t h e proposed development .


P iqua Dam i s a n e x i s t i n g dam owned by t h e C i t y and i s l o c a t e d on t h e Grea t Miami R i v e r i n Miami County, Ohio, app rox ima te ly 30 m i l e s n o r t h o f Dayton, Ohio. The dam l i e s abou t 116 m i l e s ups t r eam from t h e mouth o f t h e Grea t Miami R i v e r where i t e m p t i e s i n t o t h e Ohio R i v e r . The d r a i n a g e a r e a above t h e dam i s 885 s q u a r e m i l e s and t h e a v e r a g e a n n u a l f low a t t h e dam, s i t e i s 759 c f s . The g e n e r a l l o c a t i o n o f P iqua Dam i s shown i n E x h i b i t A .

P iqua Dam was c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1937 t o p r o v i d e a ' s t a b l e p o o l t o s u p p l y condense r c o o l i n g w a t e r f o r t h e a d j a c e n t t h e r m a l e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g s t a t i o n which i s owned and o p e r a t e d by t h e C i t y . The dam i s a n o v e r f l o w t y p e c o n c r e t e g r a v i t y s t r u c t u r e abou t 211 f e e t i n l e n g t h c o n s i s t i n g o f two u n c o n t r o l l e d ove r f low s e c t i o n s and t h r e e g a t e d s p i l l w a y b a y s . The r e s e r - v o i r impounded by Piqua Dam e x t e n d s ups t r eam a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 .2 m i l e s n o r t h from t h e dam s i t e i n t o t h e C i t y . The s u r f a c e a r e a o f t h e r e s e r v o i r a t t h e normal p o o l l e v e l o f E l 844.0 i s app rox ima te ly 40 a c r e s and h a s a g r o s s volume a t t h i s e l e v a t i o n o f abou t 1 5 5 a c r e - f e e t .

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT e

The P iqua H y d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t , a s shown i n E x h i b i t B, would c o n s i s t o f a new power i n s t a l l a t i o n on t h e l e f t ( e a s t ) bank downstream from t h e e x i s t i n g dam, i n c l u d i n g a power i n t a k e , power c o n d u i t , powerhouse, t a i l r a c e c h a n n e l , a c c e s s r o a d , and t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e which would i n t e r c o n n e c t d i r e c t l y t o t h e C i t y ' s e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n sys tem. The P r o j e c t . would pose no unusua l t e c h n i c a l o r env i ronmen ta l problems.

The i n t a k e s t r u c t u r e would be founded on r o c k and w i l l be equ ipped w i t h a r e c t a n g u l a r t r a s h r a c k s t r u c t u r e and a s t o p l o g s l o t which would be used f o r d e w a t e r i n g t h e power con- d u i t . The power c o n d u i t would c o n s i s t o f 10-foot d i a m e t e r p r e - c a s t c o n c r e t e p i p e which - would be abou t 130 f e e t i n l e n g t h . Near t h e powerhouse t h e c o n d u i t would b i f u r c a t e i n t o two 7 .5 - foo t d i a m e t e r s t e e l s e c t i o n s which would connec t t o t h e t u r b i n e s . The powerhouse would b e an above-ground indoor - type r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e which would be founded on rock and would be w a t e r t i g h t s o a s t o e l i m i n a t e damage t o t h e equipment i n s i d e t h e powerhouse d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f h i g h r i v e r f l o w . A s h o r t t a i l r a c e c h a n n e l would be excava ted from t h e powerhouse back o u t i n t o t h e s t reambed t o a l l o w f o r a smooth r e t u r n o f powerhouse d i s c h a r g e s t o t h e n a t u r a l s t r e a m channe l .

The P r o j e c t would have a n i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y o f 400 kW, c o n s i s t i n g o f two 200-kW h o r i - z o n t a l s h a f t t u b u l a r - t y p e p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e s , o p e r a t i n g - u n d e r a r a t e d n e t head o f 8 f e e t . The a v e r a g e a n n u a l ene rgy d e l i v e r e d t o t h e C i t y ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n from t h e P r o j e c t would b e 1 ,462 ,000 kwh. Because o f t h e wide v a r i a t i o n i n s t r e a m f l o w s and t h e l a c k o f a v a i l a b l e pondage no f i r m ( p r i m e ) ene rgy o r dependab le c a p a c i t y i s o b t a i n a b l e from t h e P r o j e c t ope ra - t i o n .

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

It i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e P iqua H y d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t , f o r a J a n u a r y 1984 o n - l i n e d a t e , would have a t o t a l i n v e s t m e n t c o s t o f $2 ,828,000, which i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a b o u t $7,00O/kW i n s t a l l e d a t t h a t t i m e frame.. The e s t i m a t e d t o t a l a n n u a l c o s t o f t h e P r o j e c t f o r t h e f i r s t y e a r o f o p e r a t i o n i s $289,000. An economic a n a l y s i s o f t h e P r o j e c t b a s e d on 40-year , 6.50% f i n a n c i n g , shows i n t i a l y e a r b e n e f i t s from s a v i n g s i n f u e l c o s t a t t h e C i t y ' s g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t , a s b e i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s t h a n t h e f i r s t - y e a r P r o j e c t c o s t s . Over t h e f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s o f P r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n , a s i m i l a r compar ison shows a t o t a l 10 -yea r p r e s e n t wor th d e f i - c i t ( J a n u a r y 1984 l e v e l ) f rom P r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n o f $1 ,807,000, as shown i n T a b l e A . The u n f a v o r a b l e economics f o r t h i s P r o j e c t c an b e a t t r i b u t e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o s t o f g e n e r a t i n g equipment f o r t h i s s i t e ( r e s u l t i n g f rom t h e v e r y low a v a i l a b l e h e a d ) , t h e wide r a n g e o f n a t u r a l s t r eamf low f l u c t u a t i o n s a t t h e s i t e , and t h e l a c k o f a v a i l a b l e pondage t o a l l o w d a i l y p e a k i n g o p e r a t i o n s on a d e p e n d a b l e b a s i s d u r i n g low f l o w p e r i o d s .

CONCLUSIONS

The P r o j e c t i s t e c h n i c a l l y and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y f e a s i b l e and would p r e s e n t no u n u s u a l p rob l ems i n c o n s t r u c t i o n . Based on t h e economic f e a s i b i l i t y a n a l y s i s , t h e P i q u a Hydroe lec- t r i c P r o j e c t d o e s n o t show economic f e a s i b i l i t y t o t h e C i t y d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n and. development o f t h e P r o j e c t c anno t b e j u s t i f i e d . It i s t h e r e f o r e recommended t h a t t h e C i t y abandon f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .of t h e P r o j e c t .

. .

I _... ,. . ,111. .

KEY MAP

NOTE ~opography from US.G.S. quadrangle maps.(Piquo Wsst,Ohio; Piqua East Ohio; Pleasant Hil I, Ohio; Troy, Ohio) Contour interval = 5 feet

EXHIBIT A

PIQUA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT . 10-YEAR PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS ( 1 )

S u r p l u s or ' (Def i c i t Pro j ec t P r o j e c t S u r p l u s o r Amount

Date Cost B e n e f i t s ( 3 ) (DeY i c i t ) 'Aniount P r e s e n t Worth' ( 4 )

1/84 - 12/84 289,000 55,000 ( 234,000) (227,000)

1/85 - 12/85 295,000 59,000 (236,000) (215,000)

1/86 - 12/86 301,000 63,000 ( 238,000) (.203, 000)

1/87 - 12/87 308,000 67,000 (.241,000) (193,000) ( 243,000) (183,000) a 1/88 - 12/88 315,000 72,000

1/89 - 12/89 322,000 77,000 , ' ( 245,000) (173,000) ,

1/90 - 12/90 331,000 . 83,000 ( . ~ 4 8 , 0 0 0 ) ( i65,ooo)

V 9 1 - 12/91 339,000 88,000 ( 251,000) ( 157,000)

1/92 - 12/92 349,000 958000 ( 254,000) . (149,000)

1/93 - 12/93 359,000 1 O 1 , O O O ( 258,000) ( 142,000)

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $(.I , 807,OO 0)

( 1 ) Based on i n i t i a l 1 0 y e a r s of p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n . (2 ) Based on 40-year Bond I s s u e a t 6-1/25 I n t e r e s t ; o p e r a t i o n

and maintenance i n c r e a s e 7% annua l ly . ( 3 ) Based on 7% annua l I n c r e a s e i n f u e l c o s t s . .(4) Discount r a t e of 6-1/2%, January 1984 l e v e l .

TABLE - A

Top of' lrvrr El. 8 5 9 ~

PLAN - 20" . 0' 20'

Scab

Top of wrhouu 1 7 5 0 h TUBE furbiw , / E 1 . 8 4 r

L ~ r r c o r t concrete,plpr ) ' ~ t dd ng matarlo1 Steel conduit

SECTION A - A lo' 0 lo,!

'Invert of dmft tube8 El. 824 -

Stole I R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES

I INGINIIIS AND CONSUlIANl$

%."lo. w.-,m 0 . " ~ . c440.b

PIQUA, OHIO

PIQUD. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT

EXHIBIT B

PHILLIPS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Croton Fa l l s , New York

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Development and Resources Corporat ion

PRDA Proposa l Contract No. EW 78-F-07-1782

THE SITUATION

Location and description. The Phil l ips s i t e i s located i n Putnam County, New York. The town of Brewster i s to the north and the town of Croton Fa l l s i s just south of the property. The proper ty and the buildings f o r m the Croton Fa l l s Executive Pa rk . F igure 1 shows a genera l plan of the Executive Pa rk . The four buildings that a r e located i n the Executive P a r k da te back to the mid-1800's. These have 'been renovated; t h r ee have been converted into office space, and the fourth now houses the Diversified Insulation Products Limited.

History and presen t usage. The Phil l ips s i te h a s a g r ea t dea l of h i s tor ica l significance. The North Salem Historical Society h a s recently designated the s i te a h i s tor ica l landmark. The local Cham'ber of Commerce ha s presented an award for the quality of the s i te restorat ion.

The recorded h is tory of the s i t e da tes back to 1754. It was then pa r t of the Phil ip Phil ipse family holdings, which once encompassed nearly all of what i s now Putnam County, New York. In 1884, the George Juengst family bought the property and water r igh ts to the flow of the Eas t Branch of the Croton River . The family f i rm , George Juengst & Sons, generated e lec t r ica l power a t the s i te 'beginning i n the la te 1800's. This facility supplied the power needs not only of adjacent industry 'but a l so of nearby communit ies in northern Westches te r and southern Putnam counties. On Feb rua ry 25, 19 11, Jus t ice Mart in J. Keogh rendered a decision granting New York City "the r ight to divert o r t ake f r o m the E a s t Branch of the Croton River a l l the wa t e r s of said E a s t Branch of the Croton River and a l l t r ibu ta r ies

'

thereof in excess of th i r ty mil l ion gallons pe r day. " Walter T. Phillips, J r . , bought the proper ty and water r igh ts of the s i t e on October 28, 1969. The s i te i s l eased to the Sa lem Energy Corporation.

Croton River System. The E a s t Branch of the Croton River i s a par t of the Croton Sys tem of the New York water supply network. The re a r e s torage r e s e r v o i r s both above and 'below the site. Natural flows above 30 mil l ion gallons pe r day a r e subject to diversion ( a t the Diverting Reservoi r ) into the Croton k'alls Keservoir on the West Branch of the Croton River.

Diversion Dam. The diversion d a m i s an overflow gravi ty s t ruc ture of cyclopean construct ion completed i n the 1880's. The d a m i s 22 feet in height. The d a m will r equ i r e remedia l work to i n su re the dam ' s continued safety.

Forebay, intake and penstocks. When the s i te was operated fo r the production of hydroe lec t r ic power, water was conveyed f r o m the forebay via penstocks 48 inches in d iameter to two powerhouses located fur ther downstream.

Powerhouse. Two power plants were originally in operat ion a t the site. The plants operated to produce hydroelectr ic power f r o m the la te 1800's t o 1956.

11. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

A full r a~ ige of potential redevelopment alternatives for the Phillips Hydroelectric Project were assessed. Reuse of the buildings where hydroelectric power was once generated was not considered in any of the redevelopment alternatives. The reason for this i s that the buildings have been converted to other uses. Therefore, locations immediately downstream of the existing diversion dam and adjacent to the lower powerhouse.were investigated. A total of six different alternatives involving three turbine manufacturers were evaluated. Table 1 displays the pertinent technical and related information for the six alternatives studied. The six alternatives studied a re a s follows:

Alternative 1 (Upper si te) - Allis-Chalmers: The unit i s referred to by Allis-Chalmers a s their Standardized Hydroelectric Generating Unit because i t comes a s a complete package which includes the turbine, intake butterfly valve, speed increaser, generator, blade positioner, hydraulic power unit, flexible coupling, indoor generator protection and control panel, outdoor high voltage module which contains a cubicle for revenue metering equipment, utility interface, high voltage switch and fuse, generator power circuit breaker, and the power transformer. This unit will operate over a flow range of 39 to 88 cubic feet per second with a net head of 19.7 feet. Its corresponding turbine efficiencies would be 79 percent at around 40 percent load to 85.5 percent at full load. The turbine i s of the propeller type with adjustable blades for flow control installed in a horizontal position in a steel shell. A gear 'box i s provided to increase the turbine runner speed f rom 525 to 900 rpms so a s to be able to . utilize a standard type generator. Speed control i s accomplished by use of a Woodward UG type governor. Delivery time for this complete standardized hydroelectric generating set would be six to nine months. Complete shutdown would be accomplished with the upstream bulkhead.

Alternative 2 (Lower site) - Allis- Chalmers: Alternatives 1 and 2 a r e identical except that for alternative 2 a larger unit i s required due to the greater head that would 'be available (40 versus 20 feet).

Alternative 3 (Upper si te) - Leffel Turbine: The turbine for this location will operate over a flow range of 97 to 161 cubic feet per second with a net head of approximately 21 feet. I ts corresponding turbine efficiency would vary from 70 percent a t one-half load to 85 percent at full load. This turbine i s of the vertical propeller type installed in an open flume setting. The wicket gate operating mechanism will be connected to a gate shaft which will in turn extend up to the generator floor for connection to the governor which would be of the Woodward type. Complete shutoff would 'be accomplished with the upstream headgate.

Alternative 4 (Lower si te) - Leffel Turbine: The turbine i s basically the same a s for alternative 3 with the exception that it will operate with a higher head (40 versus 21 feet) and 'be encased in a concrete pressure flume setting. Positive closure would be accomplished with the upstream headgate.

Alternative 5 (Upper si te) - Ossberger: The unit i s referred to by Ossberger a s their Hydroelectric Generating Set.. It comes a s a package complete with intake transition piece, cross-flow turbine, oil bath speed increaser, synchronous generator, governor, high and low speed coupling, foundation frame for the turbine, draft tube, flywheel, generator control panel and miscellaneous piping, bolts, etc. The generating set will operate over a flow range of 25 to 150 cubic feet per second with a net head of 21 feet. I ts correspondingturbine efficiencies would be 80 percent at about one-sixth load to 83 percent at full load. The Ossberger unit i s of West Germany manufacture and is a radial, modified impulse type turbine with cylindrical runners. The flow to the units i s controlled by adjustable guide vanes that can be closed, thereby providing the function of upstream valves o r gates. The units a r e provided with draft tubes for full head recovery. The generating sets include a flywheel to aid in control of speed during load changes. The turbines a r e low speed (136 rpm), therefore, speed increasers a r e provided to permit the use of high speed (1200 rpm) standard generators. To prevent water column separation and loss of head the manufacturer recommends a maximum draft head of 12 feet. The manufacturer indicates that around 12 - 14 months will be required for delivery and that about 65 percent of equipment and materials will be of North American origin.

Alternative 6 (Lower site) - Ossberger: This alternative i s the same a s for alternative 5 with the exception that it will operate under a higher head (40 versus 21 feet). Positive closures would be accomplished with the upstream headgate.

111. PROJECT OPERATION

Energy Production. Flows on the East Branch at the Phillips site a r e influenced by upstream regulation and the release pattern policy carried out by the New York City Department of Water Resources. At the present time the release policy governing flow down the East Branch of the Croton River below Diverting Reservoir i s generally a s follows:

"Pass 5 mgd through the blowoff into the East Branch of the Croton River f rom Diverting Reservoir and allow the remainder of the inflow to pass into Croton Falls Reservoir through the unregulated weir located on the west side of the reservoir . In addition, if the inflow i s sufficient, the remainder will pass over the unregulated spillway at Diverting Reservoir into the Eas t Branch of the Croton River. "

By court action in 1911, a decision was rendered which granted New York City "the right to divert o r take f rom the.East ranch of the Croton River all the waters of said East Branch of the Croton River and all tr ibutaries thereof in excess of thirty million gallons per day. "

For purposes of this study, simulated flows below Diverting Reservoir for the period 1927 - 1976 were adopted for use in developing monthly and annual flow duration curves. Flow duration curves were used to determine the amount of'energy that can be developed on an annual o r monthly bas is for the six alternatives studied. Table 1 shows the annual energy potential of the six alternatives studied. All alternatives studied would be capable of producing some power in any given month. There will 'be periods when no power o r energy can be produced due to the flows being insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of any of the turbines studied. Therefore, no f i rm power or energy under the classical definition will be available.

If pending action to implement Pa r t 672 - Sub P a r t 672-3 of New York State's Reservoir Releases Regulation i s adopted, a minimum flow of 30 mgd would be assured at the Phillips site. This would provide for developing 60 to 110 kilowatts of f i rm capacity capable of producing f i r m energy in the range of 500, 000 to 1, 000, 000 kilowatt hours annually.

IV. PROJECT ECONOMICS

Energy market evaluation. The value of electricity generation f rom the Phillips Hydroelectric Project depends on 'both the nature of generation f rom the plant and the economics of the power purchaser. A discussion of the production characterist ics, power purchaser economics and value of energy follows:

Production Characteristics. The project a s envisioned has no capability for short t e r m ponding. Therefore, the project i s a run-of-the-river hydro development where electricity must 'be generated when flow i s available o r the energy i s lost. There may be periods of no generation, particularly in the summer months of July through October. There i s pending action to implement the Reservoir Release Regulations - P a r t 672. If implementation i s in accordance with the recommendations, a minimum flow of 46 cubic feet per second would be assured on the East Branch of the roto on' River below Diverting Reservoir. This magnitude of flow would make it possible to develop f i r m capacity at the Phillips Hydroelectric Project.

Power Purchaser Economics. The Phillips site i s located in the service a r e a of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSE&G). The NYSE&G i s a par t of a l a rge r utility pool known a s the New York Power Pool (NYPP). NYSE&G1s generation sources differ significantly f rom the NYPP a s a whole. Whereas the NYPP has 59% of total generating capacity oil fired, NYSE&G has none. A full 2570 of NYSE&G energy i s received f rom Power' Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) at extremely low energy rates. The sources of this energy a r e primarily the Niagara and St. Lawrence hydro developments with some energy f rom the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station. Another 67% comes f rom their own coal fired plants and the remaining 870 i s coming f rom other utilities and the NYPP.

Value of Phillips Power and Energy. The project will have energy displacement value to NYSE&G and some capacity value due to the part iculars of the project and NYSE&G1s load. For energy value calculations, a combined escalation ra te of 8'7'0 was adopted to account for general inflation plus increases in general electric rate. Therefore, the 1978 non-firm energy value in NYSE&G1s system i s 17.5 mills escalating at 8% per year. The project may also have capacity value even if no f i r m capacity can be

developed since NYSE&G i s a winter peaking utility. The company i s required to maintain more capacity in the winter than the summer and does so by purchasing additional winter capacity from other systems. The winter months, November through April, a r e also the months of sustained higher flow in the East Branch of the Croton River below Diverting Reservoir. Energy calculations show that most of the options have average plant factors over 70 percent in these months. This high plant factor and the system's winter peak load indicate a capacity credit may be warranted. Since the Phillips power plant would be displacing energy f rom the oil and coal fired sources, any capacity value of the plant would be associated with the cost of coal and oil fired capacity. A figure of $3.00 per kilowatt credit was adopted for use in the study for a capacity value. The value of the plant's output to the site owner can take a number of forms. This i s because (1) Diversified Insulation Products Limited i s located on the site and i s a ready market for the plant's output and ( 2 ) the characteristics of the plant's output make it such that there will be periods when either insufficient o r surplus energy will result. The apparent options the site owner has are :

Option 1 - - The owner keeps his existing service at the insulation factory.and sells his entire output f rom the generating plant to NYSE&G.

Option 2 - - The owner serves the insulation factory from the hydroelectric plant and provides standby power with service f rom NYSE&G.

Option 3 - - The owner serves the insulation factory direct from the hydroelectric plant and provides standby .power with a diesel engine driven generator set and sells surplus power to NYSE&G.

Option 4 - - The owner serves the insulation factory direct from the hydroelectric plant with standby service from NYSE&G and sells surplus power to NYSE&G.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show a graphical display of the benefit to cost ratio over the project life of 40 years for alternatives 2, 4, and 6. 'I'he cri teria that was applied in evaluating the economic and financial feasibility follows:

-The project was analyzed a s a stand alone venture receiving the full economic value for the energy produced. This perspective results in the true economic meri ts of the project being established.

-Inflation in both the cost and revenue s t reams has been explicitly incorporated. A 6% general inflation and a 8'7'0 escalation ra te for energy was assumed.

-The project has been assumed to be both owned and financed by the site owner. For financial feasibility, 40 year, 10% funds were assumed.

-Average annual energy production has been assumed.

-Three year construction period with escalation in capital costs at the general inflation rate has been used. Capital expenditures have been split 20'7'0 in the f i rs t year and 40'7'0 in each of the following two years.

-A sinking fund has been calculated which will provide sufficient funds in future dollars to perform major repairs and replacements.

Economic analysis compares the time value of the cost s t ream with the benefit stream. Evaluation cr i ter ia such a s the internal rate of return (ZRR), net present value and benefit-cost analysis a r e used. Both the IRR and benefit-to-cost cri teria were used. The IRR i s defined a s the interest ra te at which the present value of the discounted cost and benefit streams, excluding capital recovery, a re zero. Table 2 displays the results of the economic and financial analysis for the six alternatives studied based on selling all of the plant's output to NYSE&G.

T A B L E 1

GENERATING UNITS - - ALTERNATIVES INVESTIGATED

LEGEND:

H - Hor izon ta l

V - V e r t i c a l

A P - Adjus tab le B lade P r o p e l l e r

C F - C r o s s F low

P - P r o p e l l e r

Al t e rna t ive a n d T u r b i n e Manufac tu re r

1 - A l l i s - C h a l m e r s

2 - A l l i s - C h a l m e r s

3 - Leffel

4 - Leffel

5 - O s s b e r g e r

6 - O s s b e r g e r

No. of Uni ts

1

1

1

1

1

1

G e n e r a t o r Output

(KW)

130

300

2 30

439

202

386

Orienta t ion

H

H

V

V

H

H

T u r b i n e

Type

A P

A P

P

P

C F

C F

Annual E n e r g y P r o d u c t i o n

785,000 KWH

1, 822, 500 KWH

900,000 KWH

1,693, 100 KWH

1, 110, 700 KWH

2 ,096 ,000 KWH

Speeds - R P M

T u r b i n e

525

5 86

360

5 14

98

135

G e n e r a t o r

900

900

360

5 14

1 ,200

1 ,200

SALEM ENERGY CORPORATION P H I L L I P S H Y O R O E L E C T R l C P R O J E C T

GENERAL PLAN

DEVELOPMENT AN0 RESOURCES CORPORAIICN S a c r a m e n t o . C a l i l o r n i a

2 . 5

2 . 0

0 .- C

2 1 . 5 C

U ) . 0 0

I C .- - 1 . 0 aa I= aa m

0 . 5

0 1 9 8 2 1987 , 1 9 9 2 1997 2 0 0 2 2007 201 2 2017 2 0 2 2

P r o j e c t L i f e ( y e a r s )

'SALEM ENERGY CORPORATI ON P H I L L I P S HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

ALTERNATI VE 2 BENEF l T - COST CURVES

OPT l ON # I , # 2 , # 3 AND #4

DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES CORPORATION Sacramento , C a l i f o r n i a

F i g u r e 2

P r o j e c t L i f e ( Y e a r s )

SALEM ENERGY CORPORATION PH l LL l PS HYDROELECTR l C PROJECT

ALTERNAT l VE 6 BENEF l T - COST CURVES

OPT1 ON # 1 , # 2 , # 3 AND #4

DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES CORPORATION Sacramento , C a l i f o r n i a

F i g u r e 4

TABLE 2

SUMMARY O F ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

L1present Value of Repa i r s & Replacements a t S t a r t of Operat ions

L l ~ n n u a l Sinking Fund Star t ing in F i r s t Year of Operation

3' %/Annual Cos t s Star t ing in F i r s t Year of Operation

Z 1 ~ n e r g y Value of 22.0 rni ls lkwh in - ~ i r s t Yea r of ope ra t i on \

ITEM

Capi ta l Cos t s

Bonds Required

R e p a i r s & Replacement 1 / PV of R&R t h r u 30 years-

Annual S. F. ( 30 y e a r s ) 21 Annual Cos t s

Debt Amort izat ion ( 107'0 In te r s t ) 40 y e a r s

3 7 O&M- Adminis t ra t ion ( 20% of 0 & M ; Insurance ( 0.2% of Capital

Cos t s ) L icense F e e $1

Plan t Data Ins ta l led kw Average Annual Ene rgy ( kwh) $/kw Instal led

F i r s t Yea r Cos t of Serv ice ( $ / k w h ) 40 Year Life

5 / In t e rna l Ra te of Return- 40 Year Life

Net Funds in F i r s t Yea r

1 I ,

(

ALTERNATIVE)

3

$855,789

$990,000

3, 300

$101,200 $ 29,800 $ 6,000

$ 1,800 $ 2;400

242 900,000

$ 3, 536

4

$1,155.000

$1,337,300

3, 500

$ 136,800 $ 29,800 $ 6,000

- $ 2,400 $ 2,400

462 1,693, 100

$ 2,500

1 I 2 I

$819,265

$949,400

4 ,000

$ 97,100 $ 29, 800 $ 6,000

$ 1,800 $ 2,400

130 785,000

$ 6,302

16.05

-0.87'0 . -$121, 500

10.57

5.9% -$ 137,300

5

$824, 170

$955,200

$1,068,217

$1,236,600

3 ,900

$ !26,500 $ 29,800 $ 6 ,000 ,

$ 2,400 $ 2,400

300 1 ,822,500

$ 3,560

17.95

-6.0% -$121,700

6

$1,087,900

$1,259,800

9. 38

6.67'0 - $ 125,900

12.79

2.470 -$114,500

8.29

7. 87'0 - $ 121,700

4,400 4 ,400

$ 97,700 $ 29,800 $ 6,000

$ 1,900 $ 2,400

22 1 1 ,110,700 $ 3,729

I

. $ 128,800 ' $ 29,800 $ ' 6 ,000

$ 2,400 $ 2,400

418 2,096,000

$ 2,602

LOWER MAIN CANAL HYDRO STATIONS

Modesto, C a l i f o r n i a

Modesto I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t CH2M H i l l

, .

PRDA Proposal Contrac t No. EW-78-F-07-1783

I. INTRODUCTION

The Modesto I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t is loca t ed i n c e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a and i s a pub l i c ly owned I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t supplying both a g r i c u l t u r a l water t o t h e farm land wi th in i t s D i s t r i c t and e l e c t r i c a l power t o i t s r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l customers. Water f o r i r r i g a t i o n is d i s t r i b u t e d by g r a v i t y i n open concre te l i n e d cana l s from a r e g u l a t i o n s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y known a s Modesto Reservoir . For some d i s t a n c e below the r e s e r v o i r t h e water i s t r ansmi t t ed i n a s i n g l e cana l known a s t h e Main Canal be fo re fanning o f f i n t o d i s t r i b u t i o n l a t e r a l s . Two s i t e s , one a t t h e o u t l e t of Modesto Reservoir and one a t a drop i n t h e Main Canal known a s "Stone Drop" a r e t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s s tudy, s i n c e these two s i t e s r ep re sen t t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r hydroe l ec t r i c power development on Modesto's cana l system.

Since t h e D i s t r i c t i s i n t h e power t ransmiss ion and d i s t r i b u t i o n bus ines s , any power genera ted a t t h e p r o j e c t could r e a d i l y be u t i l i z e d by t h e e x i s t i n g e l e c t r i c a l system.

11. PROJECT

The s tudy considered the a l t e r n a t i v e l ayou t s and t u r b i n e genera tor u n i t s f o r each of t h e two s i t e s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e proposed p l a n t s a r e :

Rated Gross I n s t a l l e d Average Annual Flow Head Capacity Energy Production

Modesto Reservoir 750-800 CFS 18 f e e t 1000 KW 3,370,000 KWH

Stone Drop 750-800 CFS 19 f e e t 1000 KW 4,020,000 KWH

The es t imated 6 a p i t a l investment i s $3,166,000 f o r development of both s i t e s .

111. SUMMARY

F e a s i b i l i t y a n a l y s i s of t h e power ,p lants involved comparing t h e va lue of t h e output of t h e proposed p r o j e c t wi th t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of cont inuing t o buy t h e equ iva l en t amount of power a t wholesale r a t e s from t h e p re sen t neighboring power s u p p l i e r . While some s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s were conducted, t h e most probable c o s t of power from t h e p r o j e c t was es t imated t o be 40.4 m i l l s / K W H i n 1979. An a n a l y s i s on an annual b a s i s i nd i ca t ed a Benefit-Cost r a t i o of .71:1 f o r t h e p r o j e c t . Add i t i ona l ly , a 30 year discounted cash flow a n a l y s i s was conducted us ing a n t i c i p a t e d e s c a l a t i o n r a t e s f o r maintenance and ope ra t ion c o s t s and energy and capac i ty values . This s tudy ind ica t ed t h a t t he Benefit-Cost r a t i o on a 30 year p re sen t worth b a s i s was 1 .41 : l . On t h i s b a s i s t h e p r o j e c t could be col~eirlerrd. f e a s i b l e .

S ince the p r o j e c t is smal l and loca t ed on s i t e s a l r eady owned by t h e Modesto I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , few c o n s t r a i n t s , o the r than f i n a n c i a l , appear t o developing t h e p r o j e c t . S ince t h e Benefit-Cost r a t i o ranges from l e s s than 1:l t o g r e a t e r t han 1:l t h e p r o j e c t could be considered somewhat marginal . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of g r a n t funds could be a determining f a c t o r i n proceeding wi th t he p r o j e c t .

- The developgent of t hese and s i m i l a r p r o j e c t s should be encouraged, so a s t o improve t h e a v a i l a b l e technology and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of equipment f o r t h i s s i z e p l a n t . Developing agencies could then proceed with g r e a t e r confidence t h a t t h e i r p r o j e c t s would be t r u l y f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e .

CHICOPEE FALLS DAM

Chicopee, MA

Chicopee Municipal Lighting Plant and Raytheon Service Co. Raytheon Service Co. & Acres American Inc.

PRDA Proposal Contract No. 1784

INTRODUCTION

This project is located at the Chicopee Falls Dam in Chicopee, Massachusetts. The Chicopee Falls Dam is on the Chicopee River a few miles upstream from i t s confluence with the Connecticut River. The dam and the land which would be required for the project is owned by the City of Chicopee.

The projected facility controls a 714 square mile drainage a r e a and would utilize 16 feet of gross head developed by the Chicopee Falls Dam and an additional 10 feet of head at the s i te of a former dam 580 feet downstream. The plant would generate 9,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity annually with an installed capacity of 1,600 kW. Project cost is estimated t o be $4,053,750 at 1978 price levels. This yields a capital cost per kilowatt of $2,534.

The selected design utilizes an 11 foot diameter penstock beginning at the existing gatehouse at the dam and running parallel t o the r iver bed along an existing flood control wall. F o r most of its length the penstock would be partly o r wholly buried. The powerhouse location is between the existing flood control wall and the river. The type of turbine chosen is a single tube unit.

The projected hydroelectric facility would be owned and 'operated by the Chicopee Municipal Lighting Plant (CMLP). All power received would be distributed by CMLP t o existing residential, commercial and industrial customers within its service area. The hydropower si te is only a few hundred feet from a connection t o the CMLP-maintained grid. CMLP is a public utility owned by the City of Chicopee.

The s i te is typical of many in New England. The dam is soundly constructed and there a re no factors t o indicate that installation of hydropower at the dam would increase flood r i sk or cause other changes that would place insurance costs in a special category. The city has placed no value upon property o r water rights s o that the projected costs reflect only improvements t o the site. Environmental impacts of the proposed development have been judged to be minor, and negative impacts seem to be balanced by several favorable effects.

ECONOMICS

The feasibility of the project at Chicopee is essentially dependent upon i t s economic attractiveness, since no important regulatory o r environmental obstacles exist. Economic feasibility has been measured principally in t e r m s of net present value (NPV). CMLP's main alternative t o investing in the hydro - electric project is to continue buying power under existing power purchase contracts that provide i t with relatively low cost power (presently under 30 mills per kWh). NPV was calculated with revenue valued at 30.7 mills in 1979, escalated at 6 percent, and alternatively at 9 percent, for 10 years. Costs were escalated at 6 percent, a lso for 10 years. Project life is taken a s 40 years and the interest r a t e used is 8 1/3 percent. NPV is highly negative, indicating the project is not feasible for CMLP:

NPV ($1,000'~) Costs and revenues both escalate at 6% annually for 10 years - $5,392 Costs escalate at 6% for 10 years and revenues at 9%, also - $4,053 for 10 years

The poor showing is accounted for on the cost side by the high capital cost of the project, $4,053,750 (only coincidentally similar t o the minus $4,053,000 NPV above), and the high level of payments in lieu of taxes. The high capital cost leads t o a high cost for repayment of bond principal and interest , equal during the f i rs t year of project operation t o 43 percent of total annual costs. Payments in lieu of taxes equal 46 percent of total annual costs the f i rs t year.

ENGINEERING CONCEPT DESIGN

In arriving at the recommended installation, major design decisions were made concerning location of the power plant, equipment type, and capacity of the generating facility.

Two locations were considered initially, one a t the dam, the other at the downstream location ultimately selected for the powerhouse. The kwh generation available from using the increased head a t the downstream s i te was more than 50 percent greater than that available at the dam, and easily justified the additional cost. Having selected the downstream site, analysis concentrated on evaluating equipment types and powerhouse designs at that location.

Equipment alternatives evaluated for the downstream site included a single tube unit, a two-unit double horizontal Francis turbine installation and a three-unit, cross-flow Ossberger installation. Total project cost comparisons favor the tube turbine:

Total Project Cost ($1,000'~) One 1,600 kW tube unit $4,054 Two 800 kW double Francis units $5,189 Three 500 kW Ossberger units $5,207

In addition to the cost advantage, technical considerations such as the compact s ize of the civil works required also favored the tube turbine.

. . - T o analyze optimal size capacity of the installation, four tube turbines having capacities of 1,300 kW, 1,600 kW, 1,900 kW, and 2,200 kW were compared. The benefit-cost ratios for the smallest and largest of these were l e s s than those for the two in the middle. Benefit-cost ratios of the 1,600 and 1,900 kW units were found t o be nearly identical, and the 1,600 kW unit was therefore recommended as the more conservative choice. This decision would be reviewed i f the project goes forward t o detailed engineering.

The facilities plan and the powerhouse design a r e shown on the following pages.

CHICOPEE RNER

S U M ] ,tr,

1-1.6 MW Unit Plan of Facilities

SECTIONAL PLAN ABOVE TURBINE FLOOR

CROSS SECTION AT UNIT IC.LI .<ST

1-1.6 MW Unit Tube Turbine

LENISTON CANAL DEVELOPMENT

Lewiston, Maine

Central Maine Power Company Kleinschmidt and Dutting Consulting Engineers

PRDA Proposal Contract No. .EN-78-F-07-1785

The f e a s i b i l i t y assessment of t h e hydroe lec t r ic po t en t i a l of t he Red Shop s i t e on the Lewiston Canal System i n LewisCuxi, Maine, involved two separa te but r e l a t ed s tud i e s . The evaluat ion of the cur ren t and po ten t i a l hydroe lec t r ic capab i l i t y of t he e n t i r e Lewiston Canal System and an in - depth evaluat ion of the hydroe lec t r ic development po t en t i a l of the Red Shop s i t e . I n order t o s e l e c t the most p r a c t i c a l development a l t e r n a t i v e f o r t he Red Shop s i t e , it was e s s e n t i a l t o a s c e r t a i n t he fucure capab i l i t y of t he canal system and t h e a b i l i t y of t h e cana l system t o de l ive r usable water t o the Red Shop s i t e .

The ex i s t i ng cana l system was designed and constructed t o handle a flow of approximately 4,000 c f s . A t t he time of our s tudy, severa l u n i t s were out of s e rv i ce f o r shor t term r e p a i r s so t h a t only half of t h i s flow was being u t i l i z e d . These r e p a i r s a r e expected t o be completed during 1979, a t which time the cana l system w i l l be operat ing a t approximately 85% of i t s o r i g i n a l design capac i ty . Our evaluat ion of t h e cana l system indicated t h a t i t i s poss ib le t o operate the canal system a t a peak flow r a t e of 4500 c f s . Cent ra l Maine Power Company (CMP) concluded t h a t t he canal system has ample hydraul ic capab i l i t y t o permit t he redevelopment of t he Red Shop S ta t i on wi th a flow capaci ty of approximately 1600 c f s . Our study of t he canal system concluded t h a t when i t i s operated wi th the proposed Red Shop development on l i n e , i t would be advisable t o i n s t a l l more sophis t ica ted , automatic water l e v e l monitoring equipment t o pro tec t adjoining land owners from over- flows and flooding. Our review of t h e s t r u c t u r a l condit ion of the canal . system concluded t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t s t r u c t u r a l r e p a i r s need be made t o implement the proposed Red Shop pro jec t .

The study found t h a t some of t he ex i s t i ng hydroe lec t r ic equipment i n use on t h e canal was i n e f f i c i e n t and showed s igns of s i g n i f i c a n t de t e r io r - a t i on . The majori ty of t he u n i t s on the cana l system a r e cu r r en t ly owned by CMP and operated by Bates Fabric Incorporated under a 14 year lease arrangement. I f ex i s t i ng hydroe lec t r ic u n i t s a r e abandoned by Bates Fabric f o r a period of 12 months, t he operat ing r i g h t s automatical ly r eve r t t o CMP. As the u se fu l l i f e of t he ex i s t i ng u n i t s continues t o d e t e r i o r a t e and Bates Fabr ic abandons them, CMP i s committed t o rebui ld ing them t o a reasonable l e v e l of e f f i c i ency and cont inuing . to operate them f o r t he long term. The e f f i c i ency of t he ind iv idua l u n i t s on the cana l ranges from 32% t o 75%. Improvement of t he c a n a l ' s t o t a l hydropower output would r equ i r e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of some salvageable u n i t s and r ea l loca t ion of canal flows from the l e s s e f f i c i e n t u n i t s t o t he more e f f i c i e n t one proposed f o r t he Red Shop s i t e .

Centra1,Maine Power Company evaluated s i x separa te redevelopment a l t e r n a t i v e s a s pa r t o f . t h i s study. These involve two powerhouse s i t e s one the present Red Shop building loca t ion and the o ther a s i t e a t the end of Cross Canal No. 1 on the shore of t he Androscoggin River . Three of t he a l t e r n a t i v e s considered continued operat ion of t he ex i s t i ng in - e f f i c i e n t u n i t s on the lower canal system wi th a r e s u l t a n t developable flow t o t h e Red Shop s i t e of 1000 c f s . The o ther t h r ee a l t e r n a t i v e s considered d ive r t i ng flow from some i n e f f i c i e n t u n i t s on the lower canal t o a pro jec t a t Red Shop which could u t i l i z e 1600 c f s . Head l eve l s of 16 f e e t and 22 f e e t were considered a t both flow r a t e s . Because of the

low e f f i c i e n c y of some e x i s t i n g u n i t s , i t became apparent t h a t t h e b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e would r e q u i r e t h a t maximum flow be d i v e r t e d t o t h e Red Shop s i t e . Accordingly t h e 1000 c f s flow p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s were e l imina ted i n a p re l iminary e v a l u a t i o n and t h e s t u d y focused on t h e t h r e e 1600 c f s a l t e r n a t i v e s . The economic a n a l y s i s of t h e s e t h r e e favored t h e g r e a t e r head development of 22 f e e t .

The two 1600 c f s , 22 f o o t head a l t e r n a t i v e s came o u t e q u a l i n economic a n a l y s i s ; t h e major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two was t h e l o c a t i o n

. o f t h e powerhouse. The u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n favor ing t h e new powerhouse l o c a t i o n a t t h e end of t h e c a n a l was based on t h e eng ineer ing c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new powerhouse and t h e r a i s i n g of t h e c a n a l w a l l s t o accommodate a 22 f o o t head appeared t o p resen t fewer unknown v a r i a b l e s than t h e e x i s t i n g s i t e which would invo lve a deep ledge excava t ion i n s i d e t h e e x i s t i n g c a n a l w a l l s . Although t h i s i s physica&paksible t o accomplish, t h e r i s k s appeared t o . b e cons ide rab ly g r e a t e r .

Comparison of t h e hydro and f o s s i l a l t e r n a t i v e s was made on t h e b a s i s of lowest t o t a l l e v e l i z e d annual c o s t . Th i s i s a technique normally used i n e v a l u a t i n g g e n e r a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t l i n e s . Return on Investment a n a l y s i s i s n o t r e a l l y a p p l i c a b l e s i n c e C e n t r a l Maine Power's r e t u r n on e q u i t y i s r e g u l a t e d by t h e Maine P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Commission.

A l l t h r e e of t h e f i n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s analyzed compared favorab ly w i t h f o s s i l f u e l p l a n t s of s i m i l a r s i z e and c a p a c i t y i n t h e economic eva lua t ion . The a l t e r n a t i v e s e l e c t e d w i l l have a g r o s s p l a n t investment of $2,804,000 and an i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of 2500 KW. Fixed annual c o s t s f o r t h e p r o j e c t were es t imated a t 20% of g r o s s p l a n t investment and t h e inc reased Union Water Power Company head and flow r e g u l a t i o n assessment w i l l be approximately $53,200 per yea r . The t o t a l annual c o s t f o r t h e Red Shop p r o j e c t w i l l be approximately $614,000 which on a l e v e l i z e d b a s i s would be $290,000 lower than providing t h e same energy and c a p a c i t y w i t h t h e f o s s i l f u e l a l t e r n a t i v e . The t o t a l average a d d i t i o n a l energy ou tpu t f o r t h e proposed development w i l l be 15,140 megawatt hours p e . r q e a r and w i l l r e s u l t i n a c o s t per k i l o w a t t hour over t h e assumed 50"year l i f e of t h e p r o j e c t of 40.5 m i l l s .

,(.

The c u r r e n t FERC l i c e n s e f o r t h e Lewiston Canal system e x p i r e s i n 1993. The t ime per iod between commercial o p e r a t i o n of a u n i t a t Red Shop and e x p i r a t i o n of t h e ' l i c e n s e i s t o o s h o r t t o permit recovery of t h e necessa ry investment , t h e r e f o r e , a renewal of t h e e x i s t i n g l i c e n s e w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o j u s t i f y t h e development. Provided t h i s renewal i s ob ta ined , t h e a d d i t i o n of g e n e r a t i o n on t h e c a n a l i s j u s t i f i a b l e and C e n t r a l Maine Power Company should proceed.

No s i g n i f i c a n t s t r u c t u r a l s a f e t y o r environmental problems a r e a n t i c i p a t e d a s p a r t of t h e Red Shop p r o j e c t . The r e p o r t c o n t a i n s a g e n e r a l development plan providing f o r completion of t h e p r o j e c t by l a t e 1983 provided l i c e n s i n g and permits w i l l begin by mid 1979 and c u r r e n t d e l i v e r y schedules f o r t u r b i n e equipment a r e mainta ined.

T h i s f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy has provided C e n t r a l Maine Power Company w i t h t h e oppor tun i ty t o s tudy a h igh ly complex and i n t e r r e l a t e d hydropower network and c a n a l system. Hopeful ly t h e d e t a i l e d s tudy of t h e Lewiston Canal system presented i n t h i s r e p o r t w i l l be a gu ide t o t h e inc reased u s e of t h e c a n a l ' s untapped hydropower p o t e n t i a l .

HIGH FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PLANT

High Falls, N. Y.

Central Hudson Gas & ~lectric Corp. Chas. T. Main of New York, Inc.


I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to determine if it is feasible to re-activate the presently-retired High Falls Hydroelectric Station by either the rehabilitation of existing unit(s) or the construction of new uriit (s) . The study includes the environmental aspects of re-activation, as well as the economics of the size of the installation best suited to the resources available.

In this study, the cost of obtaining additional electrical energy by re-activating the High Falls Station is compared with the cost of displaced oil. Optimization of installed capacity is achieved by comparing the value of incremental energy generated with the incremental cost of the required generating facilities.

11. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES

The present High Falls Hydroelectric Station was constructed in about 1910. The third and last generating unit was installed in 1926. The plant is located on Rondout Creek near the Village of High Falls, New York, and is owned by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. The project takes advantage of a natural falls, about twenty feet high, and a series of lesser falls totaling about thirty feet. A low concrete weir exists along the top of the main fall. Join- ing the fall to the intake structure is a concrete masonry dam having a maximum height of thirty feet. The gated intake structure is located in the right abutment and leads to a '

ten-foot diameter, riveted steel penstock about 450 feet long and a surge tank. The three horizontal shaft Francis turbine and generator units are rated at 1000 KW, 560 KW and 560 KW and are housed in a concrete and stone structure. The penstock and surge tank are extensively rusted and beyond repair. The generating units, in addition to being well-used, have been severly vandalized.

111. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Rehabilitation of Existins Plant

In this approach, the dam, spillway and intake '

structure will be repaired and made completely serviceable. A new wood-stave penstock and steel surge tank will be constructed and the existing powerhouse structure repaired and remodeled.

Turbine runners and draft tubes will be replaced while the balance of the turbines will be repaired. Generators will be replaced with new ones having a voltage rating of 13.8 KV, thus saving the cost of a step-up transformer. The existing open type switchboard will be replaced by modern metalclad switchgear and a metal enclosed switchboard.

Three options were selected for comparison: rehabilitate 1) only the 1000 KW unit, 2) the 1000 KW unit plus one of the 560 KW units, and 3) the 1000 KW unit plus both of the 560 KW units. - -

Buildina of New Statian

In this approach, the work described above wil'l be done from the forebay down to the lower portion of the penstock. There will be no surge tank for this arrangement, and the old powerhouse will be left in its existing decommissioned state. A new excavation will be opened on the low rock ledge between the existing powerhouse and the normal river channel. In this excavation, a new structure proportioned to provide the most efficient and compact housing for the turbine- generating unit and al'l of its electrical and mechanical accessories will be constructed.

Se.vera1 alternative capacities, ranging from 970 KW to 3735 KW, were examined and compared.

IV. POWER POTENTIALITY

As a basis for design, flow records at Rosendale since 1952 were analyzed. By plotting monthly flow-duration curves the average annual amount of energy generated by each alternative was determined. High Falls would operate as a run-of-the-river plant utilizing all water available up to the capacity of the unit(s) installed, and delivering this energy into the system immediately.

V. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The usual approach of identifying load plus reserves and satisfying these demands through the most. economical form of capacity addition cannot, for various reasons, be used in the case of High Falls. Due to reduced load growth, Central Hudson, as well as the electric utility industry generally, is presently 'in a state of "excess capacity". The generating

capacity Central Hudson already owns (or is contractually committed to purchase) exceeds its load plus reserve requirement, and Central Hudson does not require any additional generating capacity for load plus reserve requirements until the 1990's. Therefore, the High Falls project could not yield any savings under its present contractural arrangements and forecasted loads in terms of a reduction in investment in some other capacity additions to the system until at least that time.

It can be seen that the economic feasibility of High Falls cannot be judged in the normal manner of comparison of alternative generating additions. Instead, since over 95% of Central Hudson's present generating capacity is oil-fired, its reactivation must be justified on the basis of fuel savings. .. The economic value of the High Falls project can be judged by comparing the cost of producing a comparable amount of energy from the oil-fired units with the total cost (the annual carrying charges on the required investment plus the 0&pl costs) ~ f . High Falls. If the total annual cost of the project is less than the value of the displaced oil, then a savings would accrue and the reactivation would be economically viable.

To be able to perform this analysis quantitatively, both the total cost of the High Falls energy and the value of the displaced oil must be calculated. The total cost of the High Falls energy can be calculated based upon the cost estimates. The capacity cost portion of the total cost is actually determined by taking the total installed cost (or total investment) and multiplying by the levelized annual fixed charge rate, as determined by Central Hudson, of 14% for the High Falls project. The levelized annual components of this fixed charge rate are based on an assumed 50-year plant life and include: return on investment, depreciation, income tax, property tax, insurance, and an allowance for replacement of equipment that wears out in less than the assumed 50-year plant life. The only other cost associated with High Falls energy would be O&M.

The calculation of the value of the displaced oil-fired energy is much more complex. In reality the value of the energy produced at High Falls each hour would be equal to the value of the energy produced from the most expensive oil-fired generator being dispatched for that particular hour. However, even if the cost of the oil fired generation for every hour could be calculated, the output of High Falls for every hour could not.

As an approximation, the unit that is generally the last to be dispatched on an economic basis to serve load for the majority of time during the year was selected for comparison, and the price of oil for this unit and its average heat rate was used to determine the average cost of generating a kilowatt hour of energy. . -- , . , . -

VI. CONCLUSION

The accompanying table summarizes the various costs and shows the economics of reactivating the High Falls project with oil at $13.85 per barrel, the November, 1978 cost to the utility.

The figures indicate that while all alternatives show an annual deficit, the construction of a new plant is more economical than rehabilitating the old and that installation of approximately 2400 KW is the least unattractive. As the price of oil increases, the unatfractiveness would be reduced and a larger capacity would begin to be favored. Once the plant is constructed, and most of the annual charges thus fixed, a continued rise in the price of oil would probably show an eventual net saving resulting from the reactivation of the plant.

HIGH FALLS HYDRO STATION - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (NOV. 78 OIL PRICE)

Notes 1) Nov 78 oil price $13.85/ bhl. 2) Annual Generation from App. C. 3) Capital Cost from Table 1. 4) FCR= fixed carrying charge, and includes amortization, interest, and replacement reserves. 5) Operation and Maintenance charges are based on CHG&E experience. 6) Oil saved ($ and bbl) is based on operation of CHGdE Danskammer Unit No. 3 in Nov. 78. 7) Negative Net Savings indicates cost of new hydro exceeds value of oil saved. 8) Incremental values are the differences between adjacent schemes.

b

ITEM

Annual Gen. (Kw)

Capital Cost ($1

FCR @ 14 .O% ($1

0 & M ($1 Annual Cost($) Oil Savings($) Net Savings($)

Capacity Cost ($/w

Energy Cost (M/KWH)

Oil Saved (BBL)

BUILD NEW PLANT

Incremental: Annual Cost

($1 Energy (KWH) , '011 Savings($)

REHABILITATION

102,000 95,000 17,000 26,000 22,000 27,000 27,000 1,954,000 1,400,000 1,395,000 1,471,000 1,219,000 1,015,000 818,000

45,000 34,000 34,000 35,000 29,000 24,000 20,000

No. 3 2,120KW

9,587,000

2,860,000

400,000 35,000 435,000 229,000

(-206,000)

1,350

45 $4 16,500

No. 1 1000 KW

6,233,000

1,520,000

213,000 25,000 238,000 150,000 (-88,000)

1,520

38.2 10,800

No. 8 3,025KW

11,175,000

1,930,000

270,000 24,000 294,000 267,000 (-27,000)

640

26.3 19,300

No. 4 970KW

6,075,000

1,300,000

182,000 20,000 202,000 145,000 (-57,000)

1,340

33.3 10,500

I

No. 2 1,560KW

8,187,000

2,215,000

310,000 30,000 340,000 195,000

(-145,000)

1,420

41.5 14,100

No. 6 1,835KW

8,941,000

1,590,000

223,000 22,000 245,000 214, COD (-31, COO)

860

27.4 15,400

No. 9 3,735KW

11,993,000

2,115,000

296,000 25,000 321,000 287,000 (-34,000)

570

26.8 20,700

No. 5 1350KW

7,470,000

1,415,000

198,000 21,000 219,000 179,000 (-40,000)

1,050

29.3 12,900

No. 7 2,390KW

10,160,000

1,745,000

244,000 23,000 267,000 243,000 (-24; 000)

7 30

26.3 17,500

BRIGHTON DAM HYDROELECTRIC REDEVELOPMENT

BRIGHTON, MARYLAND t

WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED

PROA Proposal Cont rac t No. 1787

I. INTRODUCTION

The B r i gh ton Dam Hyd roe lec t r i c Redevelopment F e a s i b i l i t y Study has been undertaken by Acres American Incorpora ted (Acres) under t h e terms o f a c o n t r a c t w i t h Washington Suburban San i t a r y Commission (WSSC) dated December 6. 1978. I t i s a cand idate p r o j e c t under t.he Department o f Energy (DOE) PRDA Program No. PROA-ET-78-0-07-1706, " F e a s i b i l i t y o f Determinat ion o f Low Head Hyd roe lec t r i c Power Development a t E x i s t i n g S i t es . " The s tudy has been j o i n t l y funded by t h e DOE and WSSC under Cooperat ive Agreement No. EN-78-F-07-1787, entered i n t o December 13, 1978. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s tudy was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e techn i ca l and economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f redeve lop ing the disused h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y a t t h e B r i gh ton Dam and t o prepare a F e a s i b i l i t y Report on t h e f t nd ings .

The B r i gh ton Dam i s on the Patuxent R i ve r about 15 m i l e s upstream o f Laure l i n Maryland. I t impounds t h e waters o f t he T r i ade lph ia Reservo i r which covers an area o f 800 acres. The dra inage area i s 78.4 square mi les . The average f l o w over a 12-month pe r i od i s 87 cub ic fee t per second, and t h e gross head between the normal maximum r e s e r v o i r l e v e l and the t a i l w a t e r l e v e l i s 61 f e e t . The o l d genera t ing p l a n t , d isused s ince 1969, cons is ted o f two t u r b i n e s and generators and had a t o t a l ou tpu t o f 150 kW.

The Report p resents t he conceptual design f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a 500 kW generat ing p l a n t i n t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse which i s b u i l t i n t o t he dam s t r u c t u r e . Th i s represents a 233 percent increase i n t he o r i g i n a l i n s t a l l e d capac i t y . Sect ion 2 o f t h e Report forms a summary o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and f i n d i n g s o f t he study. It i s s e t o u t i n f u l l i n t h i s symposium p resen ta t i on .

The o the r sec t ions o f t he Report, n o t reproduced i n t h i s presenta t ion , a re as f o l l ows . Sect ion 3 con- t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t he e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s p n d bas i c data and assumptions used i n t h e study. Sect ion 4 dea ls w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s considered i n deve lop ing conceptual designs f o r t h e p r o j e c t and s e l e c t i n g t h e recommended scheme. Sect ion 5 presents f u r t h e r d e t a i 1 s o f t h e se lec ted design, together w i t h cos t es t imates and f i n a n c i a l and power market ing s tud ies . The schedule f o r engineer ing, l i c e n s i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , t oge the r w i t h t h e cash f l o w est imate, i s i nc luded i n Sect ion 6. Sect ions 7 and 8 deal w i t h en- v i ronmental and s a f e t y assessments.. Background data and o t h e r r e l a t e d i n fo rma t i on a re inc luded as appendices t o t h e Report.

The WSSC P r o j e c t Manager f o r t he study was Mr. Alan L. W i l l . ' T h e P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r f o r Acres was Mr. Char les A. Debelius, ass i s ted by Mr. Hubert F. Allman. The ass is tance o f Ba l t imore Gas & E l e c t r i c Company and va r i ous s t a t e and environmental agencies who have prov ided i n fo rma t i on and guidance du r i ng the study i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged.

11. SUMMARY

The redevelopment o f t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y a t B r i gh ton Dam has been found t o be bo th t e c h n i c a l l y and f i n a n c i a l l y f eas ib le , t h e b e n e f i t t o c o s t r a t i o be ing 1.53: l compared w i t h an equ i va len t coal-based genera t ion source. Environmental impacts have been assessed as r e l a t i v e l y s l i g h t , bu t some problems, due t o poss ib l y poor water q u a l i t y a t t h e bottom o f t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a n t i c i p a t e d and s o l u t i o n s f o r these. w i l l have t o be worked ou t . The b e n e f i t t o c o s t , r a t i o cou ld thus be m a r g i n a l l y decreased, bu t t h e r e l a t i v e cos t s o f one a l t e r n a t i v e scheme compared t o another would n o t be a f f ec ted . There i s no apparent impedi- ment t o proceeding w i t h t h e work o f redevelopment.

The se lec ted redevelopment p lan would have a s i n g l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c genera t ing u n i t o f 500 kW r a t e d capac i t y . The gross energy genera t ion f rom the p r o j e c t would be 2,840,000 kwh i n a year w i t h average r a i n f a l l . I t i s est imated t h a t t he t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t would be $734,000 ( a t t h i r d qua r te r 1978 p r i c e l e v e l s ) , w i t h no allowance f o r funds du r i ng c o n s t r u c t i o n (AFDC). Based on 6.25 percent c o s t of money, t h e p r o j e c t would prov tde energy a t a l e v e l i z e d c o s t over t h e p l a n t l i f e t i m e o f approx imate ly 23.3 m i l l s per kWh w i t h no AFDC o r 24.6 mi l ls /kWh w i t h AFDC.

A t present, WSSC e l e c t r i c a l power demands a t B r i gh ton Dam amount t o 147,000 kWh per yea r which i s met by a supp ly f rom Bal t imore Gas & E l e c t r i c Company (BG&E). Th is represents o n l y 5 percent o f t he p o t e n t i a l genera t ion a t t he s i t e and BG&E have agreed i n p r i n c i p a l t o purchase the su rp lus ou tpu t .

2.1 - DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED FACILITY

The se lec ted scheme would have a 4 f e e t d iameter penstock w i t h a b u t t e r f l y s h u t - o f f va lve connect ing one h a l f o f t h e e x i s t i n g i n t a k e tower t o t h e t u rb ine . The t u r b i n e would be o f t he v e r t i c a l sha f t , a x i a l f low, p r o p e l l e r t ype placed c e n t r a l l y i n t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse. I t would be r a t e d a t 500 kW under a n e t head o f 50 f e e t and a discharge o f 130 c f s . The d r a f t tube would be o f t he standard elbow type I n s t a l l e d i n t h e e x i s t i n g t a i l r a c e tunne l under t h e powerhouse a f t e r some a d d i t i o n a l excavat ion o f concre te and rock. Some m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e tunne l w i l l a l s o be necessary t o remove the severe c o n s t r i c t i o n where i t emerges i n t o t h e t a i l r a c e channel.

The 500 kW, 480 V generator would be mounted v e r t i c a l l y on top o f t he t u r b i n e casing.

The powerhouse has a h i s t o r y o f f l o o d i n g and funds have been inc luded i n t h e p r o j e c t cos t s t o c a r r y o u t e s s e n t i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o prevent a recurrence.

The switchboard cou ld be i n s t a l l e d on t h e f l o o r o f t h e powerhouse o r on t h e mezzanine f l o o r .

A power t rans former l oca ted i n one o f t h e downstream bays o f t h e dam would step-up t h e s t a t i o n ou tpu t t o 13.2 kV f o r connect ion t o t h e e x i s t i n g BG&E Company d i s t r i b u t i o n l i n e which te rminates on t h e s i t e .

P l a t e s 1 and 2 show t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t and t h e general p l an and e l e v a t i o n o f t he s i t e .

2.2 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Recogniz ing t h a t the most economical ly reward ing scheme was l i k e l y t o be t h a t w i t h a minimum o f c i v i l w ~ r k w i t h i n t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse s t r u c t u r e , a number of poss ib le . a l t e r n a t i v e turbine,~-generator arrangements were i d e n t i f i e d . These i n v o l v e d . t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e two e x i s t i n g penstocks t o g rea te r o r l e s s e r degrees.

The arrangements o f t he p l a n t which were s tud ied came under two main headings:

A l t e r n a t i v e A: Wi th two i d e n t i c a l u n i t s each u t i l i z i n g f l ows i n t he range 50 t o 70 c f s .

A l t e r n a t i v e 6: Wi th one l a r g e r u n i t u t i l i z i n g a f l o w i n t h e range 90 t o 130 c f s w i t h , o r w i thout , a smal l u n i t t o handle t h e r e g u l a t o r y minimum f l o w o f 7.5 c f s .

The e x i s t i n g penstocks were designed t o g i v e " s t ra igh t - t h rough" f l ows o f 125 c f s t o each o f t h e d i s - charge r e g u l a t i n g va lves and 20 c f s v i a branch connect ions t o each o f t he o r i g i n a l 75 kW tu rb ines . With t h i s magnitude o f f l ow , t h e head losses i n t he p ipes were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , bu t w i t h t h e proposed h igher ou t - pu t u n i t s , t h e head losses would be a cons iderab le p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l head a v a i l a b l e , thus s e r i o u s l y reduc ing t h e p o t e n t i a l ou tpu t f rom t h e p r o j e c t . Hence, a l t e r n a t i v e approaches o f mod i f y i ng t h e e x i s t i n g penstocks, o r o f i n s t a l l i n g a new one, were considered. For each o f t he a l t e r n a t i v e s , i t was ev iden t t h a t m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t a i l r a c e tunne l o u t l e t would be necessary t o remove t h e c o n s t r i c t i o n .

F u l l cons ide ra t i on has been g iven t o the number and types o f u n i t s . A l t e r n a t i v e s eva luated comprised one- and two -un i t i n s t a l l a t i o n s , u t i l i z i n g Franc is t u rb ines w i t h h o r i z o n t a l shaf ts , s i ng le - regu la ted Kaplan and f i xed -b lade p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e s i n bo th h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l s h a f t con f i gu ra t i ons .

The coopera t ion o f major U.S. and European manufacturers o f smal l h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e s was sought f o r t h e s LuJy .

The a1 t e r n a t i v e which inc luded a ve ry smal l u n i t t o generate s o l e l y f rom the r e g u l a t o r y minimum f l o w o f 7.5 c f s was r e j e c t e d when t h i s proved uneconomic, due t o very l ow capac i t y f a c t o r and h igh c o s t per kW o f t h e u n i t .

2.3 - PLANT SIZE SELECTION

The p l a n t capac i t y and u n i t s izes were se lec ted f o l l o w i n g an ana l ys i s o f t he e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y cond i - t i o n and l ayou t , t h e hyd rau l i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n t a k e tower, penstocks, t a i l r a c e tunne l and t a i l r a c e channel, v a r i a t i o n of a v a i l a b l e f l ow , comparat ive power values, t he p r e f e r r e d l o a d requirements o f BG&E, and t h e es tab l i shed WSSC r u l e s f o r t he ope ra t i on o f t he r e s e r v o i r f o r water s torage and f l o o d c o n t r o l .

The se lec ted 500 kW i n s t a l l a t i o n i s considered t o prov ide optimum usage o f t h e a v a i l a b l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l a t t he s i t e . I n i t i a l p l a n t s i z e o p t i m i z a t i o n and comparison o f a l t e r n a t i v e s was based on p re l im- i n a r y power values pub l ished by FERC f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e coal f i r e d genera t ing u n i t source i n t he Pennsylvania- New Jersey-Maryland .interconnected system (PJII). The s e l e c t i o n o f p l a n t capac i t y and c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i l l no t be s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l uenced by any l i k e l y d i f f e r e n c e s i n power values from these pub l i shed l e v e l s .

P r o j e c t cos t eva lua t i ons f o r one- and two -un i t a l t e r n a t i v e s a re summarized i n Table 1. The t o t a l p ro- j e c t cos t s o f t he a l t e r n a t i v e s range from $734,000 t o $880,000. On the bas i s o f t h e e s t i m a t i n g cos ts pro- v ided by manufacturers f o r t h i s study, t h e s i n g l e 500 kW v e r t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r t u r b i n e w i t h an asynchronous generator appears t o be t h e most cos t e f f e c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h t h e neares t contender c o s t i n g 9 per - cen t more w i t h no improvement i n performance.

2.4 - ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Const ruc t ion cos ts a re based on u n i t cos t s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e type o f work invo lved, on cond i t i ons s i m i l a r t o those p r e v a i l i n g i n t h e B r i gh ton Dam area and on p r i c i n g l e v e l s e f f e c t i v e i n t h e t h i r d qua r te r o f 1978.

A s i n g l e comparison o f t he p r o j e c t cos t o f energy t o t h a t f rom an a l t e r n a t i v e coal f i r e d source, i s presented i n Table 2 . The cos t of money f o r t he h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t was determined on the bas i s t h a t WSSC, being a p u b l i c u t i l i t y i s ab le t o o b t a i n c a p i t a l funds a t 6 t o 6.25 percent i n t e r e s t . BG&E i s dependent on p r i v a t e f i nanc ing , t he re fo re , t he equ i va len t c o s t o f money f o r t he "coal f i r e d " a l t e r n a t i v e was taken as 10 percent. Furthermore, WSSC i s s e l f insured and pays no taxes on B r i gh ton Dam. Thus, t h e annual cos t s o f t h e t o t a l f i x e d charges f o r t h e WSSC h y d r o e l e c t r i c and t h e BG&E coa l f i r e d thermal power a l t e r n a t i v e ; a re 9 percent and 19.56 percent of c a p i t a l cos t , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The FERC power values, r e f e r r e d t o i n 2.3, suggest a capac i t y va lue o f $1 36/kW and an energy va lue o f $11.6/MWh which, f o r t he se lec ted B r i gh ton Dam scheme, r e s u l t s i n a t o t a l power va lue o f 35.5 m i l l s l k w h . Thus, t he h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy c o s t l e v e l es t imated a t 23.3 mi l ls /kWh prov ides a b e n e f i t t o c o s t r a t i o o f 1.53 on 1978 cos ts w i t hou t any p r o v i s i o n fo r esca la t i on o f fuel cos t s i,n f u t u r e years. Therefpre, t h e prQ- j e c t i s economical 1 y f e a s i b l e and 'may be expected' t o become an increas ing1 y b e n e f i c i a l investment i n years t o come.

2.5 - DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULES

De ta i l ed c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t and schedule data were developed f o r the recommended hydropower redevelopment under cons ide ra t i on f o r t he B r i gh ton Dam Pro jec t . The data i s presented t o a degree o f d e t a i l such t h a t f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d economic eva lua t i ons as we l l as f i n a n c i a l and schedule p lann ing may proceed w i t h an acceptable l e v e l o f conf idence.

( b ) Cost Est imates

Summary c o s t est imates, f o r f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t design concepts considered, a r e presented i n Table 1. De ta i l ed cos t es t imates were prepared f o r t h e 500 kW v e r t i c a l s h a f t p r o p e l l e r u n i t , t he 420 kW h o r i z o n t a l s h a f t tube u n i t and the two arrangements o f t w i n 243 kW o r 240 kW Franc is u n i t s i n s t a l l e d on t h e e x i s t i n g penstocks, w i t h and w i t h o u t mod i f i ca t i on , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Cost es t imates f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e were based on s i m i l a r p l a n t f a c i l i t i e s , type o f generator, e l e c t r i - c a l a u x i l i a r i e s , c o n t r o l s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t a i l r a c e . Est imated c o n s t r u c t i o n cos ts were based on c u r r e n t ( t h i r d qua r te r 1978) p r i c e l e v e l s app l i cab le t o t h e type o f work i nvo l ved and the l o c a l cond i t i ons a t B r i gh ton Dam. A d d i t t o n a l l y , u n i t cos t s f o r t he major c i v i l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s were es t imated t o a l l o w f o r t h e env i ronmenta l ly s e n s i t i v e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t and t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s per - t a i n i n g t o dust, p rese rva t i on o f water q u a l i t y and f o r l i m i t a t i o n s due t o t h e f l o o d c o n t r o l requirements a t t he e x i s t i n g s t ruc tu res .

( c ) Schedules

The Report p ro jec t schedu le w i l l show the two p r i n c i p a l phases o f eng ineer ing and c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r t he recommended scheme. The eng ineer ing schedule has e s s e n t i a l l y been based on concur rent l i c e n s i n g and eng i - neer ing design and equipment procurement a c t i v i t i e s t o p rov ide t h e sho r tes t c o n s t r u c t i o n l ead t ime. Con- secu t i ve l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing a c t i v i t i e s would lengthen the schedule by a t l e a s t 12 months.

The FERC l i c e n s i n g phase o f t he schedule w i l l i n c l u d e a 3 month p repa ra t i on pe r i od i n p a r a l l e l w i t h i n i t i a l eng ineer ing design a c t i v i t i e s . These a c t i v i t i e s w i l l i nc lude f i n a l i z i n g t he p r o j e c t arrangement and t h e p repa ra t i on o f tu rb ine-genera tor procurement documents. The e a r l i e s t scheduled date f o r r e c e i p t o f

t he FERC l i c e n s e w i l l be i n month twelve. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s date, t h e c i v i l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t document w i l l be ready fo r i ssue t o prospect ive .b idders . I f schedule de lays a re t o be avoided, t he l a t e s t da te f o r r e c e i p t o f t h e l i c e n s e w i l l be t h e end o f t h e f i f t e e n t h month.

The t o t a l scheduled pe r i od f rom a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o complet ion o f t h e p r o j e c t w i l l be 32 months.

( d ) P r o j e c t Cash Flow

The p r o j e c t cash f low shown i n t h e F e a s i b i l i t y Report i s based on present day es t imated c o s t s w i t h no a l l o w ance f o r f u t u r e esca la t i on . AFDC has been est imated, assuming a 6.25 percent annual cos t o f money and end o f pe r i od payments, a t an amount o f $42,300 o r 5 3/4 percent o f t h e es t imated c a p i t a l cos t ($734,000). The t o t a l p r o j e c t cost , i n c l u d i n g AFDC, i s thus $776,300.

2.6 - PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

( a ) E x i s t i n g Cond i t ions

The proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c redevelopment a t B r i gh ton Dam l i e s w i t h i n WSSC owned s t r u c t u r e s and lands. The development w i l l be i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t he e x i s t i n g T r i a d e l p h i a Reservo i r which i s c u r r e n t l y being.operated f o r water -s torage and f l o o d c o n t r o l purposes. The e x i s t i n g r e s e r v o i r and ad jacent areas a r e s c e n i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e , p rov ide s i g n i f i c a n t w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s and a re used f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s on a r e l a t i v e l y smal l sca le d u r i n g the summer months on ly .

(b ) P re l im ina ry Environmental Assessment

The proposed development of h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l w i l l have n e g l i g i b l e impact on t h e present t e r r e s - t r i a l and aqua t i c systems both d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and ope ra t i on o f t h e f a c i l i t i e s , p rov ided adequate pre- cau t i ons a re taken. Th i s a p p l i e s p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e i n i t i a l s t a r t - u p o f t he pl .ant i f t h i s occurs a t a t ime o f low f lows, as t h e re lease o f p o w q u a l t t y water f rom the bottom o f t h e r e s e r v o i r c ~ u l d be harmful .

To a s s i s t i n t he s e l e c t i o n o f t h e most f avo rab le a l t e r n a t i v e , p r e l i m i n a r y environmental and s a f e t y assessments have been conducted. These assessments i d e n t i f i e d t h e major impacts a n t i c i p a t e d f rom const ruc- t i o n and ope ra t i on o f t h e proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y .

De ta i l ed env i ronmenta l /sa fe ty assessments w i l l be requ i red as p a r t o f t he 1 i cens ing process. The c u r r e n t s tudy on t h e o t h e r hand, has been b r i e f and p re l im ina ry , and has been adapted t o t h e l e v e l o f f e a s i - b i l i t y assessment app rop r i a te a t t h i s t ime. The study cons i s ted o f a p r e l i m i n a r y rev iew o f p e r t i n e n t env i - ronmental r epo r t s , a s i t e reconnaisance and con tac t s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s f rom s t a t e and fede ra l agencies. having e x p e r t i s e on t h e t e r r e s t r i a l and aqua t i c ecosystems found w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t area.

( c ) P re l im ina ry Safe ty Assessment

Const ruc t ion o f t h e proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t y w i l l have a p o t e n t i a l impact on t h e s a f e t y o f t h e p u b l i c as we l l as on t h a t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n workers i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y o f t he power p l a n t . Appropr ia te precaut ions w i l l be necessary t o minimize these r i s k s . Design and ope ra t i ng procedures w i l l have t o be formula ted t o ensure t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n r i s k s t o p u b l i c s a f e t y w i l l a r i s e du r i ng ope ra t i on o f t h e r e a c t i v a t e d h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n .

2.7 - MARKETING STUDIES

WSSC i s a water u t i l i t y and, a p a r t f rom standby d iese l generators, has no ope ra t i ona l e l ' e c t r i c i t y gener- a t i n g p l a n t o f i t s own. A t t he present r a t e o f demand, o n l y 5 percent o f the p o t e n t i a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c ou tpu t a t B r i gh ton Dam cou ld be used a t t h a t l o c a t i o n . The present supply o f e l e c t r i c i t y t o WSSC a t B r i gh ton Dam i s prov ided by BG&E who opera te and -ma in ta in t h e 13.2 kV l i n e t o t h e f a c i l i t i e s there . It t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w s t h a t t h e power surp lus t o WSSC's needs should be s o l d t o BG&E. The o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h i s would be f o r WSSC t o cons t ruc t t h e i r own power d i s t r i b u t i o n l i n e s t o t h e i r o t h e r water pumping and sewage t reatment p lan ts . Th i s i s n o t considered f e a s i b l e f o r c o s t and ope ra t i ona l reasons.

P re l im ina ry d iscuss ions w i t h B6&E have r e s u l t e d i n agreement i n p r i n c i p a l . As B r i gh ton Dam hydro- e l e c t r i c redevelopment cou ld be used p r i m a r i l y f o r peaking generat ion, reasonably h i g h energy values may be expected t o apply. Furthermore, cons ide ra t i on o f more r a p i d esca la t i on i n energy cos ts f rom fuel-dependent sources i n t h e f u t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t h y d r o e l e c t r i c peaking genera t ion w i l l be more economic on a present worth basis, over a 30 yea r pe r i od . WSSC could, t he re fo re , d e r i v e s i g n i f i c a n t economic b e n e f i t f rom a h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r capac i t y envisaged.

2.8 - RECOMMENDATION

Based on the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s repo r t , i t i s recommended t h a t a FERC l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n be f i l e d f o r t h e B r i gh ton Dam redevelopment p r o j e c t a t an e a r l y date.

* * * * TABLE 1 - PROJECT COSTS AND BENEF1T:COST RATIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES

A1 - A2 - 2-240 kW Franc is 2-243 kW Franc is

Account I t em e x i s t i n g penstocks ' mod i f i ed penstocks

331 S t ruc tu re & Improvements $ 26,920 $ 36,000

332 Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways 6,600 24,730

333 Turbines & Generators 327,000 327,000

334 Accessory E l e c t r i c a l

335 Misc. Power P lan t Equipment

353 Substa t ion E l e c t r i c a l

Subto ta l

Cont ingencies (25%)

Engineer ing & Admin i s t ra t i on

TOTAL PROJECT COST

Expected Annual Generat ion Revenue (See Table 2 )

Expected Annual Cost o f P r o j e c t

Benef i t /Cost Ra t i o

Bla 1-500 kW Vert . propel 1 e r

$ 43,000

11,700

292,300

40,000

2,000

2,000

391,000

98,000

245,000

$734,000

$1 01,000

B l b

1-420 kW Hor iz . Tube

TABLE 2 . - COMPARATIVE PROJECT COSTS AND BENEF1T:COST RATIO

PROJECT DATA

Type o f U n i t - V e r t i c a l Shaft , P r o p e l l e r Turb ine U n i t Rated Capaci ty - 500 kW w i t h o u t w icket gates and w i t h Annual Generat ion - 2,840,000 kWh induc t i on generator Capaci ty Factor - 65 percent

Design Head ( n e t ) - 50 f e e t Est imated Cost - $734,000

COST COMPARISON

Annual Cost Hydro Charges (%) Typ ica l Coal F i r e d Charges (%)

Cost o f Money 6.25 ( P u b l i c ) 10.00 ( P r i v a t e ) Deprec ia t ion 0.45 (40 y r ) 0.61 (30 y r ) Insurance (WSSC S e l f Insured) 0.00 0.25 Tax ( i n l i e u ) 0.00 5.00 Fuel I nven to ry 0.00 0.70 '

G & A 1.20 1.20 O & M Tota l F ixed Charges

. , To ta l Cost o f Hyd roe lec t r i c Supply = $734,000 x 0.09 = $66,06O/year o r 23.3 mi l l s /kWh

To ta l Cost o f A l t e r n a t i v e Coal F i r e d Generat ion

From FERC "P re l im ina ry General ized Power Values f o r Nat iona l Hydropower Study" June 23, 1978, f o r PJM In te rconnec t i on (Page 24), f o r hydro capac i t y f a c t o r o f 65%:

Capaci ty Cost = $136/kW y r and Energy Cost = 11.6 mi l l s /kWh

Thus f o r t he se lec ted f a c i l i t y r a t e d a t 500 kW producing 2,840 MWhlyr:

Capaci ty Value = $136/kW x 500 kW = $ 68,000 Energy Value = 2,840 MWh x 11.6lMWh = $ 33,000 Tota l Value ( B e n e f i t ) = $-/year o r 35.5 mi l l s /kWh

MARYLAND

BRIGHTON DAY

5 MILES IAPPROX )

FEASIBILITY STUDY

LOCATION OF PROJECT

rum t ~ m r n # w r 0

_ ' I

I . .I: .I , I ;; I

~ I I . I I - -.-- -... . - . -.. - r UIIunul tIIGI(C1IIMO CORWRAW wASI(lWG10M SUBUIIBAIt S U 1 t A I I COMYISSMII rm.. "'U ICLLl '.-.dl.. . . I t . . ' .. . . - .-..... . .... .I*. .-*I ~ r r r - I O I Y , M N ' I (LUERAL CL&,,;NO ELEVATION 1 1 1 I-.w.,vE . - f f l ~ ;%?t Z#,A.~ # d p * ~ - s & ---WWW.+& &332 . -I(. . .- .- i: .( ,

. .-

BRIGHTON DAM - POWERHOUSE

BRIGHTOM DAM - EXISTTWG HYCJiOELECTRiC PUNT

HYDROELECTRIC POWER POTENTIAL

Woonsocket Falls Dam

University of Rhode Island Rhode Island State Energy Office


I. INTRODUCTION d' .

r-cl A relatively new flood control dam, lo~a?ki?% ??!' has been studied

to determine the potential for hydroelectric generation. The dam is municipally owned by the City of Woonsocket, under supervision of the Corps of Engineers. It is inspected by them on n somiannual basis as to operability and structural stability.

The original Woonsocket Falls dam was a fixed-crest masonry structure dating back into the 1800's and was located 100 feet upstream of the South Main Street Bridge. This was replaced after the flood of August 1955. The dam is a 266 foot long concrete flood control dam equipped with four tainter gates, each 50 feet long and approximately 10 feet high.

11. SITE LOCATIONS A - < ;+ < C

Three sites for the location of the power plant were looked at in detail. These sites are designated A, B, and C and are illustrated in Figure 1. ?

OENERAL PLAN WUlCULAR IY ITmM

R P r r r R U N IYIT.M PLANTINO PROORAM

0 - NucwIoawooO - 0 -L COMM.RcIAL OIV- 0 PARKINO m r n u c r u a m m

WOONSOCKET A NEW IMAQE FOR DOWNTOWN

C O N O . p R .GALS IN -7 0 POO d~

FIGURE 1

Site A is located approximately 300 feet downstream rrom the dam and takes advantage of an increase in available head at the expense of a buried penstock (8 foot pipe for water flow). This site does entail the acquisition of a vacant private parcel of land.

Site B is across the bend in the river and approximately 1200 feet downstream from the dam and takes advantage of a further increase h a head at the expense of an increased length for the penstock. This Bite has the highest cost for development.

Site C is in the river channel opposite the taibter gate on the dam's aast side. This wouLd eliminate the need far a penstock and its associated costs$ but uill regmire evaluation and approval of its effects on flood control operations and the dam's structure by the Carps of Engineers. This site has the lowest cost for deve1open.t.

The proposed hydro station should be operated in parallel with the existiag utility system. Use of ?Local distribution lines for wwheelingH of energy from the h y e o generator to sites where it can be best utFlized her bees investigated, an well as, selling all of the snergy to the utility compapy. A fee is ch-assed by the utility foe this distribution service. TEe fee is based on szcpenses invOlved plus a fair return cam the eapitail valuo of the Bistributioa equ%pmen%. con sf be ratio^ is ~ i v e n ta fbo f a ~ t that only a f~actian of the load on the distribution facilities is the energy being wheeled. The municipal sewer and water works are good sites where the energy can be wheled. Wheeling of the energy does give a significant improvement to the prajeot ' s financial feasibility.

Utility power rate structures were not designed for oa~eneration and m y need changes that t&e into account the unique capability of a h~droelectric plant. For example, although there are acany different power rate structuresr they can in m o ~ t cases be broken &OWXI into three generic classifications: industrial, conrmercial, and residential. The industrial rate, for which the sewer qualifies, is ap.proximately .a34 dollars per lCWB in New Eagland and the oustomer buys a relatively laree amount of energy. The commercial rate is approximately ,051 dollars per gUfI and the customer buys less under this stsucture. Uhder the industrial rate, a facility that has energy "wheeled*' to it, decreases energy purchased and may find that it does not qualify a m o r e for the lower industrial rate for energy brought from the utility company. Under these circumstances, there could be a detrimental change 9 ginancia1 feasibility for a hydro cogenerator.

IV. ENGINEERING ASPECTS

The civil, electrical, and mechanical elements have been studied. To reduce costs and to improve financial feasibility, the plant should be- f'ully automated and this has been assumed during the study. For safety purposes, control aad mozkitetring circuits should be available for use by the Blackstone Valley Electric Company.

It is proposed that the hydro station be tied through a transformer and a short overhead line to the 13.8 kV bus of the utility's Sayles Street substation. Synchronous generating units should be used with protective relaying. The -its sh~uld be able to run under automatic control, be brought from standstill to synchronism without an operatorr and be disconnected from the system if necessary by remote tripping.

Semi-automatic met-cal raking equipment for the trash racks is included in the design concept. It is assumed that collected debris will be manually TemoPred from the intake site by Woonsocket Public Works personnel utilized in a dual capacity. -

V. FINANCING

Woonsocket may utilize one or a cambination of several alearnnt;-lfes to finance this project. External financing couLd consist of sales of bonds, general or F$veme; fhancing through federal government aid, either a direct grant ox loan associated with the National Energy act; or a leasing arrangement. Woonsocket could coasider tlie passihility of internal financing aut of any reserves or out of current revermes th~ough tax4z.n.

During conatructionf the pruject experiences a aet cash otttfBow consisting of the payment for f20nStW~ti6n and for bond interest. Woonsocket may decrease net interest costs during construction if part of the borrowing funds are placed in fieasarsfr securities. This has been assumed during the study.

VI.

Estimates of operating and maintenance costs were based on conversations with operating personnel of four hydro units in Norwicli~ Connecticut, and the experiences of a utility

company in Canada that owns a large number of small hydro plants. Operating and maintenance costs for the machines in Canada were approximately $8,000 per uiit. For the Woonsocket hydro station* these costs have been estimated as $17,400 per year.

VII. PLANNING PERMITS AND LEGAL FACTORS

Contacts and discussions about the project have been held with the:

State Energy Office, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Blackstone Valley Electric Company, Department of Environmental Management, Eastern Utilities Associates, City of Woonsocket, Water Resources Board, Rhode Island Water Resources Board, State-wide Planning Program, Corps of Engineers, Department of Economic Development.

Preliminary review has indicated that the hydro facility will have a minimal impact on the environment, although Site C will have to be carefully investigated as to effect on flood control operation of the dam. Good communication with regulatory agencies in the planning stage will assist in the.development of the hydroelectric facility.

There appears to be no legal impediments to the development of hydroelectric power at Woonsocket Falls. The City has clear title to,the dam, and therefore, according to the Rhode Island Mill Act, has a right to maintain the dam without "molestations".

VIII.COMPUTER MODEL

A comprehensive computer model, that takes into account engineering, environmental, economic, and financial factors, was utilized to estimate financial feasibility of each of the three sites for various options. Output from the model is the cash flow, which is the city revenue after operating, maintenance, and loan payments have been removed from the income of the proposed hydro plant.

A performance index that is based on the sum of the cash flows is used for the optimization studies. Two indices are available - the first is the sum of the cash flows over the loan period and the second is the sum of the cash flows over the operating life.

IX. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTS

Summary of the feasibility assessments are tabulated in Figure 2. Conservative installed plant costs and best available data and information, with due consideration of time and monetary constraints, were used in the model. For some of these results, a nominal generator size of 1000 KW provided a basis for comparison during each of the case studies. Power plant size that optimizes financial feasibility and their associated monetary values are indicated in the last four columns of this table. The configurations that give the best cash flow return over the short term and operating life of the power plant are:

SITE A with energy wheeled

SITE C with energy wheeled

Both of these have comparable financial returns and should be considered prime configurations. Site A entails the acquisition of a vacant private parcel of land and Site C is subject to detailed evaluation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers.,

X . RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

(1) The City of Woonsocket proceed with plans to develop one of the prime sites - Site A or Site C - with the energy being wheeled to the sewer and water works and excess sold to the utility company.

Reasons and Comments: By decreasing electrical energy brought from, and selling 'excess to the utility company* the proposed hydro facility has the capability of providing a net increase in disposable funds to the city over the short and long term life of the project.

( 2 ) The City of Woonsocket proceed immediately to obtain the necessary permits and licenses for the project.

Reasons and Comments: The money required to satisfy the regulatory requirements appears as if it is relatively low; however, time required is relatively long. Because of potential problems regulatory aspects can cause, satisfaction of these

. , . requirements should precede a commitment to actual construction.

(3) The Rhode Island State Energy Office explore the possibility of obtaining a demonstration grant for the project.

Reasons and Comments: The concept of wheeling', as used =n the project, and its implications are somewhat unique and should provide a basis for a demonstration grant .

(4) Funding be provided sp that the computer model and, information and data input, be further refined.to incor~?orate more details of the system. Some of these include better modelling of the,demand features of the power rate structure, and inclusion of random variation in the river flow data.

Reasons and Comments: The sensitivity of optimal plant sizing, due to the effects of actual non-smooth, daily random river flow, needs to be determined. It was assumed that changes in demand charges - due to wheeling - for utility brought. energy at the sewer works would not significantly change the financial feasibility of the hydro plant. This qualitative assessment could be further tested by a more detailed quantitative simulation. The impact of recent energy legislation on power rate structures is unknown at this time;

(5) The power rate structures be studied to determine if they are applicable to non- utility owned, cogeneration facilities.

Reasons and Comments: Utility power rate structures were not designed for cogeneration and may need changes that take into account the unique capability of a cogeneration facility,.

( I ) A l l o f the hydro gcnorntcd energy i s sl,Ld t o U - Discounted cash FLOW sum ovor u t i l i t y c o m p a n y . . - 35 year o p e r a t i n g l i f e .

( 2 ) Hydro generated energy i s wheelod t o t h e s e v e r U - Discounted cash f l o w sum over and water works with e x c e s s s o l d t o the u t i l i t y - 2 0 year loan p e r i o d . company.

( 3 ) No information was provided by mollufacturer to A.C. = All is -Chalmcrs h y d r o e l e c t r i c o b t a i n t h i s v a l u e , t h i s i s an est imared data p o i n t . u n i t .

( 4 ) I n s u r f i c i c n t data a v a i l a b l e t o determine t h i s v a l u e . N.W.P. I Northern Water Power h y d r o e l e c t r i c u n i t .

FIGURE 2

LOW-HEAD HYDROPOIVER ON THE MILL RIVER

Northampton, Massachusetts

Northampton Planning Department and Curran Associa tes , Inc .

PRDA Proposal Contrac t No. 1789

I . INTRODUCTION

Five e x i s t i n g dams along a 6.5-mile reach of t h e M i l l River i n t h e C i ty o f Northampton, Massachusetts were s tud ied t o a s s e s s t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of developing t h e s i t c s f o r low-head hydroe l ec t r i c power genera t ion .

I I . SUMWRY OF FINDINGS

The summary of f i nd ings r e s ~ l l t i n g from t h e p re sen t f e a s i b i l i t y a s s e s s - ment o f p o t e n t i a l hydro p r o j e c t s on t h e M i l l River i s presented below.

A. CONFIGURATIONS AND CAPACITIES.

For t h r e e o f t h e projec ts - -Char tpak, Pro Brush, and Smith College-- each powerhouse would be const ructed adjacent t o t h e e x i s t i n g dam and would oonta in one ho r i zon ta l - sha f t t u rb ine -gene ra to r u n i t . The fou r th p r o j e c t , Cookes In termedia te , would involve d ive r s ion o f water from t h e pond formed by t h e Button Shop dams through a penstock t o a powerhouse below Cookes Dam, thereby combining t h e heads a v a i l a b l e a t both p r o j e c t s .

The es t imated c a p i t a l c o s t s a r e i n mid-1978 d o l l a r s and inc lude a l l f a c i l i - t i e s r equ i r ed t o t i e t h e p l a n t s i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n system. They a l s o inc lude allowances f o r engineer ing and Owner's admin i s t r a t i on but ex- clude i n t e r e s t during cons t ruc t ion . The i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t i e s and es t imated c a p i t a l c o s t s corresponding t o t h e f o u r p l a n t s s e l e c t e d f o r s tudy throughout t h i s r epo r t a r e a s fo l lows:

P ro j ec t I n s t a l l e d Capacity Estimated Cap i t a l Cost

kW mid-1978 $

Chartpak 2 35 880,000

Cookes In termedia te 265 1,160,000

Pro Brush 200 800,000

Smith College 120 - 770.000

Tota l 820 3,610,000

B. PEAK POWER AND ENERGY.

The t a b l e below summarizes t he power p o t e n t i a l s a t t he f o u r s e l e c t e d p r o j e c t s :

Pro jec t

Chartpak

Cookes In termedia te

Pro Brush

Smith College

Assumed Sa leab le Peak Average Annual Power Production Energy Production

(Equivalent W h / a Ba r re l s of O i l / a )

C. IMPACTS .ON WATER RESOURCES.

P r inc ipa l uses o f t he M i l l River i n Northampton a r e water supply and d i sposa l of wastewater d ischarges . Pro Brush withdraws small q u a n t i t i e s o f water f o r cool ing from i t s pond and r e t u r n s somewhat more water t o t h e r i v e r . i n t h e form o f uncontaminated cool ing water d ischarges . River water i s a l s o f o r i r r i g a t i o n o f a g o l f course downstream from Cookes dam. None o f t h e s e u ses o f t h e water resource would be measurably a l t e r e d o r a f f e c t e d by i n s t a l l a - t i o n and opera t ion o f hydropower f a c i l i t i e s . Besi'zes Pro Brush, t h e on ly o t h e r impoundment i n cu r r en t use i s Paradise Pond formed by t h e Smith College dam. This pond provides f o r summer and win te r r e c r e a t i o n as. well a s a e s t h e t i c enhancement o f t h e campus. Major concerns expressed by Smith College o f f i c i a l s a r e t h e n e e d . t o minimize water l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e pond, t h e need t o mainta in a smal l amount o f flow pass ing over the.dam f o r a e s t h e t i c reasons , and t h e need t o make h y d r o e l e c t r i c s t r u c t u r e s compatible with t h e e x i s t i n g v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a r ea . A l l o f t h e s e needs could be met by t h e proposed p r o j e c t al though only with some l o s s of energy gene ra t ion due t o i n t e n t i o n a l s p i l l a g e .

D. MARKETING POTENTIAL.

P a r t of t h e ou tpu t o f t h e Chartpak p r o j e c t would be used by t h e Chartpak company and t h e l o c a l u t i l i t y , Massachusetts E l e c t r i c Company, would buy t h e r e s i d u a l a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g f u e l displacement r a t e which is c u r r e n t l y 2.2q/kWh.

Massachusetts E l e c t r i c Company would purchase a l l o f t he output from t h e Cookes In termedia te P ro j ec t a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g f u e l displacement r a t e .

A l l of t h e output from both t h e Pro Brush and Smith College p r o j e c t s would be used by t h e cu r r en t dam owners.

E. REGULATORY REOUI REMENTS . Regulatory requirements app l i cab le t o hydro development o f t h e e x i s t i n g

M i l l R iver dams a r e both formal and informal . Upon decis ion t o proceed with any o f t h e p r o j e c t s , f r equen t and c l o s e coordinat ion with a l l agencies involved would be important i n exped i t i ng p r o j e c t approvals . E s s e n t i a l requirements would inc lude:

- Short-form l i c e n s e from Federa l Energy Regulatory Commission;

- Sec t ion 10 and Sec t ion 404 permits f r o u ~ U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers;

- Waterways permit and wetlands permit from Massachusetts Department o f Environmental Q u a l i t y Engineering ( t h e l a t t e r a f t e r approval by Northampton Conservation Commission) ; ,.

- Consultation with and review by U.S. Fish and Wi ld l i f e Service , U.S. En- vironmental Protect ion Agency, Massachusetts Division o f F i she r i e s & Wild- l i f e and o the r s .

F. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS.

Capi ta l investments p e r i n s t a l l e d k i lowa t t , t o t a l c o s t s p e r k i lowat t - hour and r e t u r n on investment a r e summarized a s follows:

P ro jec t

Chartpak

Present Value Present Vgue Capi t a l 'Cost f o r Cost f o r

Investment Hydro Energy* .Purchased Energy** ($/kW) (+/kwh) (+/kwh)

Cookes In termedia te 4,110 2.64 ----

Pro ~ r u s h 3,600 2.72 1.96

Smith College 5,750 4.03 1.93

A l l p r o j e c t s t oge the r 4,020 2.59 ----

*Based on t o t a l c o s t s over 50-year l i f e cycle **Based on c o s t s t o use r f o r purchasing e l e c t r i c i t y i n amounts equal t o

hydro p r o j e c t production over 50-year l i f e cycle , allowing f o r u t i l i t y r a t e i n f l a t i o n 4% g r e a t e r than general i n f l a t i o n .

The r e tu rn on investment assuming concurrent development of t h e fou r p r o j e c t s was c a l c u l a t e d t o be 4 .1 percent p e r annum based on a p r o j e c t payout pe r iod of 50 years .

G. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.

I f t h e fou r p l a n t s were opera ted and maintained a s a s i n g l e system t h e es t imated cos t would be $55,00O/annum. The corresponding f i g u r e f o r t h e oper- a t ion and maintenance o f a s i n g l e p l an t would be i n t h e o rde r of $20,00O/annum.

H. PROJECT LIFE.

On t h e b a s i s of a s i t e inspect ion o f the dams'on t h e M i l l River it was concluded t h a t t h e remaining l i f e o f t h e e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s i s unl imi ted. The economic l i f e o f a l l t h e hydro p r o j e c t s was assumed t o be 50 years which i s a f i g u r e o f t en used f o r t h i s purpose.

I . ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL IMPACTS.

Environmental impacts of hydro developments on t h e Mill River would be asso- c i a t e d with const ruct ion a s well a s opera t ion of t h e p r o j e c t s . Excavation and o t h e r land-dis turbing a c t i v i t i e s necessary f o r powe~house, t a i l r a c e , and penstock const ruct ion would generate some sediment which might be washed i n t o t h e r i v e r . Because much o f the required excavation would be i n rock, sediment q u a n t i t i e s would l i k e l y be small . Construction phase impacts would be minimized by scheduling work i n and n e a r t h e r i v e r t o avoid t h e season o f g r e a t e s t r ec rea t iona l f i s h i n g p res su re and by r equ i r ing sediment and o t h e r p o l l u t i o n con t ro l measures t o be taken a s necessa ry ,du r ing cons t ruc t ion .

Operational impacts r e l a t e b a s i c a l l y t o modification of n a t u r a l r i v e r flows. While ponding water a t Chartpak, flows i n the r i v e r could be reduced t o n e a r zero, except f o r seepage and l o c a l inf lows, f r equen t ly f o r pe r iods of a few hours and in f requen t ly f o r up t o 18 hours. During t h e summer, reduc t i o n o f a l ready low flows during p a r t of t h e day could adversely a f f e c t t r o u t

. -

and othe; stream b i d t a , although augmentation of flows during the generat ion pe r iod could be b e n e f i c i a l f o r t h e stream 'f ishery. These i s s u e s would need t o be addressed f u r t h e r by t h e agencies responsible , should t h e p r o j e c t s proceed. Water flows between Button Shop south dam and Cookes dam woyld.be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced i f the Cookes In termedia te p r o j e c t were developed. Increased sedimen- t a t i o n , s t agna t ion , and- encroachment of,.marsh and t e r r e s t r i a l vegeta t ion would be poss ib l e i n t h e Cookes po?d'area d u e ' t o t h e decreased flows. . .

None of t h e proposed M i l l Kiver p r o j e c t s is expected t o have major s o c i a l o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l consequences l o c a l l y , However, t h e p r o j e c t s would con t r ibu te t o t h e na t iona l po l i cy of lessening dependenceson fo re ign o i l , even i f only i n a small way,, and wpuZd s e t a precedent f o r cogeneration p r o j e c t s i n t h e Massa- c h u s e t t s E l e c t r i c Company s e r v i c e ' a r ea .

A l t e rna t ive i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement.^ f o r implementing t h e p r o j e c t s would include: Individual dgyelppment'and operat inn n f pnrh p m j e r t b)r t h e pnocont o m e r ; i nd iv idua l development by owners and operat ion hy t-he City; development and operat ion of a l l p r o j e c t s by the Ci ty ; o r development of a l l p r o j e c t s by the Ci ty and 0 p e r a t i o n . b ~ a s i n g l e p r i v a t e con t rac to r . .

J. SAFETY.

I t was concluded t h a t t h e add i t ion of a hydropower f a c i l i t y a t any of t h e dams under s tudy would no t a f f e c t t he s a f e t y o f t h e e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s . A poss i - b l e s a f e t y hazard would be in t roduced i n t h e course of ope ra t ing t h e p l a n t s i n pe r iods of low f lows when generat ion would no t be continuous. A t t he s t a r t of genera t ion the water l e v e l downstream of each dam would r i s e causing a p o t e n t i a l problem t o ind iv idua l s who might have s t r ayed i n t o t h e r iverbed. The magnitude o f t h i s r i s e should not be more than a foo t o r two.

On t h e b a s i s o f a v i s u a l inspect ion of t h e s i t e s and the subsequent engineer- i ng work which was c a r r i e d o u t , t h a t t h e const ruct ion o f a hydrnpowar f a c i l i t y a t each s i t e considered is t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e .

L . AVAILABILITY OF SUITABLE EQUIPMENT.

On t h e b a s i s of t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of flow and head it was concluded t h a t t h e sma l l e s t - s i ze s tandardized tube turbine-generator u n i t now ava i l ab le commercially from t h e Allis-Chalmers company would be a s u i t a b l e machine f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n a t a l l s i t e s under s tudy. This type and s i z e of u n i t was used t o ob ta in equipment c o s t s and t o s i z e t h e d i v i l works a t each s i t e . Comparison with hydro-generating equipment a v a i l a b l e from o t h e r manufacturers would be necessary a t t he design s t age Lo ensure f i n a l s e l e c t i o n of t h e most s u i t a b l e u n i t .

M. SCHEDULE.

A pre l iminary schedule f o r t h e design and cons t ruc t ion o f power f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e Chartpak, Cookes In termedia te , Pro Brush and Smith College p r o j e c t s i n - c ludes n ine months of d e t a i l e d des ign, advertisement f o r b ids , and b i d prepara- t i o n and ana lys i s p r i o r t o t h e award of c o n t r a c t s . C i v i l const ruct ion, and equipment f ab r i ca t ion , . de l ive ry . i n s t a l l a t i o n and test in^ wnnld t ake a f u r t h e r four- t een months. This g ives a t o t a l e lapsed t ime, from t h e decis ion t o proceed until a l l fou r p l a n t s a r e commissioned, of 2 3 months.

111. CONCLUSIONS

Development of t h e e x i s t i n g M i l l River dams f o r hydroe lec t r i c power produc- t i o n is considered t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e ' a n d would p resen t no unmanageable en- g ineer ing, l e g a l , o r environmental problems. However, none o f these p r o j e c t s , e i t h e r i nd iv idua l ly o r j o i n t l y , would 'be, f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e without s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e form of c a p i t a l g ran t s .

NORTH HARTLAND DAM PROJECT

Nor th Hart land, VT

Vermont E l e c t r i c Cooperat ive Vermont E l e c t r i c Cooperat ive & Acres American Inc .


1. INTRODUCTION

The Nor th Ha r t l and Dam P r o j e c t f e a s i b i l i t y study has been undertaken by Acres American Incorpora ted under t he terms of a c o n t r a c t w i t h Vermont E l e c t r i c Cooperat ive Inc . (VEC) dated August 7 , 1978. The study has been j o i n t l y funded by the.Department o f Energy (DOE) and VEC under Cooperat ive Agreement No. ET-78-D-07-1706. The Nor th Ha r t l and Dam and Reservo i r i s a f e d e r a l l y owned f l o o d c o n t r o l f a c i l i t y operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. The o b j e c t i v e o f the study was t o e s t a b l i s h t he techn i ca l and economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f developing the h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p o t e n t i a l a t the dam.

A p r e l i m i n a r y pe rm i t (No. P2816) was granted t o VEC f o r the p r o j e c t , by the Federal Energy Regu la tory Commission (FERC) on February 19, 1979. Th is paper presents t h e r e s u l t s o f t he f e a s i b i l i t y study f o r the proposed 6 MW h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n and deals w i t h the conceptual design a l t e r n a t i v e s , cons t ruc t i on c o s t est imates and schedules, p r e l i m i n a r y environmental and s a f e t y assessments and power market ing s tud ies f o r t h e p r o j e c t .

The e x i s t i n g Nor th Har t land Dam i s l oca ted on the Ottauquechee R ive r , about 1.5 m i l e s above t h e Ottauque- chee River /Connect icu t R i ve r conf luence, i n Windsor County, Vermont. The r e s e r v o i r c o n t r ~ l s a 220-square m i l e drainage area, and has a capac i t y of 71,400 ac re - fee t . The proposed genera t ing p l a n t w i l l be l oca ted near t he toe of t he dam and w i l l develop a gross head of 65 f e e t between the c u r r e n t permanent pool e l e v a t i o n o f 425 fee t and the es t imated t a i l w a t e r e leva t i on , 360 f e e t .

The VEC P r o j e c t Manager f o r t h i s s tudy was Mr. Walter N. Cook and subsequent ly Mr. W i l l i am J . Gal lagher. The P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r f o r Acres was Mr. John D. Lawrence, P.E., ass i s ted by Mr. Richard E. Mayer, P.E. The ass is tance o f t he Corps o f Engineers, New England D i v i s i o n , i n the p repa ra t i on o f t h i s r e p o r t , i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged, as i s t he guidance prov ided by t he var ious o t h e r ' s t a t e and fede ra l environmental agencies contaL- ted.

2. CONCEPTUAL PROJECT DESIGN

The Nor th Ha r t l and Hyd roe lec t r i c P r o j e c t has been found t o be a t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e concept. The proposed p r o j e c t w i l l have a recommended 6000 kW nomina l ly r a t e d capac i t y a t a 52 f e e t t u r b i n e design .head and 1680 c f s demand flow. The gross genera t ion expected from the p r o j e c t i s 11,980,000 kwh pe r year . I t i s e s t i - mated t h a t t he p r o j e c t w i l l c o s t $8,997,000 a t 1978 p r i c e l e v e l s , w i t h no al lowance f o r funds du r i ng const ruc- t i o n .

The p r o j e c t w i l l p rov ide peaking power a t a l e v e l i z e d c o s t o f about 41 m i l l s pe r kwh a t1979 p r i c e l e v e l s based on 7 percent c o s t of money, a 1985 commissioning date ,and a l l ow ing f o r funds du r i ng cons t ruc t i on and c o s t e s c a l a t i o n over a 30-year pe r i od . The b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o compared w i t h an equ i va len t o i l - based genera t ion source over a s i m i l a r p e r i o d i s est imated as 1.06.

2 .1 Desc r i p t i on o f Proposed F a c i l i t i e s : The proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c development w i l l be l oca ted downstream o f t h e e x i s t i n g Nor th Ha r t l and Dam, as shown on P la tes 1 and 2,,and w i l l make use of t he e x i s t i n g dam o u t l e t f a c i l i t i e s as an i n t a k e and penstock. The condu i t w i l l be s t e e l l i n e d and extended approximately 680 f e e t downstream. A separate bypass w i l l be i n s t a l l e d w i t h a f l o w c o n t r o l ga te d i scha rg ing i n t o a conc re te - l i ned channel. The proposed powerhouse w i l l be const ruc ted a t the downstream end o f t he e x i s t i n g o u t l e t channel . The t a i l r a c e o f approx imate ly 250-feet l e n g t h w i l l be excavated i n t h e e x i s t i n g Ottauquechee R ive r bed.

Power from the p r o j e c t w i l l be t r ansm i t t ed v i a a new 46 kV t ransmiss ion l i n e approximately s i x m i l e s t o an e x i s t i n g Vermont E l e c t r i c Powcr Company t ransmiss ion 1 i n e o f s i m i l a r vo l tage.

The Nor th Ha r t l and r e s e r v o i r i s p r e s e n t l y be ing operated f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l purposes as a u n i t o f t he comprehensive p l a n o f f l o o d p r o t e c t i o n f o r t he Connect icut R i ve r Basin. A l l e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s a re operated,

mainta ined and monitored by t he Corps o f Engineers and a r e i n e x c e l l e n t cond i t i on . The s p i l l w a y c r e s t s t r u c t u r e and overf low channel show minor s igns o f f r o s t damage t o concrete, which can be repa i red a t minimal cos t . Th is s t r u c t u r e has never, i n f ac t , been used. There i s a l so evidence o f minor leakage i n t h e i n t a k e tower gate chamber, which i s n o t considered ser ious .

2.2 A l t e r n a t i v e s Considered: Two a l t e r n a t i v e powerhouse l o c a t i o n s were considered together w i t h the assoc i - a ted dam and s p i l l w a y mod i f i ca t i ons , and a range o f s izes and numbers o f u n i t s . I n o rde r t o develop a gross head of 65 f e e t a t t he upstream powerhouse l o c a t i o n , i t w i l l be necessary t o r a i s e t he r e s e r v o i r permanent pool e l e v a t i o n by 25 f e e t . I n such a case, major m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e e x i s t i n g dam o r s p i l l w a y w i l l be requ i red. On the o t h e r hand, ex tens ion of t h e penstock t o a downstream powerhouse l o c a t i o n w i l l a l l o w development of a s i m i l a r 65 f e e t o f gross head w i t h o u t r a i s i n g the present permanent pool l e v e l o r r e q u i r i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e dam o r s p i 1 lway. Adopt ion o f t he downstream powerhouse l o c a t i o n , w i t h two tube-type turb ine-genera tor u n i t s was found t o be t h e most acceptable and cos t e f f e c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e .

No s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s e x i s t i n t he Nor th Ha r t l and dam and o u t l e t condu i t f o r passage o f f i s h . Conse- quen t l y , no p r o v i s i o n has been made i n t h e proposed development f o r such f a c i l i t i e s o t h e r than i n t he i n s t a l l a - t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e l y s i zed t rashracks a t t he i n t a k e and t a i l r a c e t o prevent passage o f f i s h through the power p l a n t .

2 . 3 P l a n t and U n i t Size Se lec t i on : The p l a n t and u n i t s izes have been se lec ted on the bas i s o f the a v a i l a - b i l i t y and c o n d i t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n q f a c i l i t i e s . r e s e r v o i r water l e v e l s . t he h y d r a u l i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e e x i s t i n g and mod i f i ed i n take , condu i t and o u t l e t channel, t he a v a i l a b i li t y and v a r i a t i o n o f r e s e r v o i r out f lows, and comparative power values. The se lec ted 6 MW i n s t a l l a t i o n a t t he downstream l o c a t i o n i s considered t o Dro- v i de optimum usage o f the a v a i l a b l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l a t t h e s i t e . I n i t i a l p l a n t s i z e o p t i m i z a t i o n and comparison o f a l t e r n a t i v e s was based on p r e l i m i n a r y power values pub l ished by the FERC f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e com- bus t i on t u r b i n e source i n New England. The s e l e c t i o n o f p l a n t s i z e and c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i c a n t l y in f luenced by any 1 i k e l y d i f f e r e n c e s i n power values. Nevertheless, f u r t h e r s c r u t i n y of op t imized p l a n t s i z e may be warranted i n l a t e r phases o f p r o j e c t eva lua t i on when power values a r e more s p e c i f i c a l l y def ined. The p l a n t capac i t y i s l i m i t e d t o a s i g n i f i c a n t ex ten t by the dimensional c o n s t r a i n t s and h y d r a u l i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he proposed i n t a k e and penstock s t r u c t u r e s .

F u l l cons ide ra t i on has been g iven t o t h e number and type o f u n i t s f o r t h e power f a c i l i t y . A l t e r n a t i v e s eva luated comprised one-, t!m- and t h r e e - u n i t i n s t a l l a t i o n s , u t i l i z i n g . d o u b l e - and s ing le - regu la ted Kapl.an and f ixed-b lade p r o p e l l e r t u rb ines i n both h o r i z o n t a l ( tube, bu lb o r S t r a f l o ) and v e r t i c a l conf igurat ions. , and i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t i e s rang ing from 4500 t o 6800 kW. Al though smal le r i n s t a l l a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g mid-range power may r e s u l t i n lower n e t cos t s pe r kwh o f genera t ion , the p r o j e c t would no t be considered an economic a l t e r n a t i v e t o o t h e r mid-range genera t ing sources a l ready a v a i l a b l e t o VEC. I n t h e case o f t he s i ng le - regu la ted Kaplan ( o r tube) t u rb ines , p l a n t s i zes were l i m i t e d t o standard manufactured u n i t s w i t h 2000, 2250, and 2500 mm runner diameters. Three-un i t a l t e r n a t i v e s were found t o p rov ide no si .gni f i 'cant economic b e n e f i t i n terms o f increased genera t ion and were t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t e d i n f a v o r o f t he one- o r two -un i t i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

P r o j e c t eva lua t i ons f o r one- and two -un i t a l t e r n a t i v e s a re summarized i n Table 1. On the bas is of t he cos ts prov ided by manufacturers f o r t h i s study, t he tube u n i t a l t e r n a t i v e appears t o prov ide a s i g n i f i c a n t p o t e n t i a l f o r c o s t r educ t i on o f approximately $1,761,000 r e l a t i v e t o i t s neares t compet i to r . Th is a l t e r n a t i v e was t h e r e f o r e se lec ted f o r more d e t a i l e d c o s t determinat ions a t t h e upstream and downstream s i t e s .

3. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AN0 SCHEDULES

3.1 General: De ta i l ed c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t and schedule data were developed f o r two p r i n c i p a l a l t e r n a t i v e hydro developments under cons ide ra t i on f o r t he Nor th Har t land Dam Pro jec t . The da ta i s presented t o a degree of d e t a i l such t h a t f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d economic eva lua t i ons as w e l l as f i nance and schedule p lann ing may proceed w i t h an acceptable l e v e l o f conf idence.

3.2 Cost Est imates : Summary c o s t es t imates f o r s i x a1 t e r n a t i ve p r o j e c t design concepts considered a re presented i n Table 1. De ta i l ed c o s t es t imates were prepared f o r the proposed i n s t a l l a t i o n s w i t h two s tandard ized 3000 kW tube tu rb ines , a t each o f t h e upstream and downstream power p l a n t l o c a t i o n s considered. As i n d i t a t e d f o r A l t e r n a t i v e s 1 and 6 i n Table 1, t h e two-tube u n i t i n s t a l l a t i o n a t the downstream l o c a t i o n , a t a t o t a l es t imated cos t o f $8,997,000 i s $1,388,000 l e s s i n cons t ruc t i on cos t than the upstream l o c a t i o n .

Cost est imates f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e were based on equ i va len t p l a n t f a c i l i t i e s a t each l o c a t i o n , r e l a t i v e t o access, p r o v i s i o n o f powerhouse maintenance and dewater ing se rv i ces and automat ic opera t ion . Est imated con- s t r u c t i o n cos ts were based on c u r r e n t (1978-79) c o s t l e v e l s app l i cab le t o t he type o f work i nvo l ved and l o c a l cond i t i ons i n Vermont and e f f e c t i v e through the t h i r d q u a r t e r o f 1979. A d d i t i o n a l l y , u n i t cos t s f o r t he major c i v i l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s were es t imated t o a l l o w f o r t he env i ronmenta l ly s e n s i t i v e l o c a t i o n o f t he p r o j e c t and assoc ia ted cons t ruc t i on r e s t r i c t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o noise, dust, p rese rva t i on o f water q u a l i t y and l i m i t a - t i o n s due t o t h e f l o o d c o n t r o l requirements o f t he e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s .

3.3 Schedules: Engineer ing and cons t ruc t i on schedu l ing f o r t he p r o j e c t w i l l r e q u i r e a t o t a l p e r i o d of 162 weeks from i n i t i a t i o n o f design t o commissioning o f two u n i t s , as shown on P la tes 12 and 14. Th i s Engineer ing Schedule i s e s s e n t i a l l y based on concur rent 1 i cens ing and eng ineer ing design and equipment procurement a c t i v i - t i e s t o r e s u l t i n t he sho r tes t cons t ruc t i on l ead t ime. Consecutive 1 i cens ing and eng ineer ing a c t i v i t i e s would lengthen the schedule by a t l e a s t 90 weeks.

The FERC l i c e n s i n g phase o f the schedule w i l l i nc lude a 15-week p repa ra t i on pe r i od i n p a r a l l e l w i t h i n i t i a l eng ineer ing design a c t i v i t i e s . The i n i t i a l eng ineer ing design a c t i v i t i e s wi 11 i n c l u d e f i n a l i z i n g the p r o j e c t arrangement and p repa r i ng tu rb ine/genera tor procurement documents. The e a r l i e s t da te scheduled f o r r e c e i p t o f t he FERC l i c e n s e w i l l be week 95, s h o r t l y a f t e r which t ime the c i v i l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t document w i l l be ready f o r b idd ing. Th is l i cense l ead t ime o f 80 weeks i s somewhat longer than the processing t ime requ i red f o r the r e c e n t l y issued Lawrence Hydro P r o j e c t (FERC No. 2800) on the Merrimack R i v e r i n Massachusetts. To avo id schedule delays, the l a t e s t da te f o r r e c e i p t o f l i c e n s e w i l l be week 108.

The c r i t i c a l p o r t i o n o f the Const ruc t ion Schedule w i l l be t he c losu re o f t he o u t l e t condu i t through the dam t o a l l o w penstock and bypass i n s t a l l a t i o n and power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n t o take p lace. This has been o p t i - m i s t i c a l l y scheduled t o take p lace du r i ng the r e l a t i v e l y d r y four-month pe r i od o f J u l y through October, weeks 132 through 150 o f the schedule. The r e s e r v o i r w i l l be kept drawn down du r i ng t h i s p e r i o d by means of pumps. Timely d e l i very o f penstocks, bypass c o n t r o l gate, t u rb ines and generators and assoc ia ted equipment wi 11 a1 1 be c r u c i a l t o r e a l i z a t i o n of the schedules. Procurement o f these i tems has t h e r e f o r e been scheduled d u r i n g the 1 i cens ing pe r i od and s u f f i c i e n t l y i n advance o f t h e c i v i 1 c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t t o a1 low app rop r i a te manufac- t u r i n g lead t imes i n each case. L icens ing and c o n t r a c t award by week 108 w i l l be e s s e n t i a l .

Several p o t e n t i a l l y adverse circumstances w i l l p resent themselves i f cons t ruc t i on were t o s t a r t a t o t h e r t imes o f t he yea r o r i f h igh f lows were t o occur d u r i n g t h e summer season. Potenttal . 'problems w i l l i nc lude l o s s of p a r t i a l l y completed tunnel and power p l a n t i n s t a l l a t i o n , w i n t e r conc re t i ng opera t ions , over t ime and e x t r a s h i f t opera t ions , and many o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r which cont ingency p lann ing w i l l be requ i red. The const ruc- t i o n schedule f o r p l a n t commissioning a t t he downstream s i t e on P l a t e 14 w i l l r e q u i r e 54 weeks. f rom week 108. Each schedule has been based on separate E l e c t r i c a l and Mechanical I n s t a l l a t i o n Cont rac ts awarded 8 weeks a f t e r t he C i v i 1 Const ruc t ion Cont rac t .

3.4 P r o j e c t Cash Flow: With a conservat ive assumption o f consecut ive l i c e n s i n g and eng ineer ing a c t i v i t i e s , a commercial se rv i ce date o f January 1985 i s reasonably a t t a i n a b l e . Assuming 6 percent annual e s c a l a t i o n , o f es t imated 1978 costs , the cash f l ow . requ i ren~en t f o r t he recommended downstream s i t e on l y , by q u a r t e r ( i 3 week pe r i od ) , i s presented i n Table 2. The c a l c u l a t e d allowance f o r funds du r i ng cons t ruc t i on (AFDC) has been es t imated assuming a 7 percent annual cos t o f money and an end o f p e r i o d payment. The t o t a l p r o j e c t cos t , i n c l u d i n g AFDC, esca la ted t o t he commercial se rv i ce date, i s thus $13,931,000. .,. . .

4. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

4.1 E x i s t i n g Cond i t ions : The proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s a t Nor th Har t land l i e w i t h i n and on f e d e r a l - * l y owned lands. The development w i l l be i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t he e x i s t i n g Nor th Ha r t l and Reservo i r which i s cu r -

r e n t l y being operated f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l purposes as a u n i t o f t he comprehensive p lan o f f l o o d p r o t e c t i o n f o r the Connect icut R i ve r Basin. The e x i s t i n g r e s e r v o i r and ad jacent areas a re s c e n i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e , p rov ide s i g n i f i c a n t w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s and a re used f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s on a r e l a t i v e l y smal l sca le .

4.2 P re l im ina ry Environmental Assessment: The proposed development o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l w i l l have n e g l i g i b l e impact on the present t e r r e s t r i a l and aqua t i c systems both du r i ng cons t ruc t i on and ope ra t i on of t he f a c i l i t i e s .

Cur rent eva lua t i ons o f a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s have i d e n t i f i e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h ree p r i n c i p a l development concepts. Two o f these i n v o l v e r a i s i n g the e x i s t i n g r e s e r v o i r conservat ion pool l e v e l by 25 f e e t and cons t ruc t i on o f a power p l a n t immediately downstream o f t he dam. The t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l make use o f t he present r e s e r v o i r ope ra t i ng l e v e l i n con junc t i on w i t h a power p l a n t l oca ted about 700 f e e t downstream from the dam. To a s s i s t i n the s e l e c t i o n o f t he most f avo rab le a l t e r n a t i v e , p r e l i m i n a r y environmental and safe ty assessments have been conducted. These assessments i d e n t i f i e d t he major impacts a n t i c i p a t e d from con- s t r u c t i o n and ope ra t i on o f the proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s .

D e t a i l e d env i ronmenta l /sa fe ty assessments w i l l be requ i red as p a r t o f t he l i c e n s i n g process. The cu r - r e n t study, on the o t h e r hand, has been b r i e f and p r e l i m i n a r y and has been adapted t o t he l e v e l o f f e a s i b i l i t y assessment app rop r i a te a t t h i s t ime. The study cons is ted o f a p r e l i m i n a r y rev iew o f p e r t i n e n t environmental r epo r t s , a s i t e reconnaissance and contac ts w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s from s t a t e and fede ra l agencies having e x p e r t i s e on the t e r r e s t r i a l and aqua t i c ecosystems found w i t h i n t he p r o j e c t area.

4.3 P re l im ina ry Safe ty Assessment: Const ruc t ion o f t h e proposed h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s w i l l p o t e n t i a l l y impact t he s a f e t y o f t he p u b l i c as we l l as cons t ruc t i on workers i n t he immediate v i c i n i t y o f the powerplant.

Appropr ia te precaut ions w i l l be necessary t o .minimize these. r i s k s . Design and ope ra t i ng procedures w i l l be . formulated t o i n s u r e t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t change i n r i s k s t o p u b l i c s a f e t y w i l l a r i s e du r i ng opera t ion of the h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s . ..

5. MARKETING STUDIES . .

Cu r ren t VEC p lans f o r f u t u r e peak ingogenera t ion requirements a re based on purchases o f gas t u r b i n e capac i t y u n t i l 1989. A l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e t o VEC beyond t h a t date a re conf ined t o f u r t h e r purchases o r investment i n o i l - based genera t ion sources. Commissioning o f Nor th Ha r t l and i n 1985 i s a reasonably a t t a i n - ab le o b j e c t i v e which would r e s u l t i n displacement o f 5700 kW o f gas t u r b i n e capac i t y and a t o t a l o f 11,980,000 kwh o f genera t ion pe r year, o f which a t l e a s t 5,133,000 kwh a r e o i l -based.

Cons idera t ion of the f u t u r e s c a r c i t y and more r a p i d esca la t i on i n cos ts o f fuel-dependent sources, i n d i - cates h y d r o e l e c t r i c peaking genera t ion t o be more economic on a present worth bas i s over a 30-year per iod . VEC cou ld d e r i v e maximum hydro p o t e n t i a l f rom a hydro s i t e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r capac i t y envisaged. The proposed pro- j e c t w i l l c l o s e l y conform t o and coord inate w i t h t he u t i l i t y power requirement' o f t he Cooperat ive. A d d i t i o n a l genera t ion capac i t y p resen t l y a v a i l a b l e t o VEC may be used t o back up the Nor th Ha r t l and p l a n t du r i ng per iods o f seasona l ly low f lows. Reserve requirements f o r t h e proposed p r o j e c t a l s o p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e t o VEC w i l l a d d i t i o n a l l y a l l o w f u l l use o f t he hydro p o t e n t i a l f o r f i r m power requirements r a t h e r thdrl so-ca l led "dump power" sa les f o r energy not c a r e f u l l y - f i t t e d t o t he system's d a i l y and monthly l oad curves.

TABLE 2

' NORTH HARTLAND DAM PROJECT ESCALATED CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS

Payments Esca la t i on Escalated Cumulative AFDC Cumul a t i ve Year Per iod ($1000) Factor - - Payments Payments ($1000) AFDC

1982 JFM 70 1.34 94 182 1.5 1.5

AM J 70

JAS 70

ON0 100

1983 JFM 115

AM J 127

JAS 148 210 1065 15.6 53.4

ON0 266

1984 JFM 552

AMJ 5000

J AS 2109

.ON0 300

NOTES: (1) Based on commercial se rv i ce date ( 2 u n i t s ) Jan. 1, 1985 (2) For 6000 KW i n s t a l l a t i o n , downstream powerhouse l oca t i on . (3) Esca la t i on o f 1978 costs a t 6% per annum (4 ) Allowance f o r Funds Dur ing Const ruc t ion (AFDC) a t 7 percent

annual i n t e r e s t , end o f per iod payments, accumulated through commercial se rv i ce date.

TABLE I

NORTH HARTLAND DAM PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST COMPARISONS (THOUSANDS $)

TOTAL INSTALLED-CAPACITY - 6.0 MW

Account I tem

Land & Land Rights 331 Structures & Improvements 332 Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways 333 Turbines & Generators 334 Accessory E l e c t r i c a l Equi pment 335 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 336 Roads & Recreation F a c i l i t i e s 353 Substation Equipment 355/6 Transmission

Sub-Total

Contingencies (15%)

D i rec t Cost

Engineering & Administrat ion (20%)

TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST

A L T E R N A T I V E S

3 4

2 - ~ u l b ( ~ ) 2 -S t ra f lo

NOTES: ( l ) ~ o r i z o n t a l , s ingle-regulated un i t s ( 2 ) ~ e r t i c a l , f ixed-blade u n i t s ( 3 ) ~ o r i z o n t a l , f ixed-blade u n i t s ( 4 ) ~ e r t i c a l , doubl e-regul ated u n i t (5)~ownstream loca t ion (a1 1 others upstream)

NORTH HARTLAND DAM OTTAUQUECHEE RIVER

WiNQSOR COUNTY, VERMONT

ENLOE DAM ON THE SIMILKAMEEN RIVER

OROVILLE , WASHINGTON

OKANOGAN COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1

PRDA Proposal Contract No. EM-78-F-07-1791

I. INTRODUCTION

Enloe Dam and powerhouse are located on the Simil kameen River 3.5 to 4 miles northwest of Oroville, Washington (see figure 1 ) . The dam and powerhouse were constructed in the early 1920's and operated as a "run of the river" generation f ac i l i t y until 1959. Power generation ceased in 1959 due to increasing operation cost and the availabil i ty of less expensive power from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

UNITED STATES

Scale In M~les FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP

EXISTING FACILITIES

Enloe Dam i s a concrete arch-gravity s%:ructure abolat 54 fee t irbave streanbed. 15 i s about 6 feet wide a t the top and over 41 fee t wide a t the base; the upstmam face of the structure i 5 vert ical . Over 9,700 cubic yards o f canCrete were us& f n the stmcture. The spi l lway i s an unregulated flow type w i t h a crest width of 275 feet. The approximate elevation o f the spillway crest i s 1 ,&$4 fee t above mem snea level. When the st.ructure was operational. flashboards were i ns ta l l e d along the top o f the spi l lway during law-flaw per?&, which raised the reservoir surface 4 f ee t during low-flow periods. Flashbo~rd supports con3ist of 6-inch diameter pipes and steel r a i l s embedded 1-foot deep can 5-feu% enters .

The penstock intake works are on the r i g k t side o f the dam atad consist o f two steel pipes 7 fee t i n diameter w i th ver t i ca l s l ide gates and wooden trasbrae&. Hoist f ac i l i t i e s f o r the s l i de gaPes are an the top af the dam. Two woad-stave pipes 7-Feet in dfttiWltjeF go from the dam along the r i g h t sjde o f the canpn fur 743 f e e t to two elevated surge tanks. The t a l l e r o f the tanks i s . over 32-feet high and 17-feet f n diameter whi le the oghel" +s ewer =-feet hASgh and 24-1/2-feet in diameter, F m the surge tanks, im 7-foot-djam%er r ive ted steel penstocks lead down t o two 1,600 kY hor lmnta l turbine-generatar un l ts haused inside the machfne r m of the powerhouse. These uni ts eachav- &--i-Jq~Is rwqers m u o y d on a ~lgpmtl horizontgl shaft. - 5 I + - - = r r- ; - td~ -# - - - - m r - .. --.. - l *w.-

The powwhouse i s 13-feet long and 40-feet wide. I t s foundatlon i s concrete; the walls are red M c k ; and the roo f i s corrugated steel. The machine room section occupies about hal f the f l o o r area o f the bui ld ing and has a high overhead area (41-feet i n height). Adjacent b We mackjne room a t a f l o o r level 5-feet higher are the control room and transformer room. The swHxi%yard i s locatad adjacent t o the powerhouse structure.

The f a c i l i t y was abandoned i n 1959 because of the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f less expensive power from BFA. Since tha t time, the plant has been badly vandalized because i t has bean impractical t o provide complete security .

The most durable component, the dam, i s i n good condition. The Seatt le D i s t r i c t o f the U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers i s current ly working on a Phase 1 Dam Inspection Report o f Enloe Dam. , To minimize any duplication o f e f f o r t , only the ef fects o f the proposed rehab i l i ta t ion on the safety o f the dam were evaluated f o r t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y report. The Corps' f inding on the a v e r d l safety 0f Enloe Dam w i l l be made public i n March o f 1979.

The p~oposad remedial works and powerhouse operations w i l l not a f f ec t the overal l safsty o f the dam. The intake structure was i n operation for 35 years, and the structure as a *ole has been safe f o r 58 years. The proposed cosmetic concrete repair should enhance the l i f e o f the dam. These f indings wf 11 be checked when the Corps' Phase I Dam Inspection Report becomes available.

I I I. REHABILITATION

The rehab i l i ta t ion o f the ex is t ing powerhouse below Enloe Dam has been found to be the most economical a1 ternative f o r power development a t the s i te . The ex is t ing turbines were designed to u t i l i z e a maxiinurn combined f low o f 650 cubic fee t per second (cfs) o f r i v e r flow, which i s somewhat lower than desirable considering the f low tha t i s available i n the Similkameen River a t the s i te . However, the cost f o r complete demo1 i t i o n o f the exist ing f a c i l i t i e s t o make room f o r ne%u equipment wi th s i gn i f i can t l y higher flow capacity cannot be recovered with the added power henef i t s thak would accrue.

The remaining wood stave penstock w i l l be removed and two new steel penstocks insta l led. To reduce head losses and t o a i d i n construction, the new steel penstocks w i l l have a 5/16-inch wall thickness and an M.6-inch outside diameter. The outside diameter was chosen t o fit the ex is t ing concrete cradles which supported the wood stave penstocks.

I V . FCASIBILITY/POWER COST

The f e a s i b i l i t y assessment shows tha t rebuilding the exist ing powerhouse and appurtenant f a c i l i t i e s i s technical ly feasible. Rebuilding the ex is t ing turbines and generators proved t o be the most desirable.

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t he proposed r e b u i l t powerplant a re as f o l l o w s :

No. o f Un i t s 2 F u l l Gate Flow 375 c f s pe r u n i t Gross Head 83-72 f e e t I n s t a l l e d Capaci ty 3,720 kw Average Energy Product ion 22.5 m i l l i o n kwh

The p l a n t w i l l be operated as a " run o f t he r i v e r " type w i t h no p o t e n t i a l f o r s torage o r peak power product ion .

The t o t a l es t imated c a p i t a l investment i s $6.3 m i l l i o n , which g i ves a u n i t c o s t f o r i n s t a l l e d capac i ty o f approximately $1,700 pe r kW. The t o t a l annual cos ts f o r opera t ion , maintenance, i n t e r i m equipment replacement, insurance, and admin i s t ra t i on are es t imated t o be $135,000. By us ing 6.5 percent bonds t o r e t i r e t he i n i t a l c a p i t a l investment i n 25 years , a t o t a l annual cos t of $724,206 would be i ncu r red . The u n i t cos t o f energy would be 32.2 m i l l s per Kwh based on the es t imated 22.5 m i l l i o n kwh expected t o be produced i n an average year .

I t i s impor tant t o note t h a t p r o j e c t economics i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y environment i s very s e n s i t i v e t o t ime de lays . The p ro jec ted busbar cos ts presume aggressive p u r s u i t o f the p r o j e c t and prompt Federal a c t i o n on l i c e n s i n g .

The market ing ana l ys i s shows t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t i s c l e a r l y t he ope ra t i ng e n t i t y t h a t cou ld u l t i m a t e l y u t i l i z e t he ou tpu t of the Enloe p r o j e c t . Three market ing op t i ons are proposed which w i l l p rov ide an i n t e r i m s a l e o f the ou tpu t u n t i l needed by t he d i s t r i c t . We b e l i e v e i t poss ib le t o devise a s u i t a b l e power market ing p lan t h a t w i l l suppor t e a r l y cons t ruc t i on and r e s u l t i n a long- te rm economical power supply f o r t he D i s t r i c t .

BROWN BRIDGE, KEYSTONE, BOARDMAN, SABIN AND UNION STREET DAMS ON BOARDMAN RIVER

Traverse C i t y and Grand Traverse County, Michigan

The J o i n t Venture o f C l t y o f T r a v e r w C i t y , Michigan and Grand Traverse County, Michigan, bo th be ing Governmental Agencies.

. . Department o f L i g h t and Power O f f i c e ,. . . C i t y Hal 1

. . - : Traverse C i t y , Michigan 49684 . ; . , .. , . . . . . . . . , . .

Consu l tan t f o r t h e J o i n t Venture Emerv ang Porter. Inc..

. . .,. , Snel 1 Environmental Group . . 11 20 May S t r e e t . - . .. Lansing, Michigan 48906

Cooperat ive Agreement No. EN-78-F-07-179P

SUMMARY

Th i s r e p o r t presents t he r e s u l t s o f a study conducted i n 1978 t o determine t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f r e h a b i l i t a t i n g one o r more o f t h e f i v e e x i s t i n g dam s i t e s l oca ted on t h e 19-mi le p o r t i o n o f t h e Boardman R i v e r upstream from t h e mouth o f t h e r i v e r i n Traverse C i t y , Michigan.

D e t a i l e d data gathered du r i ng t h e study i s presented and inc ludes a d e s c r i p t i o n and eva lua t i on o f f a c i l i t i e s a t t he s i t e s , hyd ro log i c ana l ys i s o f t h e r i v e r basin., eva lua t i on o f t h e p o t e n t i a l market f o r power which would be produced, and an appra isa l o f equipment t h a t would be s u i t a b l e f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n and econanic and f i n a n c i a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e p o t e n t i a l development. Water resource needs, sa fe t y hazards, environmental concerns, and' s o c i o - i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s a r e a1 so i d e n t i f i e d and evaluated. Federal, S ta te o f Michigan, and l o c a l government r e g u l a t i o n s were reviewed and penni t requirements were i d e n t i f i e d and evaluated.

Eva lua t i on o f economic and non-economic f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t h y d r o e l e c t r i c genera t ion a t four' o f t h e s i t e s i s economical ly b e n e f i c i a l and has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e i n t h e Boardman R i v e r area. R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f Keystone Dam, t h e f i f t h s i t e , i s economical ly b e n e f i c i a l bu t s i nce i t invo l ves re -es tab l i sh ing an impoundment, s i g n i f i c a n t environmental changes w i l l occur, some o f which a r e de t r imen ta l .

A p o t e n t i a l major obs tac le t o e a r l y u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e power ex i s t s . Since M i c t ~ i y a ~ ~ law requ i res f i s h passages a t dams, t h e Department o f Natura l Resources in tends t o r e q u i r e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n as a c o n d i t i o n o f any permi t issued. Add i t i ona l cos t s and impacts o f f i s h passage i n s t a l l a t i o n are presented but t h e issue cou ld not be reso lved i n t h e repo r t . If t h e Natura l Resources Commission waives the requirement f o r f i s h passages, economic b e n e f i t s w i l l accrue w i thou t s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impact.

The r e p o r t inc ludes management and development recommendations. Cont inuat ion o f present ownership i s recommended w i t h easements t o t h e C i t y o f Traverse C i t y f o r development and opera t ion o f a l l dams f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c generat ion. Development o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l i s recommended i n t h r e e phases. R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f Brown Br idge, Boardman and Sabin Dams w i t h a combined p o t e n t i a l o f 2290 KW by 1981 i n t he f i r s t phase. R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f Un ion S t r e e t Dam w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l 220 KW by 1982 i s t h e second phase. Reconst ruc t ion and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f Keystone Dam w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l 470 KW a f t e r 1982 f o r a t o t a l capac i t y o f 2980 KW.

O e t a i l s o f f a c i l i t y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , t ime schedule and cost es t imates a re presented. The es t imated cost of redevelopment i s $5,950,000. I n 1978 d o l l a r s , t h e cos t per i n s t a l l e d K W i s $2,010, and t h e cos t per KWH i s 4.32t. If t h e cos t o f f i s h passages i s charged t o h y d r o e l e c t r i c generat ion, t h e i n i t i a l cos t increases $3,250,000. t o $9,200,000. 1978 d o l l a r cos t per i n s t a l l e d KW would be $3,274, and t h e cos t per KWH i s increased 43% t o 6.2t. The r e t u r n on investment w i t hou t f i s h passages i s 11 1/4%, w i t h f i s h passages i t i s l e s s than 5%.

OTTER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY REPORT

P roc to r , VT

Vermont Marble Company I n t e r n a t i o n a l Engineer ing Company, Incorpora ted


b I. INTRODUCTION

Vermont Marble Company (VMCO) and i t s s u b s i d i a r i e s produce a wide v a r i e t y of products , i n c l u d i n g b l ock marb le f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and memorials an-d f i n e l y ground marble f o r use as i n d u s t r i a l f i l l e r s and extenders i n the paper, p a i n t , and p l a s t i c i n d u s t r i e s . VMCO a l s o owns and operates f o u r h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j - e c t s l o c a t e d on a 50-mi le reach o f O t t e r Creek i n west c e n t r a l Vermont. Th i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i nc l uded t h r e e o f these i n s t a l l a t i o n s - Center Rut land, Beldens, and Hunt ing ton F a l l s . The f o u r t h i n s t a l l a t i o n , P roc to r , i s t h e l a r g e s t , b u t i s n o t i nc l uded i n t h i s s tudy . A l l p l a n t s on O t t e r Creek opera te as run-of - r i v e r s t a t i o n s , and t h e l i m i t e d r e s e r v o i r s to rage c a p a c i t i e s impose severe l i m i t a t i o n s on any o t h e r t ype o f ope ra t i on .

VMCO operates i t s h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s as a p u b l i c u t i l i t y t o s a t i s f y i t s mi.1~1 requi rements and t h e demands o f o t h e r customers i n i t s s e r v i c e area. VMCO has r e c e n t l y expanded i t s m i l 1 capac i t y and w i l l con t i nue expanding u n t i l t he m i l l i s about f o u r t imes i t s o r i g i n a l s i ze . Th i s expansion p l u s normal economic growth i n t h e area have increased e l e c t r i c a l demand beyond t he capa- b i l i t i e s o f VMCO's e x i s t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s . Therefore, VMCO d e s i r e s t o improve i t s f a c i l i t i e s t o s a t i s f y as much o f t h e increased demand as i s economica l ly f e a s i b l e . VMCO p r e s e n t l y must purchase power and energy f rom a p u b l i c u t i l i t y t o s a t i s f y demand and w i l l have t o con t i nue these purchases even a f t e r i t s p r o j e c t s have been improved.

Th i s s tudy has been performed i n t h r e e phases:

Appra isa l o f e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . e Eva lua t i on o f improvements and s e l e c t i o n o f t h e most f e a s i b l e .

Assessment o f se lec ted improvements.

The r e s u l t s show t h a t , under t h e assumptions,made i n t h i s s tudy, Beldens and Hunt ing ton F a l l s can be economica l ly improved. Center Rut land w i l l become economica l ly a t t r a c t i v e o n l y i f t h e c o s t o f energy esca la tes a t a r a t e o f around 10 percen t p e r year .

4

11. APPRAISAL OF EXISTING FACILITIES

The c o n d i t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s was based on f i e l d observa t ions made d u r i n g severa l f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n t r i p s ; d iscuss ions w i t h ope ra t i ng and

supervisory personnel ; and study of avai 1 able f i 1 es , reports, and other records. These appraisals included the s t ructures , generating equipment, geol ogi cal and hydraul i c conditions , and environmental impacts.

The generating equipment i s old, obsolete, and d i f f i c u l t and expensive to operate and maintain. The units a re ineff ic ient and markedly undersized for economical exploitation of the available hydraulic resources. Modification of the units for increased head or discharge i s not economically feasible. The turbine centerlines are well above tailwater level , and draf t head i s only par t ia l ly recovered. The transformers a t Center Rutland and Huntington Falls are old, and core losses may be abnormally high.

No geological conditions were found during surface inspections that preclude s i t e improvements, including increasing the dam heights.

Two hydraul i c conditions were evaluated during the appraisal . These included using more discharge for e lec t r ica l generation than i s presently done and reducing the severity of floods. These conditions were studied further in the evaluat~on of improvement poss ib i l i t ies .

The environmental impacts were evaluated and found to be mostly favorable. The few impacts that were not require only simple measures to rect i fy. No environmental impact was found that precludes proceeding with the contemplated improvements .

The existing structures are not in danger of impending fa i lure , and the generating equipment can continue to operate for a while. However, the time has arrived when improvements and rehabili tation are necessary for fu l l exploitation of the Otter Creek energy resources.

111. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS

Three basic philosophies were used to formulate development alternatives. The f i r s t made maximum use of existing f a c i l i t i e s and resulted in the leas t capital investment and energy genera'tion. The second fu l ly exploited the hydraulic resources and produced the most energy, b u t required the highest capital investment. The third philosophy was intermediate between these two and resulted in intermediate capital investment and energy production. Four development a1 ternatives, including a l l three s i t e s and embodying these philosophies, were formulated.

Technical evaluations were made of the components of each al ternat ive to eliminate the leas t feasible and reduce them to a more manageable number. The unit s ize and upstream urbanization limited the Center Rutland s i t e to one improvement possibi l i ty . Technical evaluations of Beldens reduced improvement poss ib i l i t ies to a single reservoir level and two or three units. These evaluations resulted in investigating the nine project improvements shown in Table A.

Quantity and cost estimates were prepared and the average annual energy was computed for the nine projects. Table B contains a summary of the resul t - ing data.

Economic evaluations were made for the nine e l ig ib le projects, using the present worth method of analysis. The evaluations used 3 , 5, and 7. percent

TABLE A PROJECT SELECTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS

CENTER RUTLAND

R e s e r v o i r E l . 509.0; 2 1,200-kW u n i t s .

BELDENS

R e s e r v o i r E l . 284.0; 3 2,100-kW u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 284.0; 2 2,100-klJ u n i t s .

HUNTINGTON FALLS

R e s e r v o i r E l . 241.0; 3 3,700-kW u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 241 .O; 2 3,700-kW u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 230.0; 3 3,100-kW u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 230.0; 2 3,100-k!J u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 218.0; 3 2,300-kW u n i t s . R e s e r v o i r E l . 218.0; 2 2,300-klJ u n i t s .

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol CRl202.4-509.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol BEL/3-6.3-284. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol BEL/2-4.2-284.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol HF/3-11.1-241. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol HF/2-7.4-241. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol HF/3-9.3-230. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol HF/2-6.2-230. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol,HF/3-6.9-218. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Symbol HF/2-4.6-218.

TABLE B PROJECT SELECTION

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS AND ENERGY

I tem CR/2-2.4-509 BEL/3-6.3-284

T o t a l C a p i t a l Investment ( $ ) 4,124,200 6,259,400 Average Annual. Energy (kwh) 7,877,000 20,855,000 I n s t a l l e d Capac i t y (kW) 2,400 6,300 Cost Per I n s t a l l e d kW ( $ ) 1 ,718 994

T o t a l C a p i t a l Investment ( $ ) 14,298,400 11,340,500 Average Annual Energy (kWh) 37,525,000 32,631,000 I n s t a l 1 ed Capac i t y (kW) 11,100 7,400 Cost Per I n s t a l l e d kW ($) 1', 288 1,533

T o t a l C a p i t a l Investment ( $ ) 8,760,800 9,079,700 Average Annual Energy (kwh) 26,740,000 23,275,000 I n s t a l l e d Capac i t y (klJ) 6,200 6,900 Cost Per I n s t a l l e d kW ( $ ) 1,508 1,316

escala t ion; 35-, 40-, and 50-year analysis periods; and discount ra tes from 6 through-11 percent. These evaluations were used only t o s e l ec t a recommended

-development, which was fu r ther analyzed by other methods. .

No analysis was made f o r zero escala t ion, because i t i s considered t o be unrea l i s t i c . Escalation was uniformly applied t o a l l costs and benefi ts f o r the f i r s t half of the .analysis periods, and no fu r ther escalat ion was applied f o r the second half . The minimum analysis period corresponds t o the useful l i f e of some major project pa r t s , especia l ly the generating equipment and the transmission l i ne conductors. The longest period represents a usually acceptable standard fo r hydroelectric evaluation. The discount r a t e s a r e considered t o be applicable t o t h i s type of development.

Benefits are the value of energy t h a t does not have t o be purchased from an outside source and, accordingly, a re based on the pr ice recently paid. The demand charge, transmission charge, and energy mill r a t e were combined on a weighted average basis and resulted i n 25 mil ls per k i l ~ w a t t - h ~ u r . The rate was escalated a f t e r the f i r s t year on the same basis as costs . System energy losses were subtracted from gross generation in computing to ta l annual benef i ts , o r revenue. The ranges of benef i t lcost r a t i o s and internal ra tes of return a re shown i n Table C.

TABLE C RANGE OF BENEFIT'ICOST RATIOS AND INTERNAL RATES OF RETURN

SELECTION OF RECOMblENDED DEVELOPMENT

3% Escalation 5% Escalation 7% Escalation B/C Ratio I RR B/C Ratio I R R B/C Ratio I RR

CenterRutland 0.44-0.67 1.38-1.78 0.50-0.77 2.67-3.10 0.56-0.89 3.98-4.47 - . Be1 dens 0.76-1.31 7.08-9.21 0.86-1.52 8.76-11.12 0.97-1.74 10.46-12.56 e ;:

Huntington Fal ls 0.58-1.06 4.26-6.62 0.66-1;'24 5.57- 8.38 0.74-1.42 7.08-.10.18 , ,

Under the above assumptions, no benef i t lcost r a t i o greater than 1.00 was obtained fo r Center Rutland; and consequently, i t was eliminated. Relatively low benef i t lcost r a t i o s were a l so obtained fo r Huntington Fal ls w i t h the reservoir level a t El. 241.0 and with three un i t s . The remaining pos s ib i l i t i e s were Beldens and Huntington Fal ls with two o r three un i t s . A study of the benefi t / cos t r a t i o s and internal r a t e s of return fo r these poss ibi l i ti .es resulted i n se lect ing two 2,100-kW uni ts a t Beldens and two 3,100-kW uni t s a t Huntington Fal ls w i t h reservoir El. 230.0.

IV. SELECTED IMPROVEMENTS

The ins ta l l ed capacity of the selected plants i s 4,200 kW a t Beldens, which will produce 18,152,000 kilowatt-hours, and 6,200 kW a t Huntington Fa l l s , which w i 11 produce 26,740,000 kilowatt-hours , during an average year. The combined output of 44,892,000 kilowatt-hours wil l save a t o t a l of about 75,000 barre ls of o i l annually.

The market f o r the power and energy generated already ex i s t s within VMCO's service a rea , and e l e c t r i c i t y t ha t cannot be produced by t h e i r hydroelectric p,.ants i s presently being purchased from a local public u t i l i t y . Purchases . . .

f rom t h i s source w i l l s t i l l be necessary when the proposed improvements a re completed; t he re fo re , no ques t ion e x i s t s regard ing the m a r k e t a b i l i t y of t h e increased output .

Fu r the r economic analyses and f i n a n c i a l eva lua t ions were made f o r t he two se lec ted p r o j e c t s us ing 5 percent e s c a l a t i o n and a 50-year per iod . The b e n e f i t / c o s t r a t i o s obta ined from these analyses are shown i n Table D.

TABLE D PROJECT AND RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT/COST RATIOS

5% ESCALATION; 50-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD

Discount Benef i t /Cpst Rat ios Rate ' (%) BEL/2-4.2-284 HF/2*6.2-230 ' Development

Net present va lue analyses were made f o r t he Beldens two- and t h r e e - u n i t i n s t a l l a t i o n s and f o r the Beldens two-un i t i n s t a l l a t i o n combined w i t h Hunt ing- t o n Fa1 1s two-uni t i n s t a l l a t i o n , us ing a1 1 th ree r e s e r v o i r l e v e l s . The i n t e r - n a l r a t e o f r e t u r n i s 9.37 percent based on 5 percent e s c a l a t i o n and a 50-year ana l ys i s per iod . These analyses conf irmed the s e l e c t i o n o f t h e recommended devel opment .

The fo rego ing s e l e c t i o n was made assuming base l oad operat ion, because of the l i m i t e d r e s e r v o i r s torage capac i t y and the e f f e c t s t h a t peak l oad opera- t i o n would have on o the r p l a n t s on O t t e r Creek. Environmental c o n s t r a i n t s and t h e d ischarge l a g t ime between p l a n t s were a l s o considered i n making base l oad opera t ion se lec ' t ion . Nevertheless, t he r e s e r v o i r capac i t i es a re s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant cons ide ra t i on o f d a i l y peak load operat ion; and consequently, Hunting- t o n F a l l s was analyzed t o determine the peak load output , if t h e foregoing techn i ca l d i f f i c u l t i e s can be overcome. The study assumed a 12-hour minimum opera t ing per iod , as w e l l as longer pe.riods up t o 24 hours per day when the d ischarge permi t ted . The p resen t l y proposed minimum re lease was discharged a t any t ime the p l a n t was i nope ra t i ve . The study showed t h a t about 95 percent of t h e base load energy cou ld be generated, i n c l u d i n g t h a t produced du r i ng bo th d a i l y peak load' and base l oad hours. The energy produced du r i ng the 12 peak l oad hours would be about 71 percent o f t h a t produced by base l oad opera t ions . I t i s suggested t h a t f i e l d t r i a l s be made t o determine more pre-. c i s e l y t he e f f e c t s o f peak load opera t ion .

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed improvements a re simple and can be prov ided e a s i l y . A t o t a l of 43 months i s est imated t o be requ i red be fore power can be commercial ly generated. Eighteen months a re al lowed f o r amending the e x i s t i n g FERC l i cense . F i n a l design and b idd ing documents would be prepared du r i ng '16 months o f t h i s same per iod . Another f o u r months a re requ i red f o r b idd ing, b i d eva lua t ion , c o n t r a c t award, and m o b i l i z a t i o n o f the se lec ted cons t ruc t i on con t rac to r . The cons t ruc t i on c o n t r a c t should be awarded i n t ime f o r cons t ruc t i on t o s t a r t

by Apri 1 , so that the two non-freezing seasons can be used to complete the " . . - % . work as scheduled. The proposed construction schedule envisions award of the construction contract i n March 1981, with actual construction s ta r t ing the following month, and completion-occuring during October 1982. Two months are allowed fo r startup and t e s t .

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

The selected development has been found to be technically feasible and economical ly viable. Therefore, i t i s recommended tha t Vermont Marble Company proceed immediately with the measures necessary to implement improvement of Beldens and Huntington Falls. The.required measures include the following major items:

In i t i a t e procedures for amending the existing FERC license. a In i t i a t e project financing.

Proceed with final desi gn , drawings , contract documents, and speci - fications required for construction. Obtain the necessary permits and licenses required by local, s t a t e , regional , and federal agencies . Begin land acquisition ac t iv i t i e s for any land required tha t i s not presently owned.

I t i s also recommended t h a t the Central Rutland ' feas ib i l i ty study,be reactivated ' i f new data forecasts an energy cost increase ra te h,igher :than the one assumed i n t h i s study.

LAKE FRANCES POWER GENERATING F A C I L I T I E S

S i l o a m S p r i n g s , A r k a n s a s

C i t y o f Si loam Springs, Arkansas McGoodwin, W i l l i ams and Yates, Inc.


The Lake Frances Dam i s l oca ted on t h e I l l i n o i s R iver approximately th ree m i l es southwest o f Si loam Springs, Arkansas. The dam and most o f the 517 acre l ake a re l oca ted i n the extreme northwest corner o f Ada i r County, Oklahoma.

The dam was o r i g i n a l l y planned, designed and const ruc ted du r i ng a pe r i od o f th ree years, from 1929 through 1931. The s t r u c t u r e inc luded a powerhouse w i t h an open-flume v e r t i c a l t u r b i n e and a d i r e c t coupled v e r t i c a l synchronous generator. The generator f a i l e d because o f an over load t h a t occur red i n 1935.

I n 1943, approximately 700 f e e t o f the e a r t h embankment washed o u t due t o h igh f lows t h a t exceeded t h e capac i ty o f the sp i l lway .

The'c i t y o f S,i loam Springs purchased the dam and the ad jacent land i n 1954. To reduce the poss i - b i l i t y o f t he f a i l u r e occu r r i ng again, t he dam was r e h a b i l i t a t e d w i t h a 200 f o o t sec t i on o f sheet p i l i n g . The e a r t h embankment was a l so ra i sed two and one-ha l f f e e t . The t u r b i n e was encased i n concre te t o p lug the h o l e i n the powerhouse.

The s t r u c t u r e has been opera ted as r e b u i l t s i nce 1954.

I I . SERVICEABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE

Since the powerhouse and the concrete sec t i on o f the dam a re f o r t y - e i g h t years o l d , the s e r v i c e a b i l i t y o f the s t r u c t u r e i s very impor tant .

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the Tulsa D i s t ' r i c t , Corps o f Engineers, have c l a s s i f i e d the Lake Frances Dam as an in termedia te s i z e dam w i t h a h igh hazard p o t e n t i a l . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s a r e s u l t o f the Phase I Inspect ion Report o f t he Nat iona l Dam Safe ty Program.

The Corps o f Engineers es t imates the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) t o be approximately 555,000 cub ic f e e t per second, and a t t h i s f l o w the dam would ove r top 8.1 f e e t which would cause a f a i l u r e o f t he e a r t h embankment. The Corps o f Engineers a l s o est imates the s p i l l w a y can s a f e l y pass approximately 20 percent o f t he PMF w i t h o u t over topp ing t h e e a r t h embankment. The maximum f l o o d recorded a t the damsite occur red i n 1892 and was es t imated a t 84,000 cub i c f e e t per second.

The repor ted sa fe t y hazards assoc ia ted w i t h the dam a r e present whether o r no t the dam i s u t i l i z e d f o r t he genera t ion o f e l e c t r i c power. Therefore, the power p r o j e c t does n o t inc lude p rov i s i ons f o r a major renovat ion o f the e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e .

For t h e hydro-power p r o j e c t t o be feas ib le , any remedial measures necessary t o i nsu re dam s a f e t y du r i ng f l o o d i n g cond i t i ons would have t o be funded from a l t e r n a t e sources.

The powerhouse appears t o be s t r u c t u r a l l y -sound. There i s no evidence o f any foundat ion f a i l u r e which would be caused by d i f f e r e n t i a l se t t lement . However, there i s ex tens ive sur face d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f t he concre te powerhouse s t r u c t u r e . The bu i 1 di.ng t h a t once housed the generator and equipment has d e t e r i o r a t e d beyond r e p a i r . There a re several holes i n the cons t ruc t i on j o i n t s w i t h i n the concrete arch s e c t i o n o f t h e dam immediately ad jacent t o the powerhouse. Since the arch sec t i on o f the dam and the e x i s t i n g powerhouse a re so c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t he hydro-power p r o j e c t , the cos ts f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i n g the arch sec t i on and the powerhouse have been included i n t h e cos t est imates.

1 1 1 . STREAM FLOW AND POWER'POTENTIAL

The f l o w data u t i l i z e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g the power p o t e n t i a l o f the Lake Frances s i t e were taken from the U.S.G.S. Water-Data Reports. The p e r i o d from October 1955 through September 1975 was used i n a l l ca lcu la t . ions .

The ll l i n o i s River i s i n t he Arkansas River Basin. The data used were gathered a t gaging s t a t i o n 07195500, which i s a t t h e U. S. Highway 59 b r i dge near Watts, Oklahoma. Th is gaging s t a t i o n i s 0.8 m i l e downstream from the Lake Frances Dam. The Lake Frances rese rvo i r has a drainage area o f 635 square mi les .

For t he twenty years o f record from Water Year 1956 through Water Year 1975, the average f l o w i s 622 cub ic f e e t per second. Wi th t h e average f l o w c o n d i t i o n o f 622 cub i c f e e t per second and a constant head o f twenty f ee t , the stream has an average power p o t e n t i a l o f 1,200 horsepower, o r 894 k i l o w a t t s .

Because t h e c a p i t a l investment i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y less , the open f lume-generat i ng arrangement i s the most f eas ib le . A sketch i nd i ca tes how the equipment would be incorpora ted i n t o the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . A d i f f e r e n t i a l l e v e l i n t h e headwater e l e v a t i o n i s the t y p i c a l method o f c o n t r o l l i n g an open-flume genera t ing system. I f t he c o n t r o l d i f f e r e n t i a l i s expanded t o use the top s i x inches o f the l ake s torage w h i l e ma in ta in ing a constant minimum downstream f l o w o f 100 cub ic f e e t per second through the low f l ow condu i t , the stream-lake combinat ion has an average annual c a p a b i l i t y o f producing 177 equ i va len t days o f power a t a sus ta ined f l o w o f 590 cub i c f e e t per second.

The f l o w o f 590 cub i c f e e t per second can suppor t an 850 k i l o w a t t generator which w i l l have a twenty year average annual u t i l i z a t i o n f a c t o r o f 48 percent .

As can be seen from the f o l l o w i n g tab le , t h e r o s t economical s i z e i s the 850 k i l o w a t t generator w i t h an annual c o s t o f p roduct ion o f 18 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r .

GENERATOR COMPARISON TABLE

I V . MARKET. ANALYS IS

The c i t y o f Silo.am Springs can be cha rac te r i zed as a p u b l i c u t i l i t y i n t h a t the c i t y owns and operates t he e l e c t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n system. Since the most economical generator ( i .e., 850 k i l o w a t t s ) can produce o n l y approx imate ly 5 percent o f t he c i t y ' s power needs, any t ime the re i s s u f f i c i e n t stream f low a l l o f t h e Power t h a t the generator can produce w i l l be used immediately.

s l ZE OF GENERATOR (KILOWATTS)

REQUIRED FLOW (CUBIC FEETISECOND)

20 YEAR AVG. ANNUAL EQUIVALENT CFS-DAYS

20 YEAR AVG. ANNUAL UTl LlZATlON FACTORS

20 YEAR AVG. ANNUAL PRODUCTION (KWH)

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (MARCH, 1979)

COST PER INSTALLED KW

ANNUAL COST (LOAN PL'US 0 & M)

COST OF PRODUCTION (MILLS/KWH)

'Because the.pawer would be u t i l i z e d i n l i e u o f purchased power, the c i t y would a c t u a l l y have a market ing ar.rangement bes t .described as savings per k i l owa t t hour.

650

451

191

52%

2,962,734

$591,553

$ 910

$63,261

21.4

500

34 7

21 1

58%

2,528,809

$515,653

$ 1,031

$56 ,748

22.4

The market ing aspect o f t he hydro-power p r o j e c t i s one o f i t s best b e n e f i t s . Th is b e n e f i t i s ease o f u t i l i z a t i o n o f t he power produced.

750

520

189

51%

3,375,957

$602,553

$ 803

$64,205

19.0

850

590

177

48%

3,596,680

$608,053

$ 715

$64 ,677

18.0

1000

690

158

43%

3,216,880

$646,776

$ 646

$68,000

21 .I

V . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

As i s the case w i t h many low-head hydro-power i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t he Lake Frances hydro-power f a c i l i t y ' s b e n e f i t s a re l i m i t e d t o savings o f o t h e r nonrenewable energy sources and t o poss ib le f u t u r e cos t savings caused by the e s c a l a t i o n o f f u t u r e energy p r i c e s .

The c i t y has a c o n t r a c t w i t h Southwestern E l e c t r i c Power Company f o r wholesale power. The present r a t e the c i t y pays f o r power under t h i s c o n t r a c t i s approximately 14 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r ( i . e . , energy charge p lus f u e l adjustment charge). The r a t e a c t u a l l y va r i es because the fue l adjustment charge var ies .

The c i t y w i l l have t o be a b l e t o generate power a t a r a t e lower than the r a t e p a i d o t h e r supp l i e r s f o r the p r o j e c t t o be a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e energy source. As the p r i c e f o r power increases and i f t h e c a p i t a l investment cou ld be f i x e d a t some p o i n t i n t ime, the hydro-power a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l have a b e t t e r chance o f be ing feas ib le .

For example, assuming the genera t ing f a c i l i t i e s were const ruc ted and were pu t on 1 i ne i n th ree years and an annual i n f l a t i o n r a t e o f 7 percent i s app l i ed t o the t o t a l p r o j e c t cos ts , the f a c i l i t y would cos t approximately $744,892. Since a t the same t ime the e l e c t r i c a l energy cos ts w i l l have the same o r a h ighe r r a t e o f i n f l a t i o n , a t t he t ime the f a c i l i t y would be pu t on l i n e the e l e c t r i c a l r a t e would be a t l e a s t 17.2 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r . I t would take an a d d i t i o n a l f ou r years f o r the cos t o f producing hydropower t o equal the p r i c e o f power supp l ied by o the rs .

Provided there i s an adequate maintenance program, the t y p i c a l expected 1 i f e o f a . hydro-power f a c i 1 i t y such as t he one t h a t would be i n s t a l l e d i n the Lake Frances Dam i s 50 years.

Since a l l o f t he loan c a l c u l a t i o n s a re based on a 25 year amor t i za t i on cos t , t he f i n a l 25 years o f l i f e would g i v e the c i t y a very low product ion cos t per k i l owa t t -hou r .

The hydro-power f a c i l i t i e s p r o j e c t i s no t economical ly f e a s i b l e a t the c i t y ' s present day wholesale power ra te . On t h e o the r hand, i f t he c a p i t a l investment can be f i xed , then, w i t h the cos t o f power increas ing every year, the f a c i l i t y i nd i ca tes a f u t u r e p r o f i t .

V I . FINANCIAL. FEASIBILITY

As the c i t y owns and operates i t s e l e c t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n system, t he c i t y cou ld issue 25 year revenue bonds t o cons t ruc t the f a c i 1 i t y . As shown i n the economic ana l ys i s , however, t he p r o j e c t i s no t s e l f - l i q u i d a t i n g a t p resent day energy cos ts . Consequently, f o r t he p r o j e c t t o be const ruc ted, the p r o j e c t would have t o be subs id ized f o r a per iod o f t ime.

V I I. SUMMARY

The purpose o f t h i s study i s t o analyze the f e a s i b i l i t y o f developing the power p o t e n t i a l o f the I l l i n o i s R iver a t t h e Lake Frances Dam. Our s tudy f i nds t h a t :

A. The ac tua l average power p o t e n t i a l o f the r i v e r i s 1,200 horsepower o r 894 k i l o w a t t s , w i t h an average annual power product ion o f 3.6 m i l l i o n k i l owa t t -hou rs .

B. The power can be e a s i l y u t i l i z e d on the c i t y o f Si loam Spr ings ' d i s t r i b u t i o n system.

C. The cost o f an 850 k i l o w a t t hydro-generat ing f a c i l i t y i s es t imated t o be $608,053.

D.. The annual t o t a l per k.i lowatt-hour cos t t o produce the power ava i l a b l e a t the dam va r i es from 17.1 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r t o 19.4 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r , depending on the type o f f i n a n c i n g secured.

E. The p r o j e c t i s no t s e l f - l i q u i d a t i n g a t the present wholesale r a t e t h a t the c i t y pays f o r power.

F. The i n s t a l l a t i o n would save nonrenewal types o f energy, and, i f the c a p i t a l cos t can be f i x e d a t p resent day p r i ces , t he u n i t w i l l become economical ly f e a s i b l e as e l e c t r i c ra tes increase.

G. The hydro-power p r o j e c t wi 1 l no t support any remedial r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e dam s t r u c t u r e .

V I I I . CONCLUS IONS

A. Const ruc t ion , opera t ion , and maintenance o f the Lake Frances hydro-power genera t ing f a c i l i t y cou ld be f e a s i b l e i f t he f o l l o w i n g cond i t i ons are met.

1 . I f gu ide l i nes a re pub l ished and the c i t y i s ab le t o acqu i re the needed funds f o r the dam s a f e t y improvements. Cost es t imates would be based on the pub l ished gu ide l i nes .

2. I f f i nanc ing arrangements can be made us ing e i t h e r subs id ies , g rants , bonds, o r a combinat ion o f a l l th ree so t h a t t he c a p i t a l cos ts can be f i x e d t o assure an adequate f u t u r e f i n a n c i a l r e tu rn .

B . The hydro-power f a c i l i t i e s should be const ruc ted, owned, and operated by t he c i t y o f Si loam Springs, which has an immediate use f o r the power generated and means t o f inance a t l e a s t a p o r t ion o f the p r o j e c t .

C . There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t adverse environmental impact r e s u l t i n g from e i t h e r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o r ope ra t i on o f t he hydro-power f a c i l i t i e s .

MAIN SPILLWAY

NEW TAILRACE

TRASH SCREEN

ST. JOSEPH RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS

Five Locations, Indiana and Michigan

American Electric Power Service Corporation W. W. Stelle, Asst. Chief Civil Engineer


I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the current status and preliminary results of a feasi- bj.3.it.y assessment study for upgrading five existing hydroelectric plants on the St. Joseph River in Michigan and Indiana. These plants are, in downstream order, the Mottville, Elkhart, Twin Branch, Buchanan, and Berrien Springs plants. The plants are owned and operated by two subsidiaries of American Electric Power Company (AEP). The assessment is being carried out under the provisions of DOE Cooperative Agreement No..EW-78-~-07-1795between the Department of Energy and the AEP Service Corporation (AEPSC).

RESULTS OF STUDIES TO DATE

Studies completed to date have involved assessing the generating capability of the existing plants, determining the production potentials at each site, defining alternatives for reconditioning or,upgrading each plant to increase generating capability, and assessing the environmental and regulatory aspects of implementing the alternatives.

111. CAPABILITY OF EXISTING PLANTS

Recent operating records were analyzed to assess the generating capability of the five existing plants. The units at each plant are over 50 years old and, as shown on Table 1, their generating capabilities are less than would be expected from new plants of the same installed capacity. Lost capability is considered to result from the age and condition of equipment and from unattended operating procedures which sometimes cause inefficient use of available water. The remaining useful life of existing equipment is uncertain. In the absence of reconditioning, it would seem reasonable to assume a useful life of 10 years.

IV. OPERATING MODES AND POTENTIAL PRODUCTION

The five plants are currently operated as run-of-river installations. With limited drawdown from storage, it would be possible to concentrate more of the energy production during the daily 12 - to 15 - hour peak load periods in the AEP system.

Operation studies were performed at each plant to determine capacity and energy potentials for a range of installed capacities and four operating modes as follows: run-of-river and 12 -, 8 -, and &hour peaking. Installed capacities up to about 1.5 times those currently provided were considered. In the peaking modes, drawdown during the peaking hours was limited to 1.0 ft at Mottville and Twin Branch and 2.0 ft elsewhere.

The results of the study (Table 2) show that a 50 percent increase in capacity would provide from 3 percent (Twin Branch) to 10 percent (Elkhart) increases in average annual generation and from 10 percent (Twin Branch) to 34 percent (Elkhart) increases in average peaking capacity for the &hour peaking mode. Lesser increases in average peaking capacity occur with the longer peaking modes; however, the 8 - and 12-hour modes do permit greater concentration of energy production during the 12 to 15 hour daily pesk-load period of the AEP system.

V.. ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES FOR UPGRADING

Alternative schemes for upgrading the plants include : (a) reconditioning of existing units; (b) replacing existing units with new units, requiring minimal structural changes; (cl provision of new units in new powerhouse structures; and (d) headwater control a Buchanan Dam, the only ungated dam of the five. In all schemes, remote control would b.e provided to improve the efficiency of operation and permit limited use for peaking and reserve capacity.

Alternatives at each plant are presented in Table 3. Reconditioning generally includes new runners, bearings, wicket gates, shafts, and governors. Existing generators would be retained. For alternatives involving new units, two types of standardized units were considered. These are the horizontal-shaft tube-turbine units offered by Allis-Chalmers and the vertical-shaft open-flume units offered by Bofors-Nohab. Selection of new unit sizes was made so that the units would fit within the present unit bays without the need for excavation below existing structures to avoid disturbance of the existing wood pile foundations. This constraint affects unit selection because of limitations of setting with respect to tailwater for horizontal-shaft tube units and inlet submergence for vertical-shaft open flume units. Headwater control alternatives at Buchanan Dam (Table 4) involve replacing the existing flashboards with gates.

V I , COSTS Estimated construction costs for upgrading at each plant are presented in

Tables 5, 6, and 7. The construction costsare estimated at January 1979 price level and include contingency, engineering, and administrative costs. The costs for installing new units include the necessary civil works. Civil construction cost estimates were prepared from detailed layouts and quantity estimates.

VII. BENEFITS

The estimates of benefits and economic evaluation are still in progress as of the date of this sununary.

VIII.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

The followixg preliminary conclusions- can be drawn based on skudies made to date:

1. The existing plants are. economical producers of energy.

2. At present, the plants are not capable of generating the power that would be expected from new plants.of the same instal.l.ed ce,pacitx.

3. The nominal installed capacities provided at each plant- are fairly well matched to the existing head and av@il,- able flow conditions, and increased installed capacity will not provide substantial increases in average annual generation.

4. Potentials exist for using a small amount of. available pondage to concentrate energy production during system peak load periods. This type of operation could provide higher capacity and energy benefits than continued run-of- rive operation but is subject to the objections of local residents and recreational users of the impoundments.

5. Reconditioning of the existing units is possible and would permit recovery of a substantial portion of the energy and capacity currently lost because of equipment age and construction.

6 . Provision of remote-control equipment will provide for better utilization of available streamflow and is pref- erable to continuing with unattended operations.

New standardized units can be accommodated at most of the plants within the existing unit bays without the need for major structural modification or disruption of existing foundations. In some cases new generator buildings would be required. At Berrien Springs, the standardized units cannot be accommodated in the existing unit bays but can be placed in new structures downstream from the existing draft tubes. At Buchanan, space exists to accommodate new units outside of the existing powerhouse in a new structure.

8. A comparison of construction costs indicates that reconditioning and provision of remote control is substantially less costly than providing new units in terms of cost per kW of installed capacity and cost per kW of average output. New equipment would, however, have the advantage of longer expected service life and improved maintainability in comparison with the reconditioned units of much ol'der design. Since the incremental gain in generation is relatively small with increases in capacity above that which could be provided with reconditioning, substantial capacity enlargements probably will not be attractive. Benefit estimates and economic evaluation are being performed at this time to define the most-attractive alternatives.

9. The high cost of provid.ing gates at Buchanan Dam probably cannot be offset by increased production and reduced operating costs at Buchanan. However, the improved control at Buchanan also will benefit the Berrien Springs plant, and therefore, further study of this matter is planned.

10. Significant environmental problems are not expected to be encountered during the construction phase. The environmental effects of limited peaking operations are still under study.

Table 1

CAPABILITY OF EXISTING PLANTS

Installed Capacity Rated Head

Twin Berrien Mottville Elkhart Branch Buchanan Springs

Age of Newest Units Yrs 56 56 5 7 52 51 Age of Oldest Uiiits 2/ Yfs 56 58 75 59 71 Expected Avg. Annual Generation- MWh 8500 16500 33600 20300 41100 Actual Avg. Annual Generati 97 MWh

6500 12800 21200 12200 25700 Ratio of Actual to Expected- - -76 .78 .68 .60 .63

Estimated Plant Efficiency Pct 6 1 62 50 48 5 0

Maximum Monthly Generation - Recorded Maximum Avg kW - Corresponding Net Head ft - Expected Maximum Avg kW - Ratio of Actual to Expected -

Maximum Plant Output - Expected with Like-New Units kW - Corresponding Head ft - Estimated with Existing Units kW

Average River Flow 4/

ft3/s Ratio of Rated Dischaage- to Average Flow -

1/ Assumed average; units are rated at 18 and 22.5 ft. - 2/ Run-of-river operation with plant efficiency of 80 percent. - 3/ Based on a comparison of monthly generdtion with expected generation. - 4/ Plant discharge at rated head. -

Table 2 (Shee t l ' o f 2)

SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANTS OPERATING MODES 1 AND 2

*,,, Emi

. ... . . ,,-.. ?<:. .' t:,,.tv* ~ o t t v i l l e

E l k h a r t :

Twin Branch

d

'"7 m

Condi t ion ... . E x i s t i n g Recondit ioned New

E x i s t i n g Recondit ioned New

E x i s t i n g ~ e c o n d i t i o i e d New

Serv ice L i f e Years

10 t o 15 40 50 50 50

10 t o 15 40 50 50 50

. .. ...

10 t o 15 40 50 50 50

Mode 1 - Run o f Rivez Averaqe Annual Genera t ion

Rated Rated Average 1/ Head Capaci ty Capaci ty Peak F l o u r s Off-Peak To ta l

f t . kW kW Mwh Mwh Mwh - -- - -

Buchanan. IRes. E l . 637.0) E x i s t i n g 10 t o 15 13 4104 1390 4340 Recondit ioned 40 13 4100 2320 7240 New 50 13 4100 2320 7240

50 13 5000 2450 7650 50 13 6000 2550 7970

Ber r i en Spr ings

Buchanan (Res. El. 639.0 E x i s t i n g 10 t o 15 13 4104 1670 5230 Recondit ioned 40 13 4100 2780 8710 . New 50 13 4100 2780 8710

50 13 5000 2910 9100 50 13 6000 3010 9430

E x i s t i n g 10 t o 15 21 7200 2930 9170 Recondit ioned 40 21 7200 4690 14670 New 50 2 1 7200 4690 14670

50 21 9000 4950 15470 50 2 1 11000 5080 15900

Mode 2 - 12 Hour Peaking Averaqe Annual Genera t ion

AVU. Peak ins I/ Capac i ty Peak ~ o u r s Off-Peak T o t a l

kW Mwh Mwh MWh - -

1/ Peak hour g e n e r a t i o n = g e n e r a t i o n dur ing 12 hour pe r iod , 5 days p e r week. - 2/ Assumed va lue . See d i s c u s s i o n i n t e x t . - 3/ NO drabdown o f headwater. - 4/ Assuming m a h i m drardown o f headwater a t M o t t v i l l e and W i n Branch o f one f o o t ; t w f e e t elsewtlere.

Table 2 (Sheet 2 cf 2 )

SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANTS OPERATING MODES 3 AND 4

Plant

Mot tv i l l e

condi t ion - Exis t ing Reconditioned New

Elkhart Exis t ing Reconditioned

" ,?sd New

Service L i f e ' Years

Ra-.ed Head

f-. . Rated

Capacity kW -

1600 1600 1600 2000 2400

3440 3440 3440 4500 5500

Mode 3 - 8 Hour Peaking Average Annual Generation

Avg. Peaking 1/ >paci ty Peak H o u r s Off-Peak Tota l

kW ElWh m m - - 960 2620 3710 6330

1260 3450 4880 8330 1260 3450 4880 8330 1370 3660 4960 8620 1410 3740 5040 8780

1800 5050 7520 12570 2330 6510 9710 16220 2330 6510 9710 16220 2670 7160 9790 16950 2900 7560 9750 17310

. - 2/ Twin Branch Exis t ing 10 t o 15 19 7260 3030 8370 12220 20590

Reconditioned 40 19 7260 4810 13290 19390 32680 New 50 19 7260 4810 13290 19390 32680

50 19 8500 4950 13560 19480 33040 50 19 10000 5050 13770 19610 33380

Buchanan (Res. El. 637.0) Exis t ing 10 t o 15 13 4104 1510 4400 7290 1 '690 Reconditioned 40 13 4100 2510 7340 12140 19480 New 50 13 4100 2510 7340 12140 19480

50 13 5000 2660 7750 12680 20430 50 13 6000 2770 8030 13120 2:150

Suchanan (Res. El. 639.1) Exis t ing 10 t o 15 13 4104 1820 5310 8720 1C030 ~ e c o n d i t i o n e d 40 13 4100 3040 8850 14540 23390 New 50 13 4100 3040 8850 14540 23390

50 13 5000 3180 9230 15030 24260 50 13 6000 3290 9480 15430 24910

Berrien Springs Exis t ing 10 t o 15 2 i 7200 3540 9930 14980 249 10 Reconditioned 40 2 ' 7200 5660 15880 23980 30860 New 50 2 ' 7200 5660 15880 23980 30860

50 2 ' 9000 6090 16870 24860 41'30 50 2 ' 11000 6320 17270 25030 42300

Mode 4 - 4 Hour Peaking Average Annual Generation

Av3. Peaking 1/ C a o a c i t ~ Peak Hours- Off-Peak Tota l

1/ Peak hour generation = generation dur ing 12 hour period, 5 days per week. - 2/ Assumed value. See d i scuss ion ir . t e x t . - 4/ Assuming drawdown of headwater a t Mot tv i l l e and Twin Branch of one foo t ; two f e e t elsewhere. -

Table 3

MAXIMUM UNIT SIZES AND POTENTIAL CAPACITIES WITH NEW UNITS

Plant

Existing Existing Factor(s) Affecting Runner Rated Full-Gate Unit Potential %Increa:se Installed No. of Selection of Max. Diameter Head Discharge Output CapacAjy Over Capacity Units Runner Diameter mm f t cfs kW kW- Existing kW I

HORIZONTAL SHAFT (TUBE-TYPE) UNITS

Mottville 1600 4 21

Elkhart

Twin Branch

3440 3 Setting above min. 2500 18 1190 1450 4350, 2 6 tailwater

7260 6 Setting above min. 2000 19 780 1000 6000 (-17) tailwater

Berrien Springs 7200

VERTICAL SHAFT (OPEN FLUME) UNITS d 5 Mottville 1600 4 Inlet submergence 2000 11 670 500 2000 25

Elkhart -. Twin Branch

3440 3 Width of existing 2500 18 1190 1450 4350 2 6 draft tube

7260 6 Width of existing 2500 19 1260 1620 9720 3 4 draft tube

Buc hanan 4104 10 Normal Pool @ 637.0 Inlet submergence 1700 13 520 460, 4 6 00 12 Normal Pool @ 639.1 Inlet submergence 2000 13 710 630 6300 53

Berrien Springs 7200 4 d_/ 3000 2 1 1930 f/ 2750 11,000- 5 3

a/ Base6 on number of existing units. / Maximum runner diameter currently offered by manufacturer (3000 mm) could be installed., ,

This runner diameter slightly exceeds the manufacturer's (Allis Chalmers) limit for setting above mininum tailwater. Details could be discusssed with this and other manufacturers.

g/ Maximum runner diameter currently offered by manufacturer was selected. e/ As many as eight new units could be accommodated, assumes four installed in a modified powerhouse. / Four unLts, two units located on each side of the existing generator house, could be accommodated. -

Note: Overall plant efficiencies assumed to be 80 percent.

Table 4

ALTERNATIVES FOR GATES AT. BUCHANAN DAM

Normal Length Length of Estimated Reservoir of Gated No. of Size Flashboards Construc- Elevation Crest Gates Width Height Remaining - - tion Cost ft ,msl f t f t f t ft $

Table 5

Capacity with Refurbishing , kW No. of units

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RECONDITIONING EXISTING UNITS (REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT; JANUARY 1979 PRICE LEVEL)

Cost in Dollars Twin Berrien

Mottville Elkhart Branch Buchanan Springs 1600 21005 3440 7260 4104 7200

Replacement Runners, Shafts, Gate casings Wicket Gates,'and Bearings 700,000 700,000 660,000 Rewind Generators - 500,000 - New Draft Tubes . - - - Replace ~rease Systems and Piping - - 10,000

Governors 66,000 66,000 -210,000

Replacement Servomotor Gate Shaft and Connecting Links 20,000 20,000 120,000

Dismantle Units, Refurbish Draft Tubes --I and Sup3orts 40,000 40,000 90,000 cn ID Installation 152,000 152,000 190,000

Shipping 24,000 24,000 30,000

b/ Contingsnc y- . 80,000 29,000 100,000

Subtotal 1,042,000 1,631,000 1,410,000 Engr & Adm(l5%) 249,000 198,000 210,000

Total 1,200,000 1,880,000 1,620,000

Cost per installed kW($) 7 5 0 895 471

a/ ~iqher capacity runners of same speed, with rewound generators. 5/ Based on 10% of equipment cost. -

Table 6

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REMOTE CONTROL (January 1979 Price Level)

*

Cost in Dollars Twin Eerrien 3

Item Mottville Elkhart Branch Buchanan Total

Water Level Gaging Equipment 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25 ,,OOO

Automatic Start-Stop Equipment 43,000 51,000 102,000 165,000 63,000 : 424,000

Supervisory Equipment 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 ,30,000

Microwave Equi2ment 10,000 - - Governor Potentiometers 1,000 1,000 2,000

--I

0-l o Automatic Gate Control (2

gates at each Dam) 49,000 45,000 47,000

Subtotal (Direct Cost) 118,000 107,000 161,000 Contingency (20%) 24,000 21,000 32,000 Subtotal 142,000 128,000 193,000 En,g. & Adm. (15%) 21,000 19,000 29,000

Total Construction Cost 163,000 147,000 222,000

b/ Central Computer and Console- Total Construction Cost (Five Plants)

(Five Plants plus Buchanan Gates)

a/ - If spillway gates are provided at Buchanan cost would be about $45,000 at direct cost level or $62,000 at construction cost level.

b/ Located at Twin Branch Generating Station; new building not re.quired.

Table 7

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR NEW UNITS .(JANUARY 1979 PRICE LEVEL)

Present No. of No. of New Cost in Thousands of Dollars Cost Installed Existing Runner New Installed Civil Equip- Contin- kW per'

Plant Capacity Units Type of New Units Diameter Units capacitya/ Works ment gencyb' Othesl Total Installed - kW mm kW $

Mottvillf

Elkhart

Twin Branch

- 5

Buchanan

1600 4 Vertical-shaft, open 2000 4 2000 503 1909 412 424 3248 1,624 flume type

Berrien Springs 7200 4

Horizontal-shaft, 2250 4 2400 1381 3607 886 881 6755 2,815 tube-type

Horizontal-shaf t , 2500 3 4350 454 3496 638 688 5276 1,213 tube-type

Vertical-shaft, open 2500 3 4350 190 1934 338 369 2831 651 flume type

~orizontal-shaft, 2000 6 6000 915 4680 931 979 7505 1,251 tube- type

Same 2250 6 7800 870 6084 1131 1213 9298 1,132

Vertical-shaft, 2500 6 9720 729 4620 875 934 7158 736 open flume

Vertical-shaft, open 1700 10 4600 1258* 3483 837 837 6415 1,395 flume; Pool @ 637.0

vertical-shaft; Pool 2000 10 6300 950 966 7407 1,176 1258* 4233 @ 639.1

Horizontal-shaft units 2250 3 2250 682 2871 602 623 4778 2,124 Outside of Present Powerplant

Horizontal-shaft, tube 3000 3 8250 1048 4922 1000 1046 8016 972 type

Vertical-shaft, open 3000 4 11000 1602 4248 1037 1033 7920 720 flume type

a/ Plan output at rated head. - b/ Allowance of 25%'on civil works estimate and 15% an equipment estimate. - c/ Allowance of 15% on civil works, equipment, and contingency for engineering, administrative, and other costs. - *Based on Mottville estimate.

CATARACT PWER PLANT EXPANSION ON THE SAC0 RIVER

Saco, ME

C e n t r a l Maine Power Company Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton

PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. EW-78-F-07-1796

I . INTRODUCTION

The e x i s t i n g C a t a r a c t P r o j e c t (FERC l i c e n s e d p r o j e c t no.. 2528) i s l o c a t e d i n Southern Maine i n t h e C i t y of Saco, on t h e Saco River about t h r e e miles from i t s mouth i n t h e e a s t channel of t h e r i v e r and a b u t t i n g Fac to ry I s l a n d .

Th i s s i t e was o r i g i n a l l y developed t o provide power i n 1653 and i t s u t i l i - z a t i o n a s a source of energy has been a lmost cont inuous t o t h e presen.t day. The p r e s e n t development was c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1937-38 and t h e 6650 KW v e r t i c a l Kaplan u n i t i s s t i l l o p e r a t i n g a s a r e l i a b l e source of energy w i t h an a v e r a g e , annual ou tpu t of approximately 45,000,000 KW hours per yea r . .

The dra inage a r e a a t t h e s i t e i s 1703 square miles which provides a median flow of 2200 cub ic f e e t per second ( c f s ) and a c a l c u l a t e d average f low, based on 60 years of r e c o r d , of 3497 c f s . Not a l l of t h i s wa te r i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Company f o r g e n e r a t i o n purposes a s f a c t o r i e s which l i n e bo th r i v e r banks have c e r t a i n wa te r r i g h t s . These wa te r r i g h t s t o g e t h e r w i t h f i s h l adder r e - l e a s e s , and g a t e and f l a shboard I-eakage were es t imated t o r e q u i r e an average cont inuous flow of 300 c f s .

A f t e r a p re l iminary review of t h e a v a i l a b l e drawings and d a t a it was concluded t h a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t cases of p l a n t expansion would r e q u i r e s tudy i . e . ,

a ) Examine t h e t e c h n i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y of i n c r e a s i n g t h e power of t h e e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e by i n s t a l l i n g new r o t a t i n g p a r t s .

b) I n c r e a s e t h e power of t h e e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e and c o n s t r u c t a new power p l a n t .

c ) Cons t ruc t a new power p l a n t wi thout a l t e r i n g t h e e x i s t i n g u n i t .

11. PREFERRED PROJECT

F i g u r e s 8 and 9 of t h e f u l l r e p o r t ( c o p i e s a t t a c h e d ) show t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e proposed power p l a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p r o j e c t s t r u c t u r e s , and t h e new power p l a n t p lan , e l e v a t i o n s and s e c t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y . .

The p r e f e r r e d expansion p r o j e c t would c o n s i s t of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new power p l a n t housing two 2.5 meter h o r i z o n t a l s h a f t , s t andard ized des ign , a d j u s t a b l e blade, tube type t u r b i n e s having a des ign head of 39 f e e t . The t u r b i n e s would be connected through speed i n c r e a s i n g gearboxes t o synchronous g e n e r a t o r s w i t h a t o t a l r a t e d c a p a c i t y of 6240 KW. A t maximum head and maximum t u r b i n e power g e n e r a t o r c a p a c i t y would r i s e t o 7900 K W . Generat ion would be a t 4160 V and a s t ep-up t rans former would be provided t o enab le connect ion i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n system a t 34,000 V . Operat ion would be performed remotely from t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse c o n t r o l room w i t h s u r v e i l l a n c e and maintenance being performed by t h e p resen t p r o j e c t s t a f f .

The headworks would u t i l i z e t h e e x i s t i n g West Channel Dam, a p o r t i o n of which would be removed. Due t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y shal low dep th of water upstream of t h e dam an open flume headrace channel would be used t o convey water t o t h e powerhouse, whi le an open c u t excava t ion i n rock would form t h e t a i l r a c e channel . The r e l a t i v e l e n g t h of t h e s e two channels was determined by access requirements f o r maintenance and t r a s h removal p a s t e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e need t o i n s t a l l f l a shboards i n t h e flume w a l l w i t h a d i scharge c a p a c i t y equa l t o those l o s t when t h e p o r t i o n of dam i s removed s o a s n o t t o r a i s e upstream wate r l e v e l s dur ing a f l o o d .

Gross P l a n t Investment a t p resen t day c o s t s was es t imated t o be $5,230,000 w i t h an a n t i c i p a t e d design and c o n s t r u c t i o n t ime of 30 months a f t e r r e c e i p t of a l i c e n s e from FERC.

Average annual energy recovered from t h e new p l a n t was es t imated t o be '

15,900,000 KW hours per y e a r , however, i n excess of 70% of t h i s energy i s recovered i n t h e f o u r months dur ing t h e snowmelt runoff season.

111. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

E s t a b l i s h i n g t h e des ign head f o r t h e new'power p l a n t e n t a i l e d cons ide rab ly more work e f f o r t than o r i g i n a l l y es t imated . This was due t o a combination of many f a c t o r s . The e x i s t i n g p l a n t has a design head of 44 f e e t which i s de r ived from t a i l w a t e r a t e l e v a t i o n 0 . 0 f e e t above mean s e a l e v e l and a headwater a t E leva t ion 44.0 f e e t i n t h e forebay pond. Headwater i s mainta ined a t E l . 44.0 f e e t by r e g u l a t i o n of r e l e a s e s from t h e 750 a c r e f e e t s t o r a g e behind Bradbury and Springs Dam. The o u t l e t g a t e i s remotely c o n t r o l l e d from t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t r o l room. However, i t was found t h a t t h e water passage under t h e combined r o a d - r a i l b r idge immediately upstream of t h e e x i s t i n g powerhouse formed a hydrau l i c r e s t r i c t i o n which would c r e a t e head l o s s e s should t h e flow be incr 'eased. Due t o t h e deepening of t h e channel t o t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t p r a c t i c a l f o r t h e e x i s t i n g u n i t t h e problem of r a p i d headwater drawdown could no t be overcome i f t h e flow i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y inc reased .

T a i l w a t e r i s e f f e c t e d by t i d e , t h u s , f l u c t u a t e s on a p r e d i c t a b l e b a s i s . However, h y d r a u l i c c o n t r o l s i n t h e r i v e r between t h e s e a and t h e powerhouse a l s o cause t h e t a i l w a t e r e l e v a t i o n s t o vary w i t h flow i n t h e r i v e r . Examin- a t i o n of gage records of headwater and t a i l w a t e r e l e v a t i o n k e p t a t t h e powerhouse revea led t h a t even a t z e r o flow t a i l w a t e r e l e v a t i o n s of 0 .0 were r a r e l y achieved whereas e l e v a t i o n s of +13.0 f e e t i n a major f lood a r e on record .

Due t o t h e upstream hydrau l i c r e s t r a i n t s i n t h e E a s t Channel i t was decided t o i n v e s t i g a t e use of t h e West Channel f o r a new power p l a n t d e s p i t e t h e disadvantage of remoteness from t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t r o l room and s u b s t a t i o n . I n t h i s channel t a i l w a t e r e l e v a t i o n s s t i l l remained a problem which was f u r t h e r complicated a t t imes of low t i d e by a shal low s e c t i o n of r i v e r b e d n e a r t h e downstream Main S t r e e t Bridge. Removal of t h i s shallow s e c t i o n by e x c a v a t i ~ n proved economically nonviable e s p e c i a l l y a s b e n e f i t s were only de r ived dur ing t h e low t i d e per iod.

The outcome of t h i s review l e d t o t h e s e l e c t i o n of a design head of 39 f e e t w i t h t h e t a i l r a c e channel excavated s o t h a t t a i l w a t e r w i l l normally vary approximately + 1 f o o t depending on t i d e and r i v e r flow s t a g e .

I n cons ide r ing t h e optimum p l a n t i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y many v a r i a t i o n s were s t u d i e d . The use of a s t andard ized design tube u n i t was reviewed bu t i t was found t h a t t h e l a r g e s t a v a i l a b l e machine gave l e s s power than appeared t o be optimum. There fore t h e use of two smal le r u n i t s was s t u d i e d . This r e q u i r e d t h a t a review of t h e c o s t of one custom designed u n i t be compared t o t h e c o s t of t h e same c a p a c i t y i n two s tandard ized u n i t s . T h i s l e d t o t h e conc lus ion t h a t two s tandard ized u n i t s would prove cheapes t .

Due t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y smal l v a r i a t i o n i n head a review was a l s o made of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of us ing f i x e d b lade t u r b i n e s w i t h induc t ion g e n e r a t o r s . The a d j u s t a b l e b lade machine w i t h synchronous g e n e r a t o r proved t o be t h e most economic.

T h i s . f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e d e ~ e l o ~ m e n t of t h e C a t a r a c t s i t e a s d e s c r i b e d above i s a marg ina l ly economic p r o p o s i t i o n which might o f f e r some . s a v i n g s , over t h e l i f e of t h e u n i t ; however, two s i g n i f i c a n t q u e s t i o n s remain unanswered. F i r s t , w i l l a fishway be requ i red a s p a r t of t h e redevelopment? Second, can a new o r renewed f i f t y y e a r FERC l i c e n s e be ob ta ined f o r t h e C a t a r a c t s i t e ?

C e n t r a l Maine Power Company i n t e n d s t o make more d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s t o r e f i n e s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of t h e p l a n t , exp lo re t h e ques t ion of t h e fishway w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l agenc ies and persue t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a c q u i r i n g t h e Saco Tanning wate r r i g h t s . I f t h e above mentioned i tems can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y reso lved t h e Company would expect t o proceed w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a new f i f t y yea r l i c e n s e from t h e F e d e r a l Energy Regulatory Commission.

ORAWING TAXEN FROM ORIGINAL FERC LICENCE WPLICPITION OOCUYENTS

CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY CATARACT HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

EXPANSION STUDY

NEW POWER PLANT LOCATION PLAN

I

FIGURE 8

SECTION C-C r . r r : , . . , *

I.,..,.. .or. w... rr

SECTION 0 - 0 .c.Lc:I'. 1D'

SECTION b - b .c.rc:,..m. NEW POWER PLANT

TIPPETTS-ABBCTT-YcCARTY-STRbTTOH r*mwrns u o .*c*trrcrs Mr. m r

TUTTLE CREEK DAM ON THE BIG BLUE RIVER

Manhattan, Kansas

Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. R. W. Beck and Associates


INTRODUCTION

In response to a Program and Research Development Announcement by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo) submitted a proposal dated February 18, 1978 to study the feasibility of installing hydroelectric generating facilities at the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) existing Tuttle Creek Dam, with financial assistance from the DOE. The studies and investigations performed for this feasibility assessment have included site reconnaissance, review of system load characteristics and site hydrology, development of conceptual project arrangements and layouts, power studies, estimation of construction costs, development of capital costs, determination of economic feasibility, development of a design and construction schedule and a preliminary environmental review of the proposed Project.


Tuttle Creek Dam is located on the Big Blue River 10 miles upstream from the mouth at the Kansas River as shown in Exhibit A. The dam and reservoir (Tuttle Creek Lake) are owned and operated by the Corps for purposes of flood control, recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and downstream water quality. Construction of the dam was completed in 1962, and hydroelectric generating facilities have never existed at the site.

As shown in Exhibit A., the existing development consists primarily of a zoned earthfill embankment, a gated spillway, a twin-barrel concrete conduit outlet works with intake tower and stilling basin, and a 2,346,000 ac.-ft reservoir. The dam has a maximum height above streambed of 137 feet, a crest length of 7,487 feet and a volume of about 21,000,000 cubic yards. The spillway is located in the left abutment and consists of an approach channel, a gated concrete weir structure, a concrete chute and an excavated outlet channel. The outlet works include an approach channel, an intake tower with service and emergency gates, two 20-foot diameter horseshoe conduits passing beneath the dam, a divided stilling basin and an outlet channel. The reservoir is normally held around the top of the multipurpose pool, El 1075.0; currently the reservoir is annually fluctuated between El 1073.0 to El 1079.0 to support some recreation and fish and wildlife functions.

PROPOSED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT

Two alternative project layouts were developed and compared. One alternative is to construct a tunnel through the left abutment of the dam with a powerhouse discharging through a long concrete outlet channel into the pond below the dam. The second alternative is to place a steel liner in one of the existing outlet works conduits with a powerhouse discharging into the stilling basin. The tunnel alternative proved to be very costly because of the long waterway required and is not economically feasible. Hence the outlet works alternative was selected as the Project concept for cconomic analysis.

The existing outlet conduits are not designed for pressure flows, and thus a primary emphasis of the design of the power conduit must be the prevention of pressurizing and cracking the existing conduit. This can best be accomplished by installing a steel liner from the existing service gates in the intake tower all the way through the conduit. The proposed power facilities would use the right (westerly) conduit. The required modifications would begin with a trashrack fastened to the front of the existing tower. The steel liner would begin immediately downstream of the tower service gates, and would include a 40-foot long twin rectangular section, a 60-foot long transition and an 800-foot long, 18-foot diameter penstock section. At the entrance to the stilling basin, the power conduit would branch through a wye section. A shutoff gate (18'0 butterfly valve) would be located just downstream, which would be closed during power operation and fully opened during flood discharges through the conduit. The other arm of the wye would connect to the powerhouse by a 90-foot long 1.8-font diameter steel penstock and a 50-foot long manifold.

The powerhouse would discharge into the existing stilling basin as shown in Exhibit A. The powerhouse would contain three Allis-Chalmers standardized 4,750 kW TUBE units and one Allis-Chalmers 500 kW TUBE unit for a total installed plant capacity of 14,750 kW. The small unit would be included to allow generation with mininum flow releases. The generating units would operate under a rated net head of 60 feet.

The dependable capacity of the Project as delivered into the existing transmission and distribution network is 12,290 kW and the average annual energy is 56,690 MWh. This generation would serve to displace energy in the peak and intermediate load range which is now purchased from Kansas Power and Light Co. (KPL).

PROJECT COST AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

The earliest practical date for the Project to come on-line is considered to be July 1984, which assumes 18 months for FERC license processing and a 21-month construction period. The Direct Construction Cost is estimated to be $10,376,000. The Total Investment Cost. excluding any charges for use of the Federal facilities, is estimated at $19,662,000 for financing at a 9.5% interest rate.

Economic feasibility was studied by comparison of the Project estimated cost with the projected cost of continued power purchases equal to the power output of the Project, for the following three alternative methods of financing:

(1) An REA loan with a 9.5% interest rate and 35 year repayment period. For the first 7 years of the loan, only interest is paid. The following 28 years, both interest and principal are paid.

(2) An REA loan with a 7% interest rate and the same repayment schedule outlined ahove. The low interest rate is assumed to display the benefits of low interest financing which may become available under the current Federal policy of accelerated small hydro development.

(3) A composite loan from the DOE and REA. The DOE portion of the loan would be for 75% of the Project cost.and would be a 30-year conventional loan at 7-118% interest rate, based on provisions of Title IV, Small Hydroelectric Power Project section of the Public Utilities Regulatory Act (part of the National Energy Regu- latory Act). The remaining 25% of the Project cost would be financed by a 30-year 9.5% interest rate loan.

Estimated costs and benefits for the Project with the three types of financing are shown in the table In Exhibit B. As can be seen, a large portion of the operating costs for the Project are taxes, which are very high on utilitfes in Kansas. The Project benefits are based on projected costs of purchased power from KPL and the Project average annual generation of 56,690 MWh and a dependable capacity of 10,450 kW (including a 15% reserve allowance). As shown, the Project benefits in the first year are less than the Project costs for each of the three methods of financing. It should be noted that it is now generally accepted by FERC and others that a hydroelectric project can show a deficit in the first year of operation and yet still be considered feasible because its costs are essentially fixed with time as compared to alternatives. As shown graphically in Exhibit B, the benefits begin to exceed the costs during the fourth year of operation with 7% REA financing, during the sixth year with the 7-118% DOE financing and during the eighth year with 9.5% - REA financing. Over a 10-year period on a present worth basis, the Project shows a surplus with the 7% REA financing but deficits with the other two methods of financing. Therefore, by accepted methods of deterrninjng project viability, the Project is feasible only if low interest loans can be secured, such as the 7% REA loan assumed here.

During the course of the feasibility investigation, inquiry was made of the Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers as to possible charges to the Project for use of storage in the reservoir. In response, the Corps tentatively proposed charges of $150 per ac.-ft. capital cost and $0.36 per ac.-ft. operation and maintenance (assumed to be 1979 costs), subject to change in subsequent studies. The addition of the charges changes the $1,166,000 benefit with the 7% REA financing to a $7,988,000 deficit for the 10-year period (July 1984 dollars). Obviously, such charges would render hydro generation at T~~ttle Creek Dam totally infeasible. It is recognized that such dam use fees have sometimes been assessed on the licenses of hydroelectric developments at some other Federal dams. However, for low head projects the concept of Federal dam-user fees is inconsistent with the current concentrated Federal program for development of small hydro, and here, as in most cases, imposition of such fees would inevitably preclude development.

CONCLUSIONS

The Project is considered technically feasible and without any major environmental issues. It shows economic feasibility providing satisfactory low-interest financing terms are available and providing satisfactory agreements with the Corps regarding reservoir use charges can be reached.

. ,.

Project site

LOCATION 2 0 2 0 40 60 : u

SCALE IN MILES

EXISTING PROJECT-PLAN

1000 1000 2000 bJ-L..J

S C A L E I N F E E T

loo1 0 . 100' - S C A L E

R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES rmtnrru AND corrartrrrn

semk, W n h l m a DO-. -.do

' O r m l ~ T - ~ " M k ~ ~ ~ P I O I

KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. TUBE vnlf, prorldln~ o copocll) 01 10750 k I TOPEKA,KANSAS

POWERHOUSE SECTION 20' 0 2 0' U

SU ALi

TUTTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

PROJECT ARRANGEMENT ,

M T b

MARCH 1979 EXHIBIT A

10 YEAR ANALYSIS

b

-.

ANNUAL PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS ( I)

Financing Method

9.5$REA(3) 7 % R E A ( 2 ) 7-1/8%DoE(4) . .

ANNUAL COSTS (5) L .

. Amcrtization Costs $ 1,870,000 $ 1,345,000 $ 1,673.000

Operating Costs (6)

Operation and Maintenance $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 . . 73,000 Administrative and General 73.000 . 73,000

Insurance 20.0 00 19,000 19.000

39,000 38.000 39.000 Interim Replacements

Property Taxes 433,000 422,000 425,000

Transmission Wheeling 75.000 75,000 7 5.000

TOTiL OPERATING COSTS $ 826,000 $ 813.,000 $ 817~000

TOTAL ANNUAL COETC $ 2,696,000 $ 2,158,o~n $ ?,490.000

CnNTTNllED POWER PURCHASE COSTS:

Capacity Value (5) $ 759,000 $ 759,000 $ 759,000

Energy Value (6) 1,078,000 1,078.000 1,078.000

Total Project Benefits $1,837,000 $1,'837,000 81,837,000

(1) Values shovn are for first year of opera- : tion. July 1984 through June 1985.

(2) Financing at 7% 'interest r-e, 35-year term, With Principal payments deferred Por 7 yeare after oomplction.

( 3 ) Financing at 9.5% interest rite, 35-year term, with Principal Payments deferred for 7 yeara after completion.

(4) Financing at 7.125% interest iate, 30-year term for 75% of Project cost and 9.5% interest rate. 30-year term for the remaining 25%.

(5) Dependable capacity is 10.,450 kw after 15% allovance for reserves. Capacity valued at $68.13/kW for the first half of the year and S16.131k~ for the second half of the year.

(6) Average annual energy is 56.690 hwh, valued a t 18.79 milln/kWh for the fir0.t half of the year and 19.25 mills/kWh for the ond half of the year.

YEAR

R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES rnmnrtu AND COwltrUrr

8*1nb. Wnhlngla Damn. Co)abo

Oml T w l v l l d h lahhbn 0)IOL

KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.

TOPEKA, KANSAS

TUTTLE CREEK HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT

PROJECT- ECONOMICS

D A ~ . MARCH 1978 I EXHlBlT 8 . ,

JOINT IRRIGATION DISTRICTS HYDROPOWER ASSESSMENT STUDY

Tu r l ock, CA

Tur lock I r r i g a t i o n ' D i s t r i c t and F l u i d Energy Systems, I n c .

PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. EW-78- F-07-1799

1. INTRODUCTION

I n August, 1978, the Department o f Energy and Tur lock I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t en tered i n t o a coopera t ive agreement f o r a '!Joint D i s t r i c t s Low-Head Hydropower Assessment Study". The purpose o f the agreement was t o ca r r y out a study of t he hydropower p o t e n t i a l a t n ine teen s i t e s w i t h i n . t he borders o f t he Tur lock, Yerced, South San Joaquin and Oakdale I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s .

Under a sub-cont rac t agreement w i t h Tur lock I r r i o a t i o n D i s t r i c t , F l u i d Energy Systems, Inc . o f LoS Angeles , Cal i fo rn ia , gathered and analyzed the requ i r e d data and prepared..a 'fj.na1 repo.ct ' f o r . DOE.

The r e s u l t s o f t he r e p o r t i n d i c a t e t he t o t a l p o t e n t i a l smal l hydropower capac i t y f o r t he J o i n t O i s t r i c t s i s 19,560 k i l o w a t t s i n s t a l l e d - w i t h an annual energy genera t ion o f 68,561,800 k i lowat thours . This i s equi va- l e n t t o o i l - sav ings o f 118,616 b a r r e l s p e r year .

This assessment study represents a unique i nnova t i on . I t invo l ves t h r e e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s i n the co- dependent development of a system o f s i t e s i n each d i s t r i c t . This approach i s unique on two l e v e l s ;

a. A system o f s i t e s r a t h e r than a s i n g l e s i t e s tud ied; and b. th ree i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s approaching the p r o j e c t i n a coopera t ive fdshion.

These innovat ions can mu1 t i p l y t h e p r o j e c t p o t e n t i a l , increase o v e r a l l bene f i ts - to -cos ts , reduce p r o j e c t system devel opment element costs and prov ide o v e r a l l p r o j e c t development managelient e f f i c i e n c y .

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES

DOE entered i n t o an agreement w i t h Tur lock I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t (TID), t he l e a d agency o f t h e J o i n t D i s t r i c t s , t o undertake the assessment study o f twe lve o f t he i d e n t i f i e d s i t e s . The s tudy - conducted by t he J o i n t D i s t r i c t s and F l u i d Energy Systems, I nc . (FES) - assessed s i t e s rang ing from 50 k i l o w a t t s t o 4,700 k i l o w a t t s capac i t y t o determine tk economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f developing the s i t e s w i t h i n t he co-dependent snow pack, r i v e r s and canal systems.

The s p e c i f i c ob jec t i ves o f t he hydro assessment s tudy were t o determine i n d e t a i l t he t o t a l undeveloped smal l hydropower p o t e n t i a l a t t h e i d e n t i f i e d s i t e s i n each o f t h e f o u r i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s ' canal systems; t o develop u n i f i e d data ga the r i ng and eva lua t i on systems w i t h i n t he J o i n t D i s t r i c t s t o p rov ide a common language f o r smal l hydropower systems development; t o document an es t imate o f t o t a l usable smal l hydropower capac i ty o f each o f t h e systems t h a t can be developed w i t h a balanced framework o f t echn i ca l , demographic and economic f a c t o r s ; and t o analyze var ious f i n a n c i n g and market ing opt ions f o r smal l hydropower systems devel opmen t.

Tlie h i n t D i s t r i c t s c o l l e e t i v e approach has sevc ra l advantagot :

a. App l i ca t i on o f the smal l hydropower systems development method01 ogy. b. Avoidance o f unnecessary d u p l i c a t i o n o f e f f o r t s . c. A l a r g e number o f combinations o f head and f l ow v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n the systems f o r eva lua t i on . This

maximized t h e use o f in-house computer system development programs. d. A s i n g l e DOE contac t f o r assessing the f e a s i b i l i t y o f a s i g n i f i c a n t sample o f system s i t e s w i t h i n

one area. e. The s p e c i a l i z e d smal l hydropower systems knowledge and expe r t i se w i t h i n t he J o i n t D i s t r i c t assess-

ment team, m u l t i p l y i n g t h e a n a l y t i c power o f t h e study. f. Opening t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t he J o i n t D i s t r i c t s t o become a s i n g l e smal l hydropower system developer,

f i n a n c i n g , e n t i t y , developer o f t h e o v e r a l l p r o j e c t , power purchaser, and ope ra t i ng and maintenance e n t i t y .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e J o i n t D i s t r i c t s s tudy are presented i n the F ina l Assessment Report t o DOE. The r e p o r t i s d i v i d e d i n t o two volumes. Volume One conta ins a p r o j e c t overview meant t o be access ib le t o lay-people and

171

pro fess iona l s a l i k e , and the d e t a i l e d t echn i ca l analyses o f t h e assessment. Volume Two conta ins Phases A, B , and C which are d e t a i l e d s i t e repo r t s .

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECO!lMENDATIOHS

A f t e r s i x months o f system development assessment study, FES o f fe red t h e f o l l ow ing conclusions and recommendations:

Conclusions;

a. I n s t a l l a t i o n o f smal l hydropower system f a c i l i t i e s i s economical ly and t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e a t twe lve o f t h e nineteen i d e n t i f i e d s i t e s w i t h i n t he j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t he J o i n t D i s t r i c t s .

b. The t o t a l i n s t a l l e d capac i ty o f t he Tur lock, Merced and South San Joaquin systems i s 19,560 kW. c. Development o f t he s i t e s w i t h i n each o f t h e t h ree smal l hydropower systems would produce over 68.5

m i l l i o n k i l owa t thou rs pe r year . d. This e l e c t r i c a l power i s enough t o rep lace 118,616 b a r r e l s o f o i l p e r year. e. Development o f t he t h r e e systems would make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o meet ing the economic

development needs o f t h e J o i n t D i s t r i c t s ' s e r v i c e areas. f. No s i g n i f i c a n t adverse environmental e f f e c t s are foreseen i n cons t ruc t i on and ope ra t i on o f t h e

systems assessed d u r i n g t h e study.

Hecommendations ;

! a. That t h e D i s t r i c t s proceed t o develop t h e s i t e s w i t h i n t he th ree systems judged t o be economical ly f e a s i b l e du r i ng t h e study.

b. That t h e t h ree system, twe lve s i t e smal l hydropower development program o f the J o i n t D i s t r i c t s be imp1 emented.

c. That t h e D i s t r i c t s leave open the p o s s i b i l i t y o f developing o the r s i t e s shou ld t echno log i ca l o r f i n a n c i a l developments make them feas ib le .

4. HYDROPOWER CAPACITY

Table I i s a breakdown by s i t e and by D i s t r i c t o f t h e t o t a l smal l hydropower system capac i ty , t h e e s t i - mated annual energy, o i l savings, and t h e approximate cos ts t o develop the i d e n t i f i e d s i t e s . '

J o i n t 3 i s t r i c t s Small Hydropower Capaci ty

S i t e I n s t a l l e d Annual O i l Savings Development Capaci ty (Itl.1) Energy (kwh) ( b b l s l y e a r ) Cost ( 8 )

TI D System Drop One 3,760 12,200,000 21,107 3,560,493 Drop Two 660 2,073,400 3,587 1,048,247 Drop S i x 920 2,902,000 5,020 1,313,712 Drop Seven 700 2,101,400 3,635 1,089,088 Drop Nine 1,070 4,700,000 8,131 1,786,400

Kerced System Main Canal 2,800 9,169,000 15,863 3,660,690 Canal Creek 940 3,262,000 5,643 1,274,232 F a i r f i e l d 970 2,809,000 4,860 1,183,702 Escaladian 270 822,000 1 ,422 459,967

SSJID System Woodward 2,300 6,906,000 11,948 2,537,193 Frankenhei mer 4,700 16,962,000 29,346 6,006,110 Goodwin Dam 9 70 4,655,000 8,054 1,507,262

To ta l s 19,560 68,561 ,800 118,616 25,427,096

5. JOINT DISTRICTS SERVICE AREeA SOCI 0-ENVI RONMENTAL FACTORS

The N o r t h e r n San Joaqu in V a l l e y i n C e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a i s c o n s i d e r e d one o f t h e n a t i o n ' s p r i m e "bread- baske t " a reas . The 494,631 ac res covered by t h e J o i n t D i s t r i c t s r e a c h f rom Stock ton , i n c e n t r a l i n l a n d C a l i - %

f o r n i a , t o a p o i n t some s i x t y m i l e s s o u t h t h r o u g h t h e c e n t e r o f t h e 200-mi le l o n g v a l l e y . There a r e a p p r o x i - m a t e l y 250,000 p e o p l e 1 i v i n g w i t h i n t h e boundar ies o f t h e combined d i s t r i c t s w h i c h f a l l s w i t h i n t h r e e c o u n t i e s .

I

6. POWER MARKETING ANALYSIS

O f t h e t h r e e c o o p e r a t i v e agencies, o n l y T u r l o c k I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t d i s t r i b u t e s e l e c t r i c a l energy. I n t h e p a s t , T I D has used f a r more e l e c t r i c a l energy t h a n i t has been capab le o f g e n e r a t i n g even d u r i n g t h o s e y e a r s when t h e r e have been heavy o r r e c o r d r a i n f a l l s . The a rea i s c l a s s i f i e d as a "demand" a rea w i t h a sub- s t a n t i a l , b u t n o t excess ive , peak- load ing . A1 1 o f t h e energy genera ted a t v a r i o u s s i t e s p roposed can be l o c a l l y used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. F i v e o f t h e t w e l v e s i t e s a r e w i t h i n T ID 's e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e a reas and t h e genera ted e l e c t r i c i t y a t t h e s e s i t e s can be f e d d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e T ID power g r i d .

T I E ' S genera ted power w i l l be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o i t s own system, b u t ) lerced and South San Joaquin I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s have t h c f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s f o r t h e most e c o n o m i c a l l y advantageous s a l e o f t h e i r genera ted power: o f f s e t t i n g power p r e s e n t l y purchased f r o m P a c i f i c Gas and E l e c t r i c Company (PG&E); w h e e l i n g t h e power o v e r PG&E l i n e s f o r s a l e t o o t h e r buyers; d i r e c t s a l e t o PG&E.

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic v i a b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g t h e i d e n t i f i e d s i t e s depends on t h e te rms and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f i n a n c i n g . FES has a n a l y z e d two m a j o r t ypes o f f i n a n c i n g , i .e., m u n i c i p a l tax-exempt ve rsus i n v e s t o r - o w n e d u t i l i t y f i n a n c i n g .

M u n i c i p a l tax-exempt f i n a n c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y r a i s e s t h e b e n e f i t - t o - c o s t r a t i o o f s i t e development due t o l o w e r i n t e r e s t r a t e s , l o n g e r terms and t a x exempt ions f o r p u b l i c agenc ies . M u n i c i p a l f i n a n c i n ~ i n d i c a t e s a pay-back f o r each o f t h e t h r e e systems as seven y e a r s f o r t h e T u r l o c k and Merced systems and s i x and o n e - h a l f y e a r s f o r t h e Sou th San Joaqu in system.

8. DEVELCPMENT PLANS AND SCHEDULES

As a r e s u l t o f t h e e f f o r t s o f t h e s tudy , an o v e r a l l J o i n t C i s t r i c t s Hydropower Development P l a n was p r e - pared. The Development P l a n i n c l u d e s f o u r a d d i t i o n a l s i t e s t h a t were n o t p a r t o f t h e DOE funded e f f o r t . The o v e r a l l P lan i n c l u d e s t w e l v e s i t e s ; f i v e i n t h e , T u r l o c k system; f o u r i n t h e Merced system; and t h r e e i n t h e Sou th San Joaquin system. The o n - l i n e power development s c h e d u l e i s based on e s t i m t e d equipment and m a t e r i a l s d e l i v e r y schedu les ; wea ther c o n t i n g e n c i e s ; i r r i g a t i o n w a t e r o p e r a t i o n s and d r y (no w a t e r d e l i v e r y ) seasons. I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t a l l o f t h e s e l e c t e d s i t e s c o u l d be eng ineered , c o n s t r u c t e d , equipment i n s t a l l e d and on- l i n e by March 1982, Even w i t h c o n t i n g e n c i e s accoun ted f o r , a l l s i t e s c o u l d be o p e r a t i o n a l n o t l a t e r t h a n March 1983.

9. UNIQUE EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION SELECTION

The t u r b i n e - g e n e r a t o r s chosen f o r t w o o f t h e s i t e s a r e two b u l b - t u r b i n e u n i t s each mounted on a v e r t i c a l ga te . F i g u r e 1 shows t h i s arrangement , wh ich wou ld a l l o w t h e t u r b i n e - g e n e r a t o r t o be removed f r o m t h e cana l and r e p a i r e d o r r e p l a c e d w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i o n o f i rr i- g a t i o n w a t e r d e l i v e r y . The ga tes may be r a i s e d and l o w e r e d b y means o f winches o r c o u n t e r - w e i g h t . A by-pass around t h e t u r b i n e i n s t a l l a - t i o n i s a l s o p r o v i d e d t o a l l o w f o r t u r b i n e shut-down c o n d i t i o n s and f o r excesss demand c o n d i t i o n s .

The o u t e r c a s i n g o f t h e b u l b t u r b i n e i s f i x e d w i t h t h e g a t e a l o n g w i t h f o u r s t a y vanes used t o s u p p o r t t h e t u r b i n e and d i r e c t t h e f l o w . The g e n e r a t o r i s c o m p l e t e l y submerged and c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e i n n e r c a s i n g . Th is g e n e r a t o r i s o f t h e synchronous t y p e . A l l a u x i - l i a r y equipment such as s y n c h r o n i z e r , o i l p r e s s u r e s u p p l y system, l u b r i c a t i n g o i l system, f e e d w a t e r and d r a i n a g e system, e t c . a r e b u l l t i n t h e g a t e and/or t h e b u l b un i t . A l l o t h e r equipment , i .e., s w i t c h g c a r , c o n t r o l s , c t c . wou ld bc i n s t a l l e d i n t h c powcr p l a n t s t r u c t u r e above t h e cana l as shown.

GATE BULB IN

rROPLLLER P V W U L I

. .- -~~

F u j i Gate-Type B u l b T u r b i n e

F i g u r e 1

DAN RIVER

Danv i l l e , V i r g i n i a

Dan R i v e r Incorpora ted & Acres American Incorpora ted


1. INTRODUCTION

Dan R ive r Incorporated, an i n d u s t r i a l co rpo ra t i on w i t h t e x t i l e manufac tur ing f a c i l i t i e s a t Danv i l l e , V i r g i n i a , owns and operates a low-head h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t a t i t s Schoo l f i e l d Dam on t h e 'Dan R ive r i n t he C i t y o f D a n v i l l e , V i r g i n i a . I n add i t i on , Dan R ive r Inc. owns t h e p rope r t y and water r i g h t s f o r two dams on t h e Dan R i v e r downstream f rom the S c h o o l f i e l d Dam. The power genera t ing f a c i l i t i e s a t t h e two downstream s i t e s (Union S t r e e t and Main S t r e e t ) were abandoned a number o f years ago, b u t t h e dam s t r u c t u r e s remain i n operab le cond i t i on .

The S c h o o l f i e l d p l a n t went i n t o ope ra t i on i n 1904 and t h e genera t ing equipment i s i n need o f ex tens ive r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o r complete replacement. As mentioned above, t h e genera t ing f a c i l i t i e s a t t h e Union S t r e e t and Main S t r e e t Dams were removed and abandoned severa l years ago. Dan R ive r Inc. , i n i t s c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r - e s t i n deve lop ing e l e c t r i c a l power, undertook a f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy f o r two bas ic h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e s .

( i ) Redevelopment o f t he 20 f e e t o f head us ing t h e e x i s t i n g Union S t r e e t Dam and i n t a k e channel on t h e r i g h t bank; and

( i i ) R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and/or replacement o f t h e h y d r a u l i c t u rb ine -gene ra to r u n i t s a t t he Schoo l f i e l d Dam.

The School f i e l d s i t e develops 28 f e e t o f head w i t h t h e use o f 3 f o o t h i g h f lashboards. The e x i s t i n g S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e has a t o t a l i n s t a l l e d capac i t y o f about 6200 kW i n 9 u n i t s u t i l i z i n g a p l a n t f l o w i n t h e o rde r o f 4000 c f s . With a l l u n i t s i n ope ra t i on t h e r e i s a p o t e n t i a l average annual energy p roduc t i on of about 25 m i l l i o n kW h r f rom the s i t e . Records f rom the 15 yea r pe r i od between 1962 and ' 1976 i n d i c a t e t h e average annual energy p roduc t i on f rom the S c h o o l f i e l d p l a n t has been o n l y about 11 m i l l i o n kWhr; t he r e l i a - b i l i t y f a c t o r o f t h e s t a t i o n , there fore , i s very low, f rom 40% t o 50%. The e x i s t i n g p l a n t a t School f i e l d generates power a t 25 Her tz w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f i t s u n i t s . U n i t s No. 8 and No. 9, which a r e r a t e d a t a t o t a l o f 950 kW, generate power a t 60 Her tz . The power f rom t h e S c h o o l f i e l d p l a n t i s used t o t a l l y i n t h e t e x t i l e m i l l s owned by Dan R ive r Inc . The demand f o r 25 Her tz power i s be ing q radua l l y phased o u t by rep lace- ment of e x i s t i n g e l e c t r i c a l equipment ope ra t i ng on t h a t frequency.

2. ALTERNATIVES

Several a1 t e r n a t i v e schemes were i d e n t i f i e d and i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r both s i t e s . P re l im ina ry drawings were prepared f o r each scheme i n v o l v i n g new equipment and s t ruc tu res . These drawings were used f o r q u a n t i t y t a k e - o f f measurements; t h i s together w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n and p r i c e s f rom equipment supp l i e r s formed t h e bas i s o f t h e c a p i t a l c o s t est imates. The a n t i c i p a t e d annual average revenue was c a l c u l a t e d from the expected annual average energy p roduc t i on obta ined f rom t h e average f l o w d u r a t i o n curve f o r t he Dan River . Energy p roduc t i on was dera ted by a r e l i a b i l i t y f a c t o r i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s . The va lue of replacement energy f o r revenue ca lcu- l a t i o n s was based on Dan R ive r I nco rpo ra ted ' s c u r r e n t b i l l i n g s i n January 1979 o f 25 m i l l s per kWhr. Th i s r a t e was esca la ted and l e v e l i z e d f o r 10-year and 40-year per iods and found t o be 33 and 54 m i l l s pe r kWhr r e s p e c t i v e l y . From t h e c a p i t a l cos ts , annual cos t s were es tab l ished. A Benef i t /Cost r a t i o was de r i ved from t h e annual cos ts and annual b e n e f i t s o r revenue. The Benef i t /Cost r a t i o s f o r t he a l t e r n a t i v e s were compared and a most favorable a l t e r n a t i v e was es tab l ished.

The f o l l o w i n g i s a t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e a1 t e r n a t i v e schemes i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study:

'S - I - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . R e h a b i l i t a t e t h e n i n e e x i s t i n g u n i t s r e t a i n i n g t h e 25 Her t z and 60 Her tz genera t ion mix.

S-IA - School f i e l d s i t e . R e h a b i l i t a t e t h e n i n e e x i s t i n g u n i t s conve r t i ng a1 1 genera t ion t o 60 Her tz .

S - I1 - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . R e h a b i l i t a t e seven e x i s t i n g u n i t s r e t a i n i n g t h e 25 Her tz and 60 Her t z genera t ion mix.

S- I IA - School f i e l d s i t e . R e h a b i l i t a t e seven e x i s t i n g u n i t s conve r t i ng a l l genera t ion t o 60 Her tz .

S-I11 - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . I n s t a l l 2 new h o r i z o n t a l tube u n i t s and r e h a b i l i t a t e u n i t s No. 8 and No. 9.

S - I I I A - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . I n s t a l l 3 new h o r i z o n t a l tube u n i t s and r e h a b i l i t a t e u n i t s No. 8 and No. 9.

S-IV - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . I n s t a l l 2 new v e r t i c a l u n i t s and r e h a b i l i t a t e u n i t s No. 8 and No. 9.

S-IVW - S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e . I n s t a l l 3 new v e r t i c a l u n i t s and r e h a b i l i t a t e u n i t s No. 8 and No. 9.

UL-I - Union S t r e e t s i t e . Const ruc t new powerhouse w i t h 2 new h o r i z o n t a l tube u n i t s included.

UL-I1 - Union S t r e e t s i t e . Const ruc t new powerhouse w i t h 2 new h o r i z o n t a l tube " n i t s i nc luded f u r t h e r downstream o f a l t e r n a t e UL-I.

The t o t a l es t imated c a p i t a l c o s t o f the schemes i s prov ided i n Table 1 .

3. RECOMMENDED SCHEME

S c h o o l f i e l d schemes S-I and S- I1 a re based on r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g o l d equipment which, a t best , would have an extended l i f e o f 10 years. These two schemes would cont inue t o generate power a t 25 Her tz f o r which t h e demand i s be ing phased out ; accord ing ly , these schemes a r e i n c o n s i s t a n t w i t h f u t u r e devand and p l a n t planning. A l t e rna tes S-I11 and S-IV have a s l i g h t advantage over a l t e r n a t e s S-IA and S - I IA when comparing b e n e f i t c o s t r a t i o s f o r app rop r i a te l i v e s . A l t e rna tes S-IA and S - I IA have been assigned l i f e o f 10 years w h i l e a l t e r n a t e s S-I11 and S-IV have been assigned a l i f e o f 40 years . I t was a l s o concluded t h a t any sub- s t a n t i a l c a p i t a l investment would bes t be made i n new, r a t h e r than r e h a b i l i t a t e d equipment. Schemes S-I11 and S-IV have the advantage over S - I I I A and S-IVA i n t h a t t h e p l a n t capac i t y i s developed t o an optimum economic degree.

The redevelopment o f t h e Union S t r e e t s i t e i s n o t recommended because o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o s t and the low b e n e f i t / c o s t r a t i o .

The two new u n i t s a t S c h o o l f i e l d under Schemes I 1 1 and I V w i l l opera te as base u n i t s whereas the r e h a b i l i t a t e d U n i t s 8 and 9 w i l l be used f o r standby s e r v i c e and t o supply peaking power du r i ng h i g h f l o w per iods . A l l u n i t s w i l l have f u l l automat ic l o c a l c o n t r o l s and remote superv isory c o n t r o l s can be added as an opt ion . The u n i t s w i l l produce power a t a f requency o f 60 Her tz . The new u n i t s w i l l i n c l u d e tu rb ines , e i t h e r v e r t i c a l p r o p e l l e r type o r h o r i z o n t a l tube type, governors, 1500 kW r a t e d synchronous genera tors and r o t a t i n g brush less e x c i t e r s . The h o r i z o n t a l u n i t s wi 11 be equipped w i t h ad jus tab le blade runners, c o n t r o l l e d by h y d r a u l i c governors. They w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e speed increasers and i n t a k e b u t t e r f l y valves. I n t h e v e r t i c a l arrangement, ad jus tab le w i cke t gates and new head gates w i t h ope ra t i ng h o i s t s w i l l be i n s t a l l e d r a t h e r than b u t t e r f 1 y valves.

The recommended scheme f o r development o f t he S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e w i l l have a capac i t y f ac to r of 68%. The p o t e n t i a l average energy p roduc t i on o f 21 m i l l i o n kW/hr i s an increase o f approx imate ly 14 m i l l i o n kWhr annua l ly over t he l a s t two years average product ion .

A1 thouqh the redevelopment o f t h e School f i e l d Dam has been shown t o be t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e , i t i s considered marginal economical ly. It must be recognized t h a t Dan R ive r I nc . i s a t e x t i l e manufactur ing concern i n p r i v a t e i ndus t r y . P r i v a t e manufactur ing companies eva luate c a p i t a l ex e n d i t u r e p r o j e c t s i n a manner d i f f e r e n t than what has been presented. The r a t e of r e t u r n on investment (RoIP, which has been c a r r i e d o u t f o r t h e S c h o o l f i e l d scheme S-I11 and S-IV, i s t h e method which Dan R ive r I nc . and o t h e r s i m i l a r i n d u s t r i e s eva luate t h e i r p ro jec t s .

Dan R i v e r Inc. uses a discounted cash f l o w method f o r computing the ROI. The ROI assigned a 12 year l i f e f o r t h e p ro jec t , 2 years cons t ruc t i on , and 10 years revenue income. The recommended a l t e r n a t i v e has an ROI o f 6.8% p re - tax and 3.4% a f t e r tax . These f i g u r e s have d iscounted 7 m i l l i o n kWhr o f annual a n t i c i p a t e d product ion f rom 21 m i l l i o n kWhr. The 7 m i l l i o n kWhr i s t h e l a s t two years average p roduc t i on o f t he p l a n t as i t i s . The Benef i t /Cost r a t i o s presented i n Table 1 have n o t i nc luded the 7 m i l l i o n kWhr d iscount . If the 7 m i l l i o n kWhr i s discounted f rom t h e expected average energy p roduc t i on f o r Scheme S-I11 and S-IV t h e Bene f i t ICos t r a t i o s f o r t h e present , 10 year, and 40 yea r l i v e s a r e 0.3, 0.4, and 0.7 respec t i ve l y . From

t h e foregoing t h e p r o j e c t i s mot considered f e a s i b l e - t o DaniRiver -1nc.

There a r e a number o f ways i n which t h e c o s t o f redevelopment o f a s i t e such as t he S c h o o l f i e l d s i t e m igh t be made a t t r a c t i v e t o a p r i v a t e concern. These are l i s t e d as f o l l ows :

( i ) S ign i f . i can tcons t ruc t i on y ran ts

. ( i i ) Incre-ased investment t a x c r e d i t which i s p r e s e n t l y a t lo%, whereas heat recovery and energy sav ing devices have a c r e d i t o f 20%.

( i i i ) Low i n t e r e s t loans such as these a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e new Energy Act.

No adverse environmental impacts a r e a n t i c i p a t e d except du r i ng cons t ruc t i on . However, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t e d impacts a re minor and w i l l o n l y be o f a temporary na tu re and s h o r t l i v e d . Perhaps the most s i g n i f i - can t p o s i t i v e impact i s t h e l ong term b e n e f i t s de r i ved f rom increased power p roduc t i on us ing a non-dep le t ive enerpv source.

Drawings o f t h e reconmended schemes and photographs o f t h e s i t e a r e a l s o a t tached f o r re ference.

TABLE 1

DAN RIVER INCORPOR4TED ALTERNATIVES - C~ITAL COSTS & EVALUATION

ALTERNATE NO. UNITS

PLANT CAPACITY (KW) (Generator Name Plate)

S-I S- IA S-I1 S-IIA S-I11 S- I I IA S-IV S-IVA UL-I UL-I1 9 9 7 7 2 New & 3 New & 2 New & 3 New & 2 2

8 & 9 8 8 9 8 1 9 8 & 9 6220 6550 4950 4850 3950 5450 3950 5450 2400 3000

Plant Acct. Descr ip t ion - 331 Structures & Improvements 150 150 150 150 905 1,070 1,073 1,370 332 Reservoirs, Dams, &

Waterways 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 333 Turbines & Generators 3,145 1,642 2,894 1,386 1,849 2,646 1,709 2,459 334 Accessory E l e c t r i c a l

Equipment --- 777 --- 637 317 347 427 502 335 Misc. Power Plant

Equi p ~ e n t 95 130 95 130 140 140 150 150 353 S ta t ion Equipment --- 92 --- 82 75 85 7 5 85

TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4,464 3,692 4,140 3,165 4,397 5,683 4,603 6,094 (Includes Contingencies

Engr. & Admin. & I n t e r e s t During Construction)

COST PER 1NSTC.LLED kW 720 56.5 840 655 1,115 1,040 1,170 1,120 ANNUAL ENEIGY FOR REVENUE 22.8 23.1 21.3 21.3 20.9 23.6 20.9 23.6 (kWhr x 10 )

BENEFITICOST EAT10 Present (@ .025 $/kw) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 10 years (8 .033 $/kw) 0.7 0.9 0.7 1 .O 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 40 years (@ .054 $/kw) --- --- --- --- 1.1 1 .O 1.1 0.9

NOTE: A l l Capital Costs presented are i n Thousands ($1,000) -

DAN 3IVER HYDROELECTRIC IEVELOPMENT

-1

22 UNION STREET DAM - VIEW DF DAM ,NiJC., STRED DAM - VIEW OF I WTAKE TO CANAL

unluN STREEI DAM - LEFT ABUTMEN UNION STREET DAM - RIGHT ABUTMENT

DAN RIVER HYDRQEECTRI C DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOLFIELD DAM - VIEW OF I l MWBI'TIM SCHWLFI ED DM - VIEW 06: DAM DEWATERED

SeH~LFEELD MPl - INTAKE STRUCTURE

DhN RIVER H Y l ROELECTRI C DEVELOPMENT

,C! %j L A

-I

2 UN ION STREET DAM - INTAKE CANAL UNION STREET DAM - INTAKE CANAL DEHATERED

UNION STREET DAN - V I W OF POWERBQUSE LOCATIOfl UNION STREET DAM - VIEW OF TAILRACE LOCATION

DAN W IVER LECTRd IC EYElJPMT

Cr, a SCHOOLFIELD DM - MODIFIED .6oKRW SCHOOCFIELD MP1 - POWERHOUSE CRANE

J a

SCHOOLFIEUI DAM - TURBINE SCHOOLFIEUI DAM - TURBINE

DAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

at,ndOLFIEUI DAM - GENERATOR ROON SCHOOLFIEUI DAM - CONTROL PANEL

SCHOOLFIELD DAM - ISOLATING SWITCHES SCHOOLFIEUI DAM - SW ITCHYARD


SCHOOLF FIELD DAM - POWERHOUSE D/S VIEW BAYS 1, 2 8 3 SCHOOLFIEUI DAM - POWERHOUSE DOWNSTREAM VIEW

SCHOOLFIELD DAM - POWERHOUSE DRAFT TUBE CW(E SCHOOL A L L D DAM - POHERHOUSE DMFT TUBE ROOF

UNiON STREET DAM


' DANVILLE, VIRGINIA LOCATION MAP

r

--0

ADDITIONAL POWER GENERATION AT UPRIVER DAM ON THE SPOICANE RIVER

Spokane, Washington

C i t y o f Spokane

PSD4 Proposal Contrqct No. EW-78-F-07-1801

I. INTRODUCTION

National Energy Act, H.R. 8444, Section 586, emphasized the need f o r r e v i v a l o f the o ldes t and o f t e n neglected energy resources -- the hydroelect r ic power o f small r i v e r s and streams. R i g h t l y Department o f Energy (DOE) announced, as a f i r s t step, a grant scheme f o r f e a s i b i l i t y study f o r low head hydro-generation. I n the meantime, the C i t y o f Spokane was conducting pre l iminary s tud ies f o r add i t i ona l power generation a t Upriver Dam on the Spokane River. The C i t y o f Spokane was successful i n g e t t i n g the DOE grant and Tudor Engineering Company, Seat t le , was subcontracted by the C i t y t o conduct a de ta i led analysis.

The Water D i v i s i o n o f the C i t y o f Spokane maintains and operates the e x i s t i n g hydroelect r ic p l a n t a t the Upr iver Dam s i t e on the Spokane River. The p l a n t has three adjustable blade, v e r t i c a l Kaplan turbines; each has a capacity o f 1800 hp a t a design head o f 33 ft, w i t h a v a r i a t i o n i n the range 27-33 ft. Each tu rb ine i s coupled d i r e c t l y t o a synchronous a l t e r n a t o r ra ted a t 1300 kid, 2300 Volts, 60 Hz, 0.8 p f . The dam i s a concrete g ~ a v i t y structure, cffnstructed Cn 1937, rep lac ing a t imber-cr ib dam. The t u r - bines were i n s t a l l e d i n 1938. Pre l iminary studies 9ndicated a s l i g h t l oss i n e f f i c i e n c y o f generation and thus, the f e a s i b i l i t y assessment was contemplated t o address :

(I) Uprating the e x i s t i n g system and improving e f f ciency. ( f i ) I n s t a l 1 Tng add i t i ona l generation.

11. SITE AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

The Upriver Dam complex i s located i n the Northeast quar ter o f Section 11, Town- sh ip 25, North Range 43 East. A t t h i s s i t e , the Spokane River f lows i n a genera l ly South-Westerly d i rec t ion . There i s no t much storage capacity behind the dam and the s i t e Ps character ized as a run-of-the-r iver type, Although the pr imary purpose o f the dam i s t o give the generation head, the water, due t o e leva t ion d i f fe rence along the r i v e r , backs up i v i n g a s t o r i n g capacity o f about 1.8 m i l l i o n cubic meters (1500 acre ft approximatelyq. A d ive rs ion canal about 600 m. i n length c o m n c e s approximately 35 m. upstream from the dam and runs t o the headworks o f the e x i s t i n g powerhouse about 500 m. downstream. A v isua l inspect ion o f the dam, as a phase I inves t iga t ion , i n d i - cated i t t o be i n sound condi t ion.

The Spokane River has i t s o r i g i n a t the Coeur dlAlene Lake and i s a t r i b u t a r y o f the Columbia. The Washington Water Power Company, a p r i v a t e u t i l i t y , has f i v e hydro- e l e c t r i c p lants along the r i v e r and has the r l g h t t o contro l the lake e levat ion. DependSng on t h e i r requirement t h e f l ow i n the r i v e r i s a lso contro l led. On an average, dur ing w in te r months when t h e i r power demand i s the highest, around 175 cubic meters per second (c.m.s.1 i s allowed. ThPs flow i s the maximum f low t h a t can be u s e f u l l y u t i l i z e d i n the hydroe lec t r i c p lants owned by them. I n s u n e r months, f lows are minimum and draw-down from the Lake i s a lso l i m i t e d due t o recreat ional purposes. During t h i s per iod the flow a t Upr iver dam i s augmented up t o 15 c.m.s. due t o the f low from the underground aqui fer .

The f low-durat ion curve, shown i n Figure 1 , indicates how much percentage o f t ime a p a r t i c u l a r f l ow o r excess thereof w i l l be maintained. This curve has been d r i ved by

Paper prepared by M.R. Nandagopal , P,E., Ph,D., Engineer, C i t y of Spokane, and scheduled f o r presentat ion a t the "Small Hydropower PRDA-1706 Contractor 's Symposium" sponsored by Department o f Energy

cons ide r i ng t h e 40 years of f l o w . The f low t h a t i s main ta ined f o r a l e a s t 50% o f t ime i s considered t h e average f low and f o r t he Up r i ve r Dam s i t e , i t i s about 100 c.m.s. Present ly , t h e e x i s t i n g generators use up t o about 70 c.m.s. Surplus f l o w s p i l l e d through the gates f l oods the t a i l - r a c e and thus the re i s cons iderab le v a r i a t i o n i n t h e head f rom about 5 m (under heavy f l ows ) t o 11 m (under low f l ows ) .

111. UPRATING EXISTING FACILITIES

The e x i s t i n g p l a n t t o t a l name-plate capac i t y i s 3900 kW. On an average, i n a year, t he p l a n t produces 34 m i l l i o n kwh. The f o r t y - y e a r o l d p l a n t i s we l l main ta ined and produces t h i s energy a t an ope ra t i ng c o s t o f 3 mi l ls /kWh. Up ra t i ng t h i s f a c i l i t y by r e p l a c i n g t u r b i n e blades and rewind ing t h e generators i s a h i g h l y economical p ro- p o s i t i o n . It w i l l increase the l i f e and e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e power p l a n t . Cons ider ing the c o s t i nvo l ved i n t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t a x - f r e e revenue bond loan, the energy cos t w i l l be 6 mi l ls /kWh.

I V . ADDITIONAL POWER POTENTIAL

F e a s i b i l i t y assessment o f any a d d i t i o n a l power genera t ion must cons ider t h e r e g i o n i n which the s i t e i s located, r e t u r n f o r investments towards a d d i t i o n a l power genera t ion , t he economical a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r t he e x t r a power needed f o r f u t u r e expansions. Up r i ve r Dam i s l oca ted i n a reg iona l area where h y d r o e l e c t r i c power c o n s t i t u t e s a l a r g e percentage. Fu r the r a l l t h e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s i n t h e P a c i f i c Northwest a r e under a coo rd ina t i on agreement which d i v i des the t o t a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy i n t o C r i t i c a l pe r i od energy and secondary energy. The C r i t i c a l p e r i o d energy o f a system i s t h e average energy which can be produced under a coord inated ope ra t i on du r i ng t h a t mult i -month p e r i o d determined f o r t he coord inated system under adverse stream f l ows o f h i s t o r i c a l record . The C r i t i c a l pe r i od f o r t he Spokane R ive r i s a twe lve month pe r i od o f low f l o w i n t he year 1932-1933. The energy t h a t cou ld be generated i n t h i s pe r i od i s t he C r i t i c a l energy. Due t o t he r u n - o f - t h e - r i v e r type o f ope ra t i on a t t he Up r i ve r Dam and a l s o due t o the l i m i t e d capac i t y o f a l l t h e o t h e r p l a n t s downstream, owned by t h e Washington Water Power Company, t he a d d i t i o n a l generators w i l l have no peaking c a p a b i l i t y . The secondary energy i s the surp lus energy produced i n an average year compared t o t h a t i n t he c r i t i c a l year . The r a t e o f r e t u r n expected f o r t he a d d i t i o n a l power generated, as accepted by t he reg iona l u t i l i t i e s , i s 25 mi l ls /kWh f o r C r i t i c a l pe r i od energy and 10 mi l ls /kWh f o r secondary energy.

Cost - b e n e f i t ana1ysi.s i s done cons ide r i ng two scenar ios :

( i ) Add i t i ona l power genera t ion w i t h o u t u p r a t i n g t he e x i s t i n g generators

( i i ) Add i t i ona l power genera t ion i n c l u d i n g u p r a t i n g t h e e x i s t i n g genera tors .

Table 1 and Table 2 summarize t he computer r e s u l t s and c o s t - b e n e f i t c a l c u l a t i o n s . From Table 1, if u p r a t i n g t he e x i s t i n g generators i s n o t considered, 6 MW a d d i t i o n a l capac i t y g ives t he maximum b e n e f i t t o c o s t r a t i o . A lso i t can be noted t h a t t h e change i n t h e r a t i o i s n o t very s l ' gn i f i can t up t o 9 MW capac i t y . I f the e x i s t i n g t u r b i n e generators a r e r e - vamped and uprated, Table 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t he re i s no economical ly f e a s i b l e s i z e . But i f the l oan a v a i l a b l e c a r r i e s l e s s i n t e r e s t o r i f some federal g ran t money i s a v a i l a b l e , a d d i t i o n a l capac i t y around 6 MW t o 9 MW can be j u s t i f i e d . Flow cond i t i ons a r e such t h a t a 9 MW a d d i t i o n a l capac i t y may produce up t o 55 m i l l i o n kwh annua l ly , which i s equ i va len t t o n e a r l y 100,000 b a r r e l s of imported o i l sav ing the n a t i o n n e a r l y $1.5 m i l l i o n . The computer r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e maximum u t i l i z a t i o n o f t he f l o w w i t h u n i t s i zes o f 3 MW t o 4 MW.

V. CONSTRAINTS AND ALTERNATIVES

The Upr i ve r h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t was i n s t a l l e d i n 1938 w i t h t h e pr imary purpose o f p r o v i d i n g power f o r pumping wel l -water f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t he C i t y . The demand f o r water i s t h e heav ies t d u r i n g summer months and the f l o w i n t he r i v e r i s t h e l e a s t , l i m i t i n g t he genera t ion . Dur ing w i n t e r and e a r l y sp r i ng , t he r i v e r has good f l o w and the genera t ion keeps up a t t h e maximum. But t h e demand f o r water i s t he l e a s t .

The Washington Water Power Company Fs an i n v e s t o r owned p r i v a t e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y i n Spokane. I t s e l e c t r i c power demands peak i n w i n t e r and a r e lowest i n summer. Th is demand pa t te rn , which i s j u s t oppos i te t o t h a t o f t h e water u t i l i t y , c rea ted a s i t u a t i o n f o r a mu tua l l y bene f i c i a l power exchange c o n t r a c t . Accord ing ly , t h e C i t y d e l i v e r s a1 1

t he surp lus power t o t he u t i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n g r i d and a c r e d i t , earned a t t he agreed r a t e o f exchange, i s u t i l i z e d du r i ng peak demands o f . t h e C i t y water d i s t r i b u t i o n . Th is c o n t r a c t which i s good u n t i l 1986 a l s o s t i pu la te ; a r a t e o f 8.55 mi l ls /kWh f o r any excess power rece ived. The company o f f i c i a l s f e e l t h a t t he re i s no problerr~ t o cont ' i r~ue the agreement, i f n o t improve the r a t e f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t he C i t y .

A t p resent the power exchange c o n t r a c t covers o n l y t he energy u t i l i z e d i n water pumping s t a t i o n s and on an average the exchange i s working o u t even. Up ra t i ng t he

'

p resent p l a n t and i nc reas ing the e f f i c i e n c y c reates enough e x t r a energy f o r a l l t he p r o j e c t e d power needs f o r pumpimg water., Th is a l t e r n a t i v e r e s u l t s i n an increase i n

, t he c o s t o f genera t ion f rom 3 m i l ls/kWh ( p r e s e n t l y ) t o 6 mills/kWh, b u t i s s t i l l below the exchange r a t e . Any.add i t iona1 power genera t ion by p u t t i n g new tu rb ines w i l l increase the c o s t o f genera t ion t o n e a r l y 15 mi l ls /kWh a'nd i s economical ly j u s t i f i e d o n l y i f 7% bond money i s a v a i l a b l e . Unless t he re i s ' a d i r e need f o r t he ex t ra .power , which i s cons iderab le i f a 6 MW t o 9 MW genera t ion c a p a c i t y , i s planned, i t i s very hard t o j u s t i f y f o r t h e C i t y t o go i n t o debt. Thus any a d d i t i o n a l genera t ion by p u t l ' i r ~ g rlew tu rb ines cou ld o n l y be j u s t i f i e d i f encouraged by some fede ra l g ran t and the C i t y do ing i t s share t o h e l p t he n a t i o n conserve the energy now s p i l l e d over t he dam. A l l t he a d d i t i o n a l energy produced w i l l be used f o r augmenting p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s through s u i t a b l y mod i f i ed power exchange c o n t r a c t . The C i t y o f Spokane Sewage Treatment f a c i l i t i e s use up t o 25 m i l l i o n kwh annua l l y a t a c o s t o f n e a r l y $250,000. Some o the r avenues f o r t h e generated power cou ld be f o r p a r t o f pa rk ing l o t l i g h t i n g , C i t y owned b u i l d i n g hea t i ng and l i g h t i n g , e t c .

V I . CONCLUSION

The f e a s i b i l i t y assessment f o r u p r a t i n g t h e e x i s t i n g p l a n t and i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l t u rb ines a t Up r i ve r Dam s i t e , owned and operated by t h e Water D i v i s i o n o f t he C i t y o f Spokane, i n d i c a t e s t he u p r a t i n g o f t h e e x i s t i n g system as t h e most economical p ropos i t i on . Fu r the r a 9 MW a d d i t i o n a l capac i t y w i l l produce an a d d i t i o n a l 50 m i l l i o n kwh annua l l y which i s equ i va len t t o n e a r l y 75,000 b a r r e l s o f imported o i l , sav ing the n a t i o n more than one m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . F inanc ia l cons ide ra t i on seems t o be t h e o n l y c o n s t r a i n t f o r t h e C i t y n o t t o undertake the i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l power genera t ion . The Depa'rt- ment o f Energy would do w e l l t o he lp t he n a t i o n conserve the energy by encouraging the C i t y o f Spokane through some form o f f ede ra l g ran t o r i n t e r e s t f r e e l oan .

Table 1

Cost - B e n e f i t Analysis o f Add i t i ona l Power Generation

Exi:sting Capacity : 3.9 MW Estimated C r i t i c a l Energy: 29,470,000 kwh Estimated Average Year Energy: 34,475,000 kwh Secondary Energy: 5,005,000 kWh

Add i t i ona l Estimated Estimated Tota l Estimated Estimated Revenue/Cost Add i t i ona l Add i t i ona l Add i t i ona l

Capaci ty C r i t i c a l Secondary Energy Annual Annual Rat io Energy Energy '

MW MW h MWh MW h Cost Revenue

Upra t i ng 7,714 839 8,553 $ 47,260 $ 201,240 4.26

2 12,173 9,407 21,580 334,520 398,395 1.19

3 14,147 13,395 27,542 436,780 487,625 1.12

4 18,658 15,816 34,474 539,040 624,610 1.16

5 22,004 18,735 40,739 641,300 737,450 1 .15

6 24,646 22,106 46,752 743,560 887,210 1 .19

7 26,438 25,617 52,055 845,320 917,120 1.08

8 29,022 28,304 57,326 948,380 1,008,590 1.06

9 30,644 31,643 62,287 1,050,340 1 ,082,530 1 .03

10 32,089 34,602 66,691 1,152,600 1,148,240 0.99

. . Notes: 1 . Estimated a.nnua1 c i s t i s calc"1ated f o r a.morti.zati.on o f the' p l a n t c o s t est imated a t $1000/kW, assuming lo%,

40 y r loan, p lus $1 30,000 annual ly f o r operat ion, maintenance and insurance cost .

2. Estimated annual revenue i s ca l cu la ted by assuming $25/MWh f o r c r i t i c a l pe r i od energy and $lO/MWh f o r secondary. energy.

Table 2 --

Cost - B e l i e f i t Alia1ysi.s. d f Add i t i ona l ~ b w e r Generation ' Wi.tti Uprat ing o f ' the 'Ex i s t i ng Generators %

Uprated Capaci ty: 4.5 MW (Est imated) Estimated Cri . t ica1 Period Energy: 37,184 MWh Estimated Average Year Energy: 38,023 MWh Secondary Energy: 839 MWh

. .

Add i t i ona l Estimated Estimated Tota l Est inated Estimated RevenueICost Add i t i ona l Add i t i ona l knnual

Capaci ty C r i t i c a l Secondary Add i t i ona l Cost Annual Ra t k Energy Energy Ener y . A B A B

MW MW h MW h MW h Revenue

Notes:

4,459 8,568 13,027 $ 334,520 $300,037 $197,155 0.59

6,433 12,556 18,969 436,780 375,056 286,385 0.66

10,944 % 14,977 25,921 539,040 450,075 423,370 0.79

14,290 17,896 32,186 641,300 525,094 536,210 0.84

16,932 21,267 38,199 743,560 600,113 635,970 0.86

18,724 24,778 43,502 845,820 675,131 7- 5,880 0.85

21,308 27,465 48,773 948,080 750,150 807,350 0.85

22,930 30,804 53,734 1,050,340 823,169 881,290 0.84

24,375 33,763 58,138 1,152,600 900,188 947,005 0.82 - 1. Estimated annual c o s t i s ca l cu la ted fo r amor t i za t i on o f the 3 l a n t c ~ s t e s t i m ~ t e d a t $1000/kW

(A) Assumin$ 13%, 40 y r loan, p lus $130.000 annual ly f o r operat ion, maintencnce and insurance cost ,

(611 As.suming 7%, 40 y r , t ax exempt l oan , p lus $153,000 annual 1 y f o r 0peratic.n and Maintenance.

2. Estimated annuajl reyenue i s ca l cu la ted by assuming $25/MWh f9 r c r i , t i c a l pe r i od energy and $10lMWh f o r secondary e n e r w .

PATILLAS RESERVOIR

PAT1 LLAS, PUERTO RICO

Energy Research & Applications, Inc. John J. Huetter, Jr.

PRODA Proposal CunLTac~ Nu. EW-78-F-07-1804

I. INTRODUCTION

In accomplishment of a feasibility determination for the retrofit of hydroelectric generating equipment at Patillas Reservoir, Puerto Rico, ENERGY RESEARCH & APPLICATIONS,INC. has identified an extremely favorable application for' hydropower technology and, accordingly has developed a three phase potential implementation plan.

Though the methodology (and its specific analytic tools) were developed to establish site-specific acceptance/non-acceptance criteria for hydropow'er generation at Patillas Reservoir, it has been ER&A1s intent that this system be applicable for hydropower feasibility determination at any existing dam/reservoir in Puerto Rico.

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

Initial hydrologic study, based on a 59 year record of reservoir behavior, established the potential for significant recovery of energy through hydropower retrofit. Statistical variability of reservoir surface elevation and irrigation demand (the Patillas Dam's primary function) were subjected to computer analysis with respect to either a 121'hour peak demand generating cycle or a 24 hour/base load generating cycle.

A purely hydrologic estimate of generating capacity from a single installation is 800KW peaking or 400KW base power. Implementation of a second phase system based on a seven (7) month 'wet' season surplus of water would augment this estimate.

111. ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN CONCEPT

Three(3) potential locations for hydropower equipment retrofit were identified in a

the engineering analysis of the Patillas site. These locations in turn become the three(3) potential phases of development according to their respective economic benefits. Suitable equipment options and the trade-offs involved with each are included in the ana1ysi.s of each location/phase.

'I'he first location/phase is at the site of ,the existing irrigation outlct structure on the earth dam. Development at this site affords both.the lowest installed cost for equipment and assured availability of water flow, based on irrigation demand. At this location engineers preferred a vertical turbine arrangement due to the availability of standard equipment suitable to design parameters, greater efficiency because of maximum head utilization, and the minimization of mechanically destructive cavitation. The rated installed capacity is 665KW.

Location/phase I1 incorporates the construction of a penstock and powerhouse adjacent to an existing concrete spillway built in 1976. A vertical turbine (for reasons similar to Phase I) would exploit necessary spil.lage of surplus water during the rainy season (May - November). Installed capacity is estimated at 65061 peaking power for up to eight(8) months each year, with actual usage dependent on reservoir surplus over current commitments.

Location/$hase I11 proposes a power plant roughly 1.4 miles below the Phase I installation on the irrigation canal. The 42 foot head would produce roughly 315KW installed capacity from a horizontal turbine. While the cost of penstock pipe to enclose the now open canal prevents Phase I11 from being economically attractive at current energy cost levels, it is a straightforward engineering exercise and is identified as a future possibility.

Fully automatic operation is feasible (and the appropriate hardware readily available) for all three(3) phases, and therefore has been costed', assumed in design and recommended.

IV. ECONOMIC FEASIBI L l ' l ' Y

Due to the particular role of the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority(especial1y their current 97% dependency on $14/Bbl. oil for power production), the viewpoint selected for determination of economic feasibility of the Patillas hydropower project is that of Puerto Rico. A detailed rationale for this approach is developed in the Final Report.

A model structured on critical or impact factors, with an output consisting of costs and benefits as well as return on investment, was developed for use in the Puerto Rico 'environment. (Appropriate tax assumptions, etc. are constant and imbedded in the analytic tool.) This approach provides an independent assessment of economic viability. The responsible entity can operate the model and determine if resulting ROI, cost/kw, oil savings, or other decision factors meet required thresholds.

The calculated ROIs of the different installation phases range from 8.3% to 21.8%. The most attractive operating strategies focus on displacing the maximum amount of OPEC oil.

V. ENVlKONMENTAL IMPACT

A primary directive for the engineering assessment was to minimize environmental impact. Consequently, both the ER&A staff ecologist and the Puerto Rico Center for Energy and Environment Research (under sub-contract) have determined that operation of the proposed retrofit creates no ecological impact over and above current reservoir use and irrigation demand.

Transient environmental disruption during construction is expected to be minimal and identifiable in detail.

In addition, personal interviews with responsible Puerto Rico agencies (including the Environmental Quality Board) further reinforce the scientific findings that no environmental prohibition to the project will be encountered.

VI. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FEASIBILITY

No legal impediments to the implementation of hydroelectric generation at Patillas Reservoir are anticipated., Not only are dedicated irrigation flows.and downstream water rights unaffected, but precedent is established in the specific mandate for hydropower development in the South Coast Irrigation District (of which Patillas Reservoir is a part) according to Puerto Rican law (22 Laws of Puerto Rico 228(b) and 258). The PRWRA has legal authority for both the irrigation district and the potential for hydropower development in the district as well as the entire island of Puerto Rico.

The Phase I and I11 aspects of the Patillas Hydropower Project are specifically exempt from FERC licensing under .Section 30 of the Federal Power Act. Phase I1 could easily be licensed by short form method in the event that it is required.

Again, based on personal contact with agencies which would issue formal approval of the project (Puerto Rico Planning Board, Environmental Quality Board, and Regulation and . Permits Administration), prompt approval is expected.

V l l . EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY AND EVALUATION

Of the 20 turbogenerator hardware manufacturers from which quotes were solicited, four(4) vendors were identified as responsive with appropriately detailed equipment lists, cost quotes and delivery schedules. Engineering design allows for the use of the services of any of these suppliers.

Basic equipment costs range from approximately $190,000 to $335,000, including automatic control, interfacing and switching hardware.

VI.11. INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIAL FEASIBILITY

Though thc spccific legal mandate a l o n g with approximately 1000% increase in fuel cost to the PRWRA over the past 15 years appear to firmly establish institutional justification for the Patillas hydropower development, several factors demanded a more in-depth justification.

B e t w e e n 1 9 6 0 a n d 1974 s e v e r a l s m a l l h y d r o p o w e r . s i t e s o n t h e i s l a n d w e r e - c l a s s i f i e d a s u n e c o n o m i c a n d s h u t down. H igh o p e r a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s w e r e t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n . P u e r t o R i c a n d e c i s i o n m a k e r s t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d t h e s p e c i f i c t e c h n i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r . t h e m i n i m a l OEM c o s t s p l o t t e d i n EREA's e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s . . . +~ . .-

1.n a d d i t i o n , t h o u g h t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n a t P a t i l l a s c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o d e l i v e r a . 1 5 - 2 0 % ROI, t h e a d d i t i o n o f a h a l f m e g a w a t t t o a 4000MW g r i d may b e t t e r b e j u s t i - f i e a b y more e l u s i v e p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l f a c t o r s . Not l e a s t among t h e s e i s t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f c o s t a n d s u p p l y u n c e r t a i n t y o f i m p o r t e d c r u d e f r o m a n OPEC s o u r c e .

P o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l b e n . e f i t s i n c l u d e n o t o n l y t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f a t t e m p t s t o s u p p l y P u e r t o . R i c a n c o n s u m e r s w i t h a r e d u c e d p o w e r . r a t e , - b u t a l s o a . ' t e m p o r a r y l o c a l employmen t g a i n d ~ r i ; ' ~ = o n s t r u c t i o n . . * . . .

I X . CONCLUSION

A l l e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s a r e i n c o n c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c e q u i p m e n t r e t r o f i t a t P a t i l l a s R e s e r v o i r . A f e a s i b l e opera tin^ c a p a c i t y o f b e t w e e n 665KW a n d 1470KW p e a k i n g p o w e r o r 400KW t o 700KW b a s e l o a d p o w e r ( d e p e n d i n g on e x t e n t o f d e v e l o p - m e n t ) c i n b e delivered a t a c o s t b e l o w c u r r e n t PRWRA b u s b a r c o s t s . No s i g n i f i c a n t e n v i r o n - m e n t a l , s o c i a l , o r l e g a l b a r r i e r s e x i s t .

F u r t h e r , r e s p o n s i b l e P u e r t o R i c a n d e c i s i o n m a k e r s a r e e n t h u s i a s t i c . Tn a h r i e f i n e r e q u e s t e d - b y P u e r t o R i c o E n e r g y O f f i c e D i r e c t o r , D r . F r a n k ~ a s t e l l k n , a n d d e l i v e r e d t o PRWRA E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o . r , A l b e r t o Bruno V e g a . b y t h e E R E A l j r o j e c t m a n a g e r .on March 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 , P u e r t o ~ i c o ' s commi tmen t t o t h e d e v e ' l o p m e n t o f r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y s o u r c e s i n a m i x e d e n e r g y f u t u r e s s t r a t e g y a n d t h e s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e o f t h e P a t i l l a s h y d r o p o w e r p r o j e c t w e r e emphasized.

FEASIBLE OPERATING PROFILES

PATILLAS RESERVOIR

* Operates only f o r Peak Power Generation

** P r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e t o d e l i v e r s t a t e d energy l e v e l s : 1.98%

NO.

1

2

3

Annual Energy (KWH/YR) Hydropower

I n s t a l l a t i o n

a t e a r t h dam

a t Spil lway*

a t Syphon

24 hr/day yea r 'round

3,504,000

- - -

2,628,000

3,504,000

3,504,000

6,132,000

Generating I n s t a l l . Capacity(KW)

To ta l Phase 1 (1)

To ta l Phase 2 (1+2)

To ta l Phase 3 (1+2+3)

Peak hrs-12hr/dy 5dy/wk

1,528,800

2,028,000

1,029,600

1,528,800

3,556,900**

4,586,400

24hr/day ' y r round

400

---

300

400

400

700

12RF$!aptiay wk

490

650

330

490

1140

1470

O'SHAUGHNESSY AND GRIGGS DAMS ON THE SCIOTO RIVER

Columbus, Ohio

C i t y o f Columbus, D i v i s i o n o f Water Burgess & N ip le , L im i ted

Cooperat ive Agreement EW-78-F-07-1805

STUDY PROCESS

The study considers t he f e a s i b i l i t y o f deve lop ing h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s a t two water supply dams, Griggs and O'Shaughnessy, bo th l oca ted on t h e Sc io to R i ve r i n t he v i c i n i t y o f Columbus, Ohio. The work i s be ing performed i n accordance w i t h t h e U.S. Department o f Energy Requirements. I n o rde r t o g a i n maximum b e n e f i t s f rom a v a i l a b l e expe r t i se , work on t h e p r o j e c t was subd iv ided among f o u r concerned o rgan i za t i ons as f o l l ows :

C i t y o f Columbus, D i v i s i o n o f Water - Data on water and e l e c t r i c i t y usage; fund ing p lan; p a r t i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r engineering/environmental data.

C i t y o f Columbus, D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y - Market ing ana l ys i s ; p a r t i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r power t ransmiss ion engineer ing, p a r t i c u l a r l y e l e c t r i c a l .

S ta te o f Ohio, Department o f Energy - R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r assessing l e g a l and r e g u l a t o r y f a c t o r s and f o r communication w i t h i n t e r e s t e d agencies and p a r t i e s .

Burgess & N ip le , L im i ted - Pr imary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r engineer ing; environmental review, and p r o j e c t coo rd ina t i on .

Other agencies which, w h i l e no t c o n t r a c t u r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e p r o j e c t , d i d c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y , were t h e U.S. Geo log ica l Survey, t he Corps o f Engineers, and t h e Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company.

E a r l y i n t h e study, i t became ev iden t t h a t severa l f a c t o r s combined t o enhance t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t he p r o j e c t ; throughout t he course o f t h e study e f f o r t was d i r e c t e d a t t a k i n g t h e g rea tes t advantage o f these fac to rs :

- The agency owning the dams, t h e D i v i s i o n o f Water, cou ld u t i l i z e a l l o f t he energy generated. - The l o c a l u t i l i t y and t h e C i t y D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y were w i l l i n g t o t r ansm i t power. - The r e s e r v o i r s ' s torage cou ld be used t o a l l o w f l e x i b l e ope ra t i ng programs. - Subs tan t i a l d ischarges, i n a d d i t i o n t o water supply usage, were a v a i l a b l e f o r energy generat ion.

An impor tant c r i t e r i o n adopted f o r t h e study was t h a t water supply y i e l d s o f t h e r e s e r v o i r s remain undiminished. Thus, du r i ng low f l o w per iods on l y t h e ( d a i l y ) volume o f water supply use would be a v a i l a b l e f o r genera t ion . The t i m i n g o f t h i s re lease would be a ma t te r o f study.

ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

O'Shaughnessy Dam, about 16 m i l es n o r t h o f Columbus, i s approx imate ly 65 f e e t h igh, impounds 16,900 ac re - fee t o f water when f u l l , and c o n t r o l s a drainage area o f 980 square mi les . Gr iggs Dam, about 9 m i l e s downstream from O'Shaughnessy Dam, i s about 35 f e e t h igh, impounding 4,200 ac re - fee t o f water. I t c o n t r o l s a drainage area o f 1,044 square m i l es . Both r e s e r v o i r s a re p r i m a r i l y f o r water supply, and a r e h e a v i l y used f o r r e c r e a t i o n by area res iden ts . About seven m i l es downstream from Griggs Dam are t h e Dub l i n Road water t rea tment p l a n t and a smal l i n t a k e pool which s to res about 200 ac re - fee t o f water. Taken together , t h e t h ree dams impound a r e l a t i v e l y smal l p r o p o r t i o n o f bas in runof f - -about f o u r percent.

For t he hydro log ic ana l ys i s , d u r a t i o n curves o f annual and mon th .1~ d ischarge and headwater e l e v a t i o n were developed based on records from 1921 through 1978. Ta i lwa te r e leva t i ons were de f i ned by discharge- e l e v a t i o n r a t i n g curves, which were i n t u r n developed by numerical modeling o f h y d r a u l i c stream p r o f i l e s : Flood l e v e l s were determined p r i m a r i l y from f l o o d water sur face p r o f i l e s by o thers . The d u r a t i o n curves i n d i c a t e d discharge i n excess o f water supply needs du r i ng 85 percent o f t he t ime, and 20 t imes water supply about 20 percent o f t he t ime.

Based on t h e above descr ibed hyd ro log i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e annual energy d i s s i p a t e d over t he dams i s es t imated a t 39.5 m i l l i o n k i l o w a t t s a t O'Shaughnessy Dam and 20 m i l l i o n k i l o w a t t s a t Gr iggs Dam. For t h e purposes o f t h e study, t h e range o f f a c i l i t y s i zes was de f i ned w ide l y i n o rde r t o i n c l u d e a l l f e a s i b l e s izes . A t bo th s i t e s t he study inc luded discharges rang ing from 400 t o 1,500 cub ic f e e t pe r second, corresponding t o dura t ions rang ing from 13 percent t o 34 percent o f t h e t ime. A t OIShaughnessy Dam the r e s u l t a n t power ou tpu t ranged from 6.4 t o 1 .9 megawatts, y i e l d i n g 8.7 t o 15.6 m i l l i o n k i l owa t t -hou rs per year . A t Gr iggs Dam the corresponding power ou tpu t ranged from 0.9 t o 2.5 megawatts, y i e l d i n g 4 .4 t o 6 .8 m i l l i o n k i l owa t t -hou rs pe r year . F igu re 1 shows t h e r e s u l t a n t curves f o r var ious types o f equipment over t h e range considered.

Eva lua t i on o f s i t e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t u r b i n e s i zes , number o f u n i t s , types, and l o c a t i o n s presented a major task . E a r l y i n t he study, i t was determined t h a t a d a i l y peaking type o f ope ra t i on would be benef i - c i a l bo th i n terms o f p r o v i d i n g power a t t h e needed t ime o f day and i n terms o f extending the range o f economical opera t ion . The ex tens ion o f ope ra t i ng range by peaking i s s i g n i f i c a n t and r e a d i l y accomplished because o f t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e t h ree r e s e r v o i r poo ls t o s to re t h e volumes requ i red w i t h o u t major f l u c t u a t i o n s i n water l e v e l s . For a t y p i c a l t u r b i n e u n i t w i t h a design discharge o f 1,000 cub i c f e e t per second, and w i t h o u t peaking opera t ion , e f f i c i e n c y would f a l l o f f severe ly a t d ischarges l e s s than about 250 cub i c f ee t p e r second; however, by ope ra t i ng o n l y p a r t o f t h e t ime, water can be s to red i n t h e r e s e r v o i r and re leased a t 250 cub i c f e e t pe r second. Th i s mode o f ope ra t i on c o n t r i b u t e s about 15 percent o f energy generat ion. F igu re 2 shows t h e r e s u l t i n g power and ope ra t i ng t ime d u r a t i o n curves.

Because o f t he r e l a t i v e complex i ty o f t h i s ana l ys i s , a numerical model (a computer program) was developed t o represent t he system. Th is model u t i l i z e s t he hydro log ic data noted above (d ischarge and headwater d u r a t i o n curves and t a i lwa te r r a t i n g curves) a long w i t h data on equlpment ( t u r b i n e capac i t i es , e f f i c i e n c y curves, head losses, and ope ra t i ng c r i t e r i o n ) t o c a l c u l a t e energy generated, power, e f f i c i e n c y , hours pe r day o t opera t ion , and discharge through the t u r b i n e f o r each month us ing t e n increments per month. The monthly r e s u l t s a l l o w computat ion o f t he va lue o f energy generated, whee l ing charges, and dependab i l i t y .

MARKETING AND INTERCONNECTION/TRANSMISSION

The C i t y o f Columbus p resen t l y operates bo th e l e c t r i c a l and water supply f a c i l i t i e s under t h e Depart- ment o f Pub l i c Service. The D i v i s i o n o f Water operates t h e Dub l i n Road t reatment p l a n t i n Columbus, supp l i ed by t h e Sc io to R iver and t h e Morse Road p l a n t . A t h i r d , t h e Parsons Avenue p l a n t , i s now i n e a r l y c o n s t r u c t i o n stages and w i l l be l oca ted about t e n m i l es south o f the D u b l i n Road p l a n t . The D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y has, i n t h e past , generated e l e c t r i c i t y a t a coa l f i r e d p l a n t . Th is p l a n t has been shut down and i s t o be rep laced by a new p l a n t a t another l o c a t i o n . I n t h e i n t e r i m , t he c i t y i s purchasing power wholesale, f rom Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company, t o meet i t s 7,000 customers demands. The c i t y proposes t o serve t h e new Parsons Avenue p l a n t from the D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y system, b u t no t t he Morse Road p l a n t .

Because o f these on-going t ransac t i ons among t h e D i v i s i o n o f Water, t h e D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y , and Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company, t he c i t y has a v a i l a b l e t h e o rgan i za t i ona l and techn i ca l a b i l i t y t o opera te an e l e c t r i c power genera tor and t ransmiss ion system.

Because t h e d is tances between the dam s i t e s and the proposed p o i n t s o f use o f Dub l i n Road and Parsons Avenue water p l a n t s a re s u b s t a n t i a l , about 25 m i l es , an arrangement f o r t r a n s f e r r i n g power through e x i s t i n g l i n e s o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an independent t ransmiss ion l i n e i s necessary. The D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y has . t e n t a t i v e l y agreed on connect ion arrangements and wheel ing charges w i t h t he Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company. (An independent l i n e i s , however, considered t e c h n i c a l l y and economical ly f eas ib le ) . The p o i n t s o f connect ion t o t h e Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company system r e q u i r e o n l y s h o r t segments o f connect ing power l i n e s ; 1,600 f e e t o f 13.2 k i l o v o l t overhead a t Gr iggs Dam and 1,000 f e e t o f 34 k i l o v o l t underground a t OIShaughnessy Dam.

The wheel ing charges f o r t r a n s f e r o f e l e c t r i c energy f rom t h e s i t e s t o t h e D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y subs ta t i on would be $18.00 pe r k i l o w a t t annua l ly , based on maximum power output , which r e s u l t s i n approx i - mate ly 5.5 m i l l s per k i l owa t t -hou r on an average energy bas is . Th is r e l a t i v e l y h i g h charge i s due i n p a r t t o t h e wide range i r l v a r i a t i o n o f ou tpu t o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t i e s . The present average wholesale r a t e t o t h e D i v i s i o n o f E l e c t r i c i t y by Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c i s $0.028 p e r k i l owa t t -hou r , expected t o increase t o $0.0305 by 1980. Th i s i s t h e r a t e adopted f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l ana l ys i s .

LEGAL AND REGULATORY, INSTITUTIONAL, AND SOCIAL FACTORS

The necessary l i c e n s e from t h e Federal Energy Regulatory Commission w i l l r e q u i r e a complete environmen- t a l impact assessment, and may cause delays w h i l e l i c e n s i n g i s under cons ide ra t i on . Because t h e developer, t h e C i t y o f Columbus, i s t h e owner o f t h e e x i s t i n g dams, t h e r e should be no ques t i on as t o t h e i r having p r imary a u t h o r i t y t o develop. Also, c o n s t r u c t i o n work i n t h e stream channel and i n t he r e s e r v o i r s w i l l r e q u i r e a pe rm i t from t h e U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers (a 404 permi t ) . The requirements f o r these permi ts have been taken i n t o cons ide ra t i on i n p r o j e c t p l ann ing and no unusual problems a r e expected.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i a l f a c t o r s have been considered throughout t he study because o f t he numerous agencies and groups w i t h i n t e r e s t s i n t he p r o j e c t , t h e a f f e c t e d stream, and t h e ad jacent land. The I n s t i - t u t i o n a l Advisory Task Force i s made up o f r ep resen ta t i ves o f s t a t e agencies (Department o f Natura l Re- sources, Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Department o f Energy, and Pub l i c U t i l i t i e s commission), C i t y o f Columbus agencies (D i v i s i ons o f Water and E l e c t r i c i t y and Department o f Parks and Recreat ion), and t h e l o c a l e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y ( t he Columbus and Southern Ohio E l e c t r i c Company). Contact w i t h p r i v a t e groups such as boa t i ng c lubs i s th rough these agencies.. Concerns brought f o r t h by t h i s group i nc lude wa te r f l o w and l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s and r e s u l t a n t e f f e c t s on boa t i ng and f i s h i n g ; p o s s i b l e re leases o f low q u a l i t y water from the r e s e r v o i r ; and t i m i n g o f power p roduc t i on i n r e l a t i o n t o system needs. Comments i n t h e above areas o f concern have been answered i n t h e p r o j e c t p l a n by adopt ing development and ope ra t i ng procedures based on such comments. The concept o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c development a t these s i t e s has been p u b l i c i z e d i n t he l o c a l news media throughout t h e proposal and study phases, and has rece i ved favo rab le comments, because o f t he environmental a c c e p t a b i l i t y , and because o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r monetary savings i n munic ipa l opera t ions .

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The environmental t a s k f o r c e has acqu i red p e r t i n e n t eco log i ca l da ta f o r t h e p r o j e c t area. A h y d r a u l i c ana l ys i s o f t h e a f f e c t e d 16 m i l e stream reach has been completed f o r e x i s t i n g and proposed discharge cond i t i ons , and t h e r e s u l t a n t i n fo rma t i on on v e l o c i t y , depth, and p r o f i l e a t 97 sec t ions used t o eva luate environmental e f f e c t s and t o p l a n t e n t a t i v e ope ra t i ng programs. The environmental e f f e c t s o f p r o j e c t implementat ion are gene ra l l y considered i n q u a l i t a t i v e terms f o r t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y study. The environmental impact statement requ i red f o r l i c e n s i n g by t he Federal Energy Regulatory Commission w i l l be o f g reaterz d e t a i l , enab l ing , where poss ib le , t he expression o f p r o j e c t impacts i n q u a n t i t a t i v e terms. Environmental concerns evidenced t o date have been taken i n t o cons ide ra t i on i n developing design and ope ra t i ng c r i t e r i a w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p r o j e c t feasibility.

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS

A t bo th Griggs and OIShaughnessy Dams, v a r i a b l e l e v e l i n takes and valved water supply condu i ts were inc luded i n t he o r i g i n a l s t r u c t u r e s and a re p r e s e n t l y i n use. Because these water supply condu i ts i nc luded i n take , t r a s h racks , and valves which cou ld be used w i t h h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i 1 i t e s , t h e i r p o t e n t i a l as t u rb ine - feed condu i ts was reviewed. Both were, however, found unsu i t ab le due t o t h e i r small capac i t y , and t h e c o s t o f i n t e g r a t i n g them i n t o o the r s t ruc tu res . Therefore, t h e study concentrated on the f e a s i b i l i t y o f s i t e s a t t h e o r i g i n a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c condu i ts .

A t OIShaughnessy Dam, development of a s i t e a t t h e e x i s t i n g hydropower condu i t , a 15 f o o t by 19 f o o t opening, i s t h e p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e . A p l a n f o r t h i s s i t e i nvo l ves cons t ruc t i on o f a powerhouse, pen- s tock , t a i l r a c e channel, c o n s t r u c t i o n access road, and improvements t o t he e x i s t i n g i n t a k e s t r u c t u r e . The p o t e n t i a l ou tpu t a t t h i s s i t e , 14.5 m i l l i o n k i l owa t t -hou rs pe r year , i s g rea te r than a t t he center o f dam, by about 17 percent . Maximum power ou tpu t would be about f i v e megawatts, w i t h a l oad f a c t o r o f 0.32. A l i m i t a t i o n w i t h t h i s s i t e i s t h a t , when t h e r e s e r v o i r i s drawn down du r i ng a severe drought, inadequate depth o f water a t t h e i n t a k e w i l l fo rce equipment shutdown; however, t h i s c o n d i t i o n comprises o n l y about one percent o f ope ra t i ng t ime and i s n o t o f economic consequence.

A t Griggs Dam t h e p r e f e r r e d p l a n i s t o use t h e e x i s t i n g (plugged) n ine f o o t diameter o r i g i n a l hydro- e l e c t r i c condu i t through t h e west abutment sec t i on o f t h e dam. Major fea tures o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n i nc lude c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a powerhouse and penstock below the dam and t a i l r a c e channel. Const ruc t ion access would be v i a t h e stream channel and maintenance access would be by f o o t o n l y v i a a s ta i rway from t h e e x i s t i n g roadway a t t h e t op o f t h e h i g h bank. As no i n t a k e s t r u c t u r e e x i s t s a t t h i s s i t e , a s u b s t a n t i a l s t r u c t u r e i s a l s o needed. The p o t e n t i a l capac i t y o f t h i s s i t e i s es t imated t o be two megawatts, producing 6,500 m i l l i o n k i l owa t t -hou rs pe r year w i t h a l oad f a c t o r o f 0.36. Th i s i s about double t h e capac i t y o f t h e eas t bank s i t e .

COST AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

P r o j e c t cos ts were es t imated from equipment manufacturers quotes (n ine i n a l l ) and, f o r c i v i l works, from f a c i l i t y c o s t est imates based on q u a n t i t i e s taken from p r e l i m i n a r y p lans. Costs were ad jus ted t o a January 1, 1980 date , and allowances were made f o r cont ingenc ies , c o n t r a c t o r p r o f i t , design costs , and i n t e r e s t d u r i n g cons t ruc t i on .

The f i n a n c i a l ana l ys i s f o r t h e proposed f a c i l i t i e s was conducted on an annual n e t income bas is , sum- ming t h e present va lue o f n e t ga in over t h e p r o j e c t l i f e t o a r r i v e a t a f i g u r e f o r t he n e t va lue o f t he p r o j e c t . The ac tua l c a l c u l a t i o n s have been c a r r i e d o u t v i a a numerical computer model ( U n i v e r s i t y o f Rhode I s l a n d , Hyd roe lec t r i c Power Generat ion and F inanc ia l Ana lys is program per "Hyd roe lec t r i c Power P o t e n t i a l , Woonsocket F a l l s Dam", January, 1979) acqu i red and mod i f i ed f o r t h e cond i t i ons a t t h e Columbus s i t e s . Thc ahove nnt.ed program has been designed t o es t imate power genera t ion from a v a i l a b l e head, f l o w and equipment parameters, and t o eva luate t he f i n a n c i a l f e a s i b i l i t y o f a f a c i l i t y us ing es t imated costs f o r p r o j e c t development, ope ra t i on and .maintenance, wheeling, and r e l a t e d f i n a n c i a l parameters. The sequence o f computat ion used i n t he model i s :

1. Annual ly, c a l c u l a t e t h e va lue o f e l e c t r i c a l energy produced. 2. For t h e same year , c a l c u l a t e c o s t f o r bond repayment f o r s p e c i f i e d term and r a t e ; ope ra t i ng and

maintenance costs ; and wheel ing charges. 3. Ca l cu la te t h e ne t cash f l o w as (1) above, l e s s (2), and c a l c u l a t e t he p resen t va lue o f t h e net . 4. Accumulate i t em .3 and update a l l t ime dependent parameters. . .

5. Summarize r e s u l t s , t o t a l s f o r power produced, n e t ga in (cash f low) , p r e s e n t value, and benef i t . 1 cos t r a t i o . . . . . .

The s i t e s a t Columbus requ i red a more i n t r i c a t e ana l ys i s o f power and energy o" tput than d i d ' t h e s i t e f o r which t h e URI Program was developed. A separate program as noted. e a r l i e r was developed t o es t imate peak power and energy p roduc t i on and app rop r i a te ope ra t i ng per iods .

The use o f a model o r program o f t h i s type was considered essen t i a l i n order t o p r o p e r l y account f o r t h e e f f e c t o f i n f l a t i o n on the p r o j e c t ' s f e a s i b i l i t y i n terms o f cos ts and va lue o f energy generated. The c u r r e n t h igh i n t e r e s t r a tes r e f l e c t a n t i c i p a t i o n o f f u t u r e i n f l a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e lender . The borrower i s pay ing f o r i n f l a t i o n i n advance, and must, t he re fo re , cons ider t h e f u t u r e , i n f l a t e d va lue of h i s product . The major parameters requ i red. f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l ana l ys i s were:

- Bond Term and I n t e r e s t - 25 years ; s i x percent , t h e c u r r e n t r a t e f o r C i t y o f Columbus bonds.

- I n f l a t i o n Rate - Ove ra l l economy, seven percent pe r c u r r e n t f ede ra l t .arg~t . ; for energy, n ine percent through 1983, and s i x percent t h e r e a f t e r , based on t h e market ing study.

- S t a r t i n g Date f o r F inanc ia l Ana lys is - January 1, 1980; n o t necessa r i l y t h e s t a r t - u p date. - P r o j e c t L i f e - Taken as 35 years f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l ana lys is . - Value o f Energy Produced - An average o f S.0305 p e r k i l owa t t -hnu r i n 1980. - Wheeling Charge - $18.00 pe r year p e r k i l o w a t t , equal t o $.00549 pe r k i l owa t t -hou r (1980).

The r e s u l t s o f t h e f i n a n c i a l ana l ys i s are presented i n t h e t a b l e below:

Cur.r.er1 t (3)

B e n e f i t Cost Energy Capaci ty P r o j e c t Cost U n i t Cost Net Gain (PV)") ~ 0 1 ' ~ ) Ra t i o Cost

0 ' Shaughnessy Dam 5 mw $4,069,000 $ 800/kw $6,748,000 1 3% 1.73 $0.031/kw-hr Griggs Dam 2 mw 3,588,000 $1,80O/kw 319,000 6% 1.05 $0.056/kw- h r Combined 7 mw 7,657,000 $1 ,lOO/kw 7,067,000 1 0% 1.44 $0.038/kw-hr

("PV - The sum o f t h e present values o f annual income; ( 2 ) ~ e t u r n on investment; ( 3 ) ~ n c l u d e s f i n a n c i n g

These values i n d i c a t e p r o j e c t f e a s i b i l i t y f o r bo th s i t e s and f o r each s i t e independent ly. The O'Shaughnessy Dam s i t e does generate a g rea te r income and a h ighe r b e n e f i t c o s t r a t i o than Griggs Dam. Th is occurs because, w h i l e t h e development cos t s a re nea r l y i d e n t i c a l , t h e h ighe r head a t O'Shaughnessy Dam a l l ows genera t ion of about double t h e energy o f Gr iggs Dam. The cash f l o w o f t he p r o j e c t was found t o be negat ive f o r t he f i r s t f i v e yearv , by 165,000 i n t he f i r s t year and d e c l i n i n g t h e r e a f t e r . Th is can be covered by D i v i s i o n o f Water revenues, shor t - te rm bor rowing o r by de fe r red payment on t h e pr imary bonds.

POWER BTlYE

PAWTUCKET DAM AND NORTHERN CANAL

Lowell, MA

Boott Mills and Raytheon Service Co. Raytheon Service Co. & Acres American Inc.

P W A Proposal Contract No. 1807

The projected hydroelectric si te is on the Merrimack River at Lowell, Massachusetts. The facility would utilize the existing Pawtucket Dam and a portion of the existing Northern Canal. It has a 4,020 square mile drainage a r e a and 34.5 feet of gross head developed by the dam, the c d a l , and additional excavation at the tailrace. The plant would generate 74,250,000 net kilowatt hours of electricity annually with an installed capacity of 15,000 kW.

The feasibility assessment was performed for Boott Mills by the Raytheon Service Company with oversight and extensive participation by Boott Mills and the active cooperation of the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company.

Two ownership options a re possible and both were found t o be feasible. In the first , the new hydroelectric facility would be developed jointly by Boott Mills and Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC),. with rights t o the power to be ~eenerated.being..sh;argd.hy entitlemelft in a (tentative)<60/40 (MMWEC/Boott Mills) ratio. MMWEC's larger entitlement is :based on its supplying all project financing. Under,thia arrangement,_MMWEC would purchase approximately 10% of Boott Mills entitlement bringing i t s total t o 70% of the annual kwh generated. I ts costs per kw based upon receiving 70% of the power output would be $1497.

As an alternative, Boott Mills might develop the site itself with the New England Power Company (NEPCO) being the principal power purchaser. In either case, i t appears that the market for the power generated is adequate t o support development of the project.

Project cost is estimated t o be $15,720,000 at 1978 price levels. This includes an allowance of $1,000,000 for fish passage facilities and excludes any allowance for the cost of land, water rights, or existing facilities. The capital cost per kilowatt is $1,048.

The site is owned by the Proprietors of Locks and Canals on the Merrimack River, a s i s t e r corporation of Boott Mills. Boott Mills currently supplies power t o its industrial tenants, using a number of smal l , older turbines at several locations on the canal system. It would continue as a supplier t o these tenants if the new facility were built.

*

The recommended design will bring water through approximately 2,000 feet of the existing canal; the canal will be modified with a control structure and a new canal retaining wall diverting the canal flow t o the new powerhouse. The powerhouse will be located close t o the existing canal,

on the south bank of the river. Power will be fed to the local 23 kV electrical system through a tap running one mile via cable and overhead line to an existing substation.

*. . . :.. , -. . . ..

The site i s shown in the first photograph, which is taken looking down across the canai. The powerhouse and intake structure will be located directly below the wood frame structure which s i ts on the canal wall. The tailrace of approximately 1,000 feet will be excavated in the rapids of tlls river bed leading towards the right in the photograph and along the near shore.

The projected facility would be located within the recently established Lowell ~ a t i o n a l Historical Park. Results of preliminary assessment are that the hydroelectric plant ard its associated facilities can accommodate to Park needs and, in addition, make a contribution t o the educational objectives of the Park by perniitting a comparison of nineteenth and twentieth century methods of utilizing water power.

Other important environmental considerations include provisions regarding an historic wastegate structure that must be removed, design of a fully adequate fish passage fki l i ty and provision for minimum flow requirements in the river below the dam.

Raising the height of the dam, shown in the second photograph, either with a permanent concrete cap or bascule gates, was considered as a means of gaining increased head. Continuing the present system of using four feet of flashboards proved to be the most cost-effective alternative.

Turbine alternatives considered included two-unit bulb, Straflo, and vertical fixed blade propeller installations, and a four-unit installation using the largest standardized tube turbines. Single unit installations were rejected because there was no cost advantage and the site owner preferred the operating flexibility of multiple units. Estimated costs were lowest for the tube turbine installation, but final equipment selection i s reserved until the equipment procurement stage, at which time firm bids can assure the best project ptice resulting from any of the multiple unit alternatives consider~d.

DAM AND POWER FACILITIES ON TEEE MERRIMACK RIVER

Sewall's F a l l s , Concord, N. H.

-. New Hampshire Water Resources Board Hoyle , Tanner & Associates, Inc.

PRDA Proposal Contract No, EW-78-F-02-1808

BACKGROUND

The Sewall's Fa l l s power f a c i l i t i e s consts ts of a dam across the Merrimack River, a powerhouse, and a canal between the two components. The s i t e is located within the boundary ~f the City of Concord, New Hamp- sh i re . Figure 3 i s a s i t e plan of ex is t ing f a c i l i t i e s .

The dam was constructed i n 1893 by Concord Electric Service. The canal and powerhouse w e r e completed i n 1894, and hydroelectric power w a s generated s t a r t i n g i n l a t e 1894. -- An econom~c s i d y by Concord E l e c t r i c Company i n the ear ly 1960's showed t h a t it was cheaper f o r Concord E lec t r i c Company t o purchase power from the Public Ser- vice Company of New Hampshire than t o generate it themselves from hydropower. Consequently , the power s t a t i o n w a s deactivated i n 1966. The equipment w a s removed, and the dam, buildings, Elmage r i g h t s , and entire s i t e was deeded t o the New Hampshire Water Resources Board.

EXISTING

The ex i s t ing dam i s stone filled, timber c r i b con- s t ruc t ian . The top of the cribbing i s a t three separate leve ls , as three s teps . The spillway (top s tep) i s 495 f e e t long. The dam measured 67.5 f e e t between upstream and downstream faces. Most of the above water timbers a r e missing from the middle s tep. The dam w i l l require renovation.

The canal, including headworks, and wasteweir, w i l l require only minor renovation. j Discharge t o the powerhouse is l imited by the capacity of the canal.

The old powerhouse, consist ing of two power s t a t i o n s , or ig ina l ly housed f i v e horizontal sha f t and two v e r t i c a l

s h a f t Francis runner u n i t s , w i t h an i n s t a l l e d capac i ty of 2000 kw. The powerhouse i s s t r u c t u r a l l y souhd. A l l t u r b i n e s , g e n e r a t o r s , governors , e t c . have been removed.

Net head a t median flow averages over 15 f e e t . Net head a t 10 year frequency f lood (19,300 c f s ) i s about 10 f e e t .

HYDROLOGY

The drainage a r e a of t h e Merrimack River a t Sewal l ' s F a l l s dam i s about 2 ,360,square . mi les . A f low-durat ion curve of t h e Merrimack River , a d j u s t e d t o t h e s i t e l o c a t i o n , shows t h e capac i ty of t h e un l ined cana l of 2,160 c f s i s exceede'd 60 pe rcen t of t h e t i m e . Median r i v e r flow i s 2600 c f s , and t h e capac i ty of a l i n e d canal of 3,600 c f s i s exceeded 35 percent of t h e time.

A renovated p lant .would be p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t a 100 year f lood , and would be operable a t a 10 year f lood l e v e l . Present f lood l e v e l s a r e m i t i g a t e d by t h e Corps of Engineers f lood c o n t r o l r e s e r v o i r upstream a t F rank l in F a l l s .

RENOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Development a l t e r n a t i v e s inc luded r e t r o f i t t i n g one of t h e e x i s t i n g power s t a t i o n s wi th 5 tube type t u r b i n e s ; o r cons t ruc t ing a new power s t a t i o n wi th 3 l a r g e r tube type tu rb ines . The i n s t a l l e d capac i ty of each a l t e r n a t i v e was p red ica ted on a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s of l i n i n g t h e canal . It was determined t o be c o s t e f f e c t i v e t o l i n e t h e canal and c 0 n s t r u c t . a new "low p r o f i l e " power s t a t i o n u t i - l i z i n g 3600 c f s , with i n s t a l l e d capac i ty of about 4,100 kw. The average annual power a t t h e i n s t a l l e d capac i ty i s about 24 mi l l ion kwh.

The es t imated 1979 p r o j e c t c o s t of the s e l e c t e d a l t e r - n a t e , inc luding renova t ing . t h e dam, i s $7,225,000. The amount inc ludes a 10 percent contingency allowance. The r e s u l t a n t p r o j e c t c o s t i s about $1 ,76O/ ins ta l l ed kw.

Figure 15 i s a conceptual p lan of the recommended a l t e r n a t e .

f

POWER STATION

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TAILRACE -

10 0 4 0

L J

FIGURE

15

CONCEPTUAL, PLAN I-'

OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE L

T A

.BARGE -CANAL +ON THE MOHAWK RIVER

' L i t t l e F a l l s , New York

Nlagara Mut~dwk Power Col-poration and Acres American .Tnc.

,PRDA Proposal Cont rac t No. 1809

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporat ion, an e l e c t r i c and gas u t i l i t y ope ra t i ng i n New York Sta te and p r o v i d i n g e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e i n t he v i c i n i t y o f t he C i t y o f L i t t l e F a l l s , New York; t he C i t y of L i t t l e F a l l s , a m u n i c i p a l i t y l oca ted i n Herkimer County, New York; and Burrows Paper Company, a p r i v a t e co rpo ra t i on do ing business i n t he C i t y o f L i t t l e F a l l s , have j o i n t l y undertaken a f e d ~ i b i l i t y s tudy f o r t h c development o f h y d r n e l c c t r i c power on the Mohawk R ive r i n t he C i t y of L i t t l e F a l l s , New York.

Three dam s i t e s are l oca ted i n a one-mile reach 9 f t h e Mohawk R ive r a t L i t t l e F a l l s . A t t he upstream s i t e , two dams a t Hansen I s l a n d are operated by t he New York S ta te Department o f T ranspo r ta t i on t o c o n t r o l the E r i e Barge Canal, which f lows p a r a l l e l t o t h e r i v e r a t t h i s l o c a t i o n . Midd le Dam and G i l b e r t Dam a re l oca ted r e s p e c t i v e l y 1500 and 4000 f e e t downstream o f t he s t a t e dams. A t o t a l head o f 40 f e e t i s a v a i l a b l e f o r power genera t ion i n t he reach o f r i v e r proposed f o r study.

The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t h y d r o e l e c t r i c genera t ion i n t h i s reach o f r i v e r i n t he pas t was from a p l a n t develop ing 18 fee t of head a t t he Midd le Dam. The p l a n t was decommissioned i n 1962 a t which t ime the dam was breached, t h e i n t a k e c o n t r o l gates were c losed o f f , t h e i n t a k e canal was p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d , and the t u r b i n e - qenerat.ors and r e l a t e d equipment were d i smantled and removed. A1 1 t h a j .remairis i s t he concre te subs t ruc tu re and masonry supe rs t ruc tu re .

The f a c i l i t i e s a t G i l b e r t Dam i n c l u d e a p a r t i a l l y demolished m i l l on t he r i g h t bank which a t one t ime i nc luded th ree smal l h y d r a u l i c t u rb ines f o r mechanical m i l l d r i v e s and e l e c t r i c a l power. The dam i s a masonry s t r u c t u r e approx imate ly 12 f e e t high.

The i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e Midd le Dam s i t e had a r a t e d capac i t y o f 1150 kW and ope ra t i ng records from 1946 t o 1960 showed the average annual energy p roduc t i on was 8 m i l l i o n kwh.

The C i t y o f L i t t l e F a l l s owns the ' s i t e of t he abandoned powerhouse a t t he Midd le Dam, w h i l e Niagara Mohawk owns o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s and var ious water r i g h t s i n t he v i c i n i t y o f t he abandoned s t a t i o n . The Burrows Paper Company owns c e r t a i n p rope r t y which might be a f f e c t e d by a h y d r o e l e c t r i c development i n t he reach of r i v e r being i nves t i ga ted . Accordingly, t he p a r t i e s j o i n t l y undertook a f e a s i b i l i t y study. The bas i c ob jec- t i v e s o f t he s tudy a r e as f o l l o w s :

( i ) The f e a s i b i l i t y o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e abandoned f a c i l i t y a t t he Midd le Dam s i t e ; ( i i ) The f e a s i b i l i t y o f development o r redevelopment a t the Sta te Dam s i t e , t he Midd le Dam s i t e , the

G i l b e r t Dam s i t e and the Barge Canal s i t e .

2. ALI ERNATIVES

Several a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r a development o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c power were i d e n t i f i e d and i nves t i ga ted . Pre- l i m i n a r y drawings were prepared f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e i n v o l v i n g new equipment and s t r u c t u r e s . These drawings were used f o r q u a n t i t y t a k e - o f f measurements; t h i s t oge the r w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n and p r i c e s f rom equipment supp l i - e r s formed the bas i s o f c a p i t a l c o s t es t imates . The a n t i c i p a t e d annual average energy product ion obta ined from the average f l o w du ra t i on curve f o r t he Mohawk R ive r energy p roduc t i on was dera ted by a r e l i a b i l i t y f a c t o r i n t he c a l c u l a t i o n s . From t h e c a p i t a l cos ts , annual cos ts were est imated. From the annual cos ts and average annual energy product ion , a c o s t p e r kWhr was es tab l ished. The costs pe r kWhr f o r t he a l t e r n a t i v e s were compared and the most f avo rab le a l t e r n a t i v e was es tab l ished.

The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t i n g and b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e schemes i nves t i ga ted ; t he S ta te Dam s i t e was e l i m i n a t e d from cons ide ra t i on e a r l y i n t he study. The s i t e examinat ion and eva lua t i on revea led the s i t e has o n l y a 3 o r 4 f o o t gross head .ava i l ab le a t t he S ta te Dam and t h i s was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o war rant se r i ous cons ide ra t i on .

\

208

Midd le Dam s i t e - The s i t e would be redeveloped by demol ishing the e x i s t i n g powerhouse and r e b u i l d i n g a new f a c i l i t y . Two f a c i l i t i e s , one w i t h 2 u n i t s and one w i t h 3 u n i t s were i nves t i ga ted . '

G i l b e r t Dam S i t e - The p a r t i a l l y demolished m i l l on t he r i g h t bank would be f u l l y demolished and a new f a c i l i t y b u i l t . Two f a c i l i t i e s , one w i t h 2 u n i t s and one w i t h 3 u n i t s were i nves t i ga ted .

Barge Canal S i t e - The Barge Canal s i t e i s l oca ted downstream o f t he G i l b e r t Dam s i t e : a n d u t i l i z e s the barge canal as an i n t a k e channel. Two f a c i l i t i e s , one w i t h 2 u n i t s and one w i t h 3 u n i t s were i nves t i ga ted .

R e h a b i l i t a t e Middle Dam Powerhouse - The e x i s t i n g powerhouse a t Midd le Dam was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

3. RECOMMENDED SCHEME

The eva lua t i on i n d i c a t e d the barge canal s i t e t o be the most f avo rab le a l t e r n a t i v e ; i t has the lowest cos t pe r kWhr. For t he Barge Canal s i t e , as w e l l as t he o t h e r s i t e s , t he 3000 c f s f l o w i s shown t o have the advantage over t he 4000 c f s f l o w o r 3 u n i t a l t e r n a t i v e s . Th is i s t o say t he es t imated b e n e f i t s expected from the a d d i t i o n a l capac i t y does n o t j u s t i f y t he a d d i t i o n a l expend i tu re requ i red f o r the increased capac i t y .

The Barge .Canal s i t e w i l l use the canal as an i n t a k e channel. This d i c t a t e s m u l t i p l e usage of t he Barge Canal which i s owned by the S ta te o f New York and operated by t he New York S ta te Department o f ' l ' ransportat ion (NYSDOT). Hyd rau l i c s tud ies on the j o i n t use o f t h e Barge Canal have been completed f o r a design f l o w of 3500 c f s , which i nc ludes 500 c f s f o r l o c k f i l l i n g . These s tud ies i n d i c a t e maximum v e l o c i t i e s i n t he Canal of 2.2 fps, and a sur face energy l o s s o f 0.1 ft, between the upstream c o n t r o l dam and Lock 17, a d is tance of about 1 m i l e . The s tud ies show from h y d r a u l i c design, t h e r e a re no apparent eng ineer ing reasons which may prec lude the j o i n t use o f t he Barge Canal f o r nav iga t i on and power purposes.

The h i s t o r i c a l so le use o f the Barce Canal f o r nav iga t i on , however, poses c e r t a i n aspects which must be addressed and considered. Prev ious ly , t he Barge Canal was dewatered from December through May annua l ly f o r p reven t i ve maintenance purposes. Dewatering t he Canal would n o t be a normal annual occurrence i f a power f a c i l i t y were t o use the Canal as an i n t a k e channel and any maintenance r e q u i r i n g complete shut down o f t he Canal would be o f an emergency nature . P re l im ina ry i n d i c a t i o n s con f i rm t h a t t he complete shut down would be requ i red f o r emergency r e p a i r s on l y , and should n o t present a ser ious obstac le t o the development of the Barge Canal as a power f a c i l i t y s i t e . An agreement, between the owners o f the power f a c i l i t y and the NYSDOT, e s t a b l i s h i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r ope ra t i an and maintenance o f the Canal would have t o be reached before t he p r o j e c t cou ld proceed. A l l o f t he aforementioned aspects appear f avo rab le t o the development o f a power f a c i l - i t y a t t h i s t ime and no insurmountable obstac les t o the j o i n t usage o f t he Barge Canal a re env is ioned.

The power f a c i l i t y us ing the Barge Canal would produce an annual 32 m i l l i o n kWhr o f energy. The 32 m i l - l i o n kWhr has i nc luded a 200 c f s d iscount f rom the f l o w du ra t i on curve as an allowance f o r minimum f low t o be main ta ined i n t he sec t i on o f the Mohawk R ive r which would be bypassed by the Bargelpower Canal. The f a c i l i t y would have a p l a n t capac i t y f a c t o r o f 53%.

Several drawings p resen t i ng the recommended a l t e r n a t i v e are a t tached f o r re ference. The pl'an v iew drawings show the t h r e e - u n i t op t i on ; t he recommended a l t e r n a t i v e f o r t he two-un i t o p t i o n would have the same i n t a k e and powerhouse arrangement bu t f o r two u n i t s . Several photographs o f t he s i t e are a l s o at tached.

SITE GROSS HEAD (FT) PLANT FLOW I CFS . , NO. UNITS PLANT CAPACITY (KW) (Generator Name P la te )

LITTLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMEBT AiTERNATIVES--' CAPITALy COSTS. 8' EVALVAT'ION

MIDDLE DAM GILBERT DAM REHAB1 LITATION

BARGE CANAL MIDDLE DAM

P lan t k2Z..t .. b,&s*c .i i' ,gn

331 St ructures & Improvements 857,000 1,203,000 876,000 1,250,000 e92,OOO 1,235,000 170,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams, &

Waterways 355,000 377,000 580,000 654,000 1,011,000 310,000 70C ,000 333 Turbines & Generators 2,448,000 3,176,000 2,294,000 3,428,000 2,91€ ,000 3,845,000 1,460,000

N 334 Accessory E l e c t r i c a l A

o Equipvent 325,000 390,000 320,000 385,000 33: ,000 405,000 380,000 335 Misc. Power P lant

Equi merit 100,000 150,000 100,000 150,000 1OC ,000 150,000 150,000 336 Roads, Rai l roads, and

Bridges --- --- 50,000 50,000 7Cr,000 70,000 i --- 353 S ta t i on Equipment 77,000 82,000 117,000 127,000 16T,OOO 177,000 70,000

TOTAL CAPITAL COST 5,491,000 7,096,000 5,744,000 7,990,000 6,84; ,000 9,080,000 3,317,000 (Includes Contingencies

Engr. & Adain. & I n t e r e s t During Construct ion]

COST PER INSTALLED KW 1570 1530 2480 2420 80 3 785 1580 " ,

ANNUAL ENERGY FOR REVENUE 15.5 18.1 11.0 12.8 32.3 37.4 i ih (kWhr x l o 6 )

COST - $/kWhr 0.081 0.090 0.120 0.146 3.048 0.056 or067

P L A N

BARGE ML slie PLAN

. 1w1nrE ( P O ~ n O U S E

.." 1-Y-,:o - - - - - - - - -.- -- --- - I s I . I I I ' . ' . ~ -. - -

I0 I 0 t e I ' ' I J t 4 I t t .--- I I I r - I -

I I

D. m" - A

V\

A - ".

..

- .

L I VTLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

2 Ln MIDDLE FALLS DAM - POWERbOUSE

MIDILE FALLS DAP - BREACHED CONTROL DAM

MIDDLE FALLS DAM - POWERHOUSE AND SWITWYARD

MIDDLE FALL3 DAM - INTAKE CHANKL

L I T T L E FALLS HYDROELECTRI C DEVELOPMENT I

NAVIGATION LOCK NO, 17 - GENERAL VIEW , ? . , * ) " I . - - - - *. . f I

, - . .

5 r H E k n l m ~ { ~ A L . S NY

Barqe Canal Ddl'Jm

3630 Fret 9 322 5 F":

, : +

' 1 5 + 7 7 7 M

z: 7t-l 7 =!?- ~ 3 - -- l& t:

NAV I GAT I ON LOCK NO, 17 - DOMSTREAM GATE

-

NAVIGATION LOCK NO, 17 - DOWNSTREAM GATE

NAVIGATION LOCK NO, 17 - BARGE C4NAL CONTROL GATES ' I '

LITTLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

" MIDDLE FALLS DAM - INTAKE GATES AND TRASHRACKS w

MIDDLE FALLS DAM - DRAFT TUBE FROM FLUME

;L,. a:.., -'. 9 ,.:$,&r'w&&$ .: T

MIDDLE FALLS DAM - POWERHOUSE INTERIOR

MIDDLE FALLS DAM - OPEN FLUME AND INTAKE GATE

..,' l ; , > . , \

BARGE CANAL HYDRO SITE - GENERAL VIEW OF CANAL

BARGE CANAL HYDRO SITE - PROPOSED INTAKE SITE

BARE CMAL HYDRO SITE - PRWOOSED -P@HHOUSE S lTE

BPIRgE , C A M HYDRO SdT€ - PROPOSqUl INTAI$E SBTE !

LITTLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

3 a STATE DAR - LEFT DAM

-- _. ̂ . -3. - .-A spy -- e.4- &=- -- --. -

GILBERT DAM - RIGHT BANK

STATE DAM - RIGHT DAM

GILBERT DAM - VIEW FROM INTAKE

I. INTRODUCTION

' . I .' - ' I - .2-+.&y -- % :%- --#d-&.

DRY FALLS DAM POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER

Columbia Basin Project, Washington

outh Columbia Basin Ir-riyation Distrfct Tudor Engi neering Company


The Columbia Basin Project i s a multi-purpose development constructed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The source of water i s Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, formed by the impoundment of the Columbia River a t Grand Coulee Dam. Project irrigation f a c i l i t i e s a re designed to deliver water to 1,095,000 acres of irriqabla land in the central area of the State of Washington. Altogether, there are 333 miles of min canals, 1,936 miles of la tera ls and 2,223 miles of drains and waterways. In 1977 irr igation water service was available to 543,230 acres. Water supply, agricultural economy, and envfronmental investigations and engineering design and cost estimate studies are i n progress relating to the f a c i l i t i e s necessary to serve an additional area of approximately 550,000 acres.

Within the Columbia Basin Project, water users are represented by irr igation d i s t r i c t s , which en t i t i e s are responsible for payments to the USBR i n accordance with repayment contracts, and for operation and mafntenance of designated distribution f ac i l i t i e s . Three irr igation d i s t r i c t s have been formed for th i s purpose: Quincy Columbia Basin Irrigation Distr ict ; East Columbia Basin Irr igetion DWtrict; and South Columbia Basin Irr igatian Distr ict .

W i t h i n the Columbia Basin Project. there are several f a c i l i t i e s which pmvide service to two or more of the Districts. Those which a re c o m n to a l l three Distr icts are known as Project Reserved Works. The Dry Falls Dam arid Main Canal are in th i s group. Control i s exercised by the Distr icts through a Reserved Works Comnittee comprised of representatives of each of the Districts. As the Reserved Works Comnittee i s not yet a legal enti ty, the Committee and the respective d i s t r i c t s have duly resolved to delegate, for the time being, the authority for contracting for, managing, administering and reviewing the feas ib i l i ty assessments for contemplated hydropower developments a t Project Reserved Works, to the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District.

The Dis t r ic t ' s replacement repayment contract with the United States provides, for the project reserved works, that the Distr icts "may build plant$ fo r the production of power and energy and structures and f a c i l i t i e s necessary for the operation of such plants and a l l such plants shall remain i n exclusive control, possession and ownership of the d is t r ic ts" .

Various f a c i l i t i e s throughout the project - dams, checks, chutes and drops - offer the potential of hydroelectric energy generation. Preliminary investigation of s ix potential s i t e s indicates that more than 100 MW of installed capacity are economically and technically feasible a t t h i s time. Also many additional small hydro s i t e s will become available when the proposed expansion in irr igable acreage takes place. The Distr icts are currently pursuing development of a l l these s i tes .

11. EXISTING FACILITIES

Dry Falls Dam i s located a t the South end of Banks Lake, the primary equalizing reservoir fo r the Columbia Basin Project. Also known as South Coulee Dam, the dam i s an ear thf i l l structure 115 f e e t high a t i t s highest point, 9,880 f e e t long a t cres t elevation 1580. The active storage of the reservoir i s 696,000 acre-feet, between elevations 1540 and 1570.

The Main Canal headworks i s located a t the l e f t abutment of Dry Falls Dam. I t consists of a rectangular six-cell barrel conduit, w i t h warped in l e t and out le t transitions. Each cell i s controlled by a 12-foot by 18-foot top seal radial gate located sl ightly upstream of the dam axis. The structure was designed to pass a flow of 13,200 cfs with a water surface elevation of 1540 i n Banks Lake. Upstream of the headworks i s the approach channel, w i t h a bottom width of 120 fee t and 1-1/2 to 1 side slopes, excavated up to 40 f ee t into the lake bed. Downstream of the headworks, the main canal consists of unlined rock and concrete-lined reaches.

I r r i g a t i o n re leases a r e made du r i ng the p e r i o d of mid-March through l a t e October. I n a t y p i c a l season, d a i l y f l ows a r e increased g radua l l y over a two t o three-month per iod ; main ta ined a t o r near a maximum i n June o r Ju l y ; and d im in i sh t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l t h e end o f t h e season. Due t o t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n head and t a i l w a t e r sur face e leva t i ons , d ischarges through the headworks have h i s t o r i c a l l y undergone a head l o s s i n t he range o f 15-50 feet. The energy corresponding t o t h i s head l o s s i s d i s s i p a t e d i n t he h y d r a u l i c jump downstream o f t he r a d i a l gates.

Headwater and t a i l w a t e r v a r i a t i o n s w i l l change w i t h a n t i c i p a t e d f u t u r e increase i n d ischarge and development o f new f a c i l i t i e s . . These changes have been p ro jec ted and t h e power p l a n t s i z i n g and design se lec t i ons have been checked aga ins t t h e f u t u r e cond i t i ons .

111. CAPACITY AND ENERGY

The,optimum i n s t a l l e d capac i t y o f t h e Dry F a l l s s i t e was de f i ned as t h a t p l a n t s i z e which would produce the g rea tes t amount o f energy a t a cos t which was marketable under a power purchase agreement c u r r e n t l y be ing considered by t he South D i s t r i c t . The c a l c u l a t i o n o f energy f o r var ious i n s t a l l e d capac i t i es i s d i r e c t l y dependent on the a v a i l a b l e discharge, forebay e leva t i on , t a i l w a t e r e l e v a t i o n and p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y . Each o f these f a c t o r s i s v a r i a b l e a t t he Dry F a l l s s i t e . A computer model was developed t o i nco rpo ra te these va r i ab les and s imula te a wide range o f p o t e n t i a l h y d r a u l i c and design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The model a l s o incorpora ted an economics subrout ine so t h a t cos t s and economic r e t u r n s f o r var ious assumptions cou ld be r e a d i l y evaluated.

The computer runs der ived the power and annual energy ou tpu t f rom the power development, g iven the number, r a t i n g , and design head f o r t h e t u rb ines i n s t a l l e d . Power ou tpu t under va ry ing head cond i t i ons was c a l c u l a t e d us ing values f o r t u r b i n e e f f i c i e n c y obta ined from a v a r i e t y of pub l ished t e x t s and i n fo rma t i on rece ived f rom manufacturers. For each case considered, t he computer produces a graph ica l d i s p l a y o f t he power output , and a numerical t o t a l f o r t h e annual energy p roduc t i on i n the. year f o r which t h e f l o w cond i t i ons apply.

Computer runs were made t o determine t h e . e f f e c t o f va ry ing t h e number o f u n i t s i n s t a l l e d i n a p l a n t o f g iven t o t a l capac i ty . These demonstrated t h a t t he re was a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n a t h e t o t a l annual energy when t h e p l a n t design inc luded two tu rb ines as compared t o one. However, a design us ing th ree tu rb ines d i d n o t increase the annual energy o r p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y s u f f i c i e n t l y t o conmensate f o r t he a d d i t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n costs.

A s e r i e s of runs was made t o compare the energy ou tpu t o f 2 - u n i t p l a n t s o f va ry ing capac i t y . The runs were made f o r 1982, assumed as t h e f i r s t year o f f u l l ope ra t i on o f t h e power p r o j e c t . P ro jec t i ons were a l s o made, us ing the computer, o f annual energy p roduc t i on over a 40-year p e r i o d o f p l a n t ope ra t i on f o r 2 - u n i t i n s t a l l a t i o n s o f va r i ous capac i t i es .

From t h e annual cos t s and t h e es t imate o f annual energy p roduc t i on i n 1982, t h e es t imated u n i t c o s t o f energy can be c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s i z e o f i n s t a l l a t i o n considered. The r e s u l t s demonstrated t h a t c o s t would be a minimum f o r a p l a n t i n t h e capac i t y range 9 t o 13 MW. Based upon t h i s f i n d i n g , i f 40-year f i n a n c i n g i s employed, a 12 MW p l a n t w i l l produce annua l l y 56 m i l l i o n kwh o f energy a t 21.2 m i l l s i n 1982 d o l l a r s , a c o s t which i s l i k e l y t o be r e a d i l y marketable. L t was a l s o apparent t h a t , as i r r i g a t i o n re leases increase from year t o year , and i f c u r r e n t economic t rends cont inue, a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s w i l l become f e a s i b l e i n t he f u t u r e . The development recommended i n t h e r e p o r t , there fore , cons i s t s o f an i n i t i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n o f two 6 MW u n i t s , w i t h p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f f u r t h e r u n i t s i n l a t e r years.

I V . PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

A l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n s f o r t h e power p l a n t , penstock and t a i l r a c e were considered. The a l t e r n a - t i v e arrangements d i f f e r e d p r i m a r i l y i n t he use o f e x i s t i n g and new water passages through the dam. Based on ope ra t i ona l , economic and impact cons idera t ions t h e a l t e r n a t i v e cons ide r i ng a new condu i t pene t ra t i ng t he e x i s t i n g dam was chosen f o r d e t a i l e d study.

I n o rde r t o preserve t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e dam's e a r t h core, t h e penstocks w i l l be placed i n a tunnel excavated through the foundat ion rock. I n d i v i d u a l , 14 - foo t diameter penstocks are,proposed f o r each u n i t i n order t o keep tunnel excavat ion as f a r beneath t h e dam foundat ion con tac t surface as poss ib le . The powerhouse w i l l be l oca ted immediately downstream o f t h e t o e o f t h e e x i s t i n g dam embankment. The powerhouse w i l l be a rec tangu la r concre te s t r u c t u r e w i t h p l a n dimensions approx i - mate ly 117 f e e t by 48 f e e t . Downstream o f t h e powerhouse, t he t a i l r a c e w i l l c o n s i s t o f a concrete- l i n e d t r a n s i t i o n sec t ion , and an un l i ned channel excavated i n rock t o j o i n t h e e x i s t i n g Main Canal. The swi tchyard w i l l be l oca ted ad jacent t o t he powerhouse. Concrete foundat ions w i l l be prov ided f o r t h e step-up t ransformer , t a k e o f f towers and r e l a t e d equipment.

Se lec t i on o f the t y p e o f t u r b i n e most s u i t a b l e f o r t h e p r o j e c t cond i t i ons requ i res t h e cons ider - a t i o n o f power ou tpu t over t he expected range o f ope ra t i ng cond i t i ons . Generat ing p l a n t s ope ra t i ng under a head i n t h e range o f 10 t o 80 f e e t a r e considered "low head" i n s t a l l a t i o n s , and c a l l f o r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e which can be designed t o have a h igh s p e c i f i c speed. The most s u i t - ab le t u r b i n e runner t o meet these cond i t i ons i s t h e p r o p e l l e r type, whlch can be incorpora ted i n a v a r i e t y of con f i gu ra t i ons . The e f f i c i e n c y o f a t u r b i n e v a r i e s w i t h t h e head and f l o w under which i t operates. I n o rde r t o o b t a i n acceptable performance throughout t h e wide range o f ope ra t i ng cond i t i ons a t Dry F a l l s , a p r o p e l l e r w i t h ad jus tab le blades would be requ i red . For t h e purpose o f comparing a l t e r n a t i v e power p l a n t l oca t i ons , and as a bas i s f o r t he f i n a n c i a l ana l ys i s o f t he p r o j e c t , t h e use of convent iona l v e r t i c a l - s h a f t , Kaplan tu rb ines , has been assumed. Se lec t i on o f t he most s u i t a b l e type w i l l be reviewed i n t he course o f f i n a l design, based upon f i r m quo ta t i ons t o be obta ined from equipment supp l i e r s .

V. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The es t imated c o n s t r u c t i o n cos ts rep resen t i ng c o n t r a c t o r s ' b i d p r i c e s i n September 1978 d o l l a r s i s approx imate ly $8.47 m i l l i o n . The t o t a l represents a c o s t per k i l o w a t t o f i ns ta l l . ed c a p a c i t y o f $706.

The t o t a l c o n s t r u c t i o n investment requ i red was determined by adding the c o s t o f engineer ing, design. superv is ion . and c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o t he es t imated cons t ruc t i on cos t , and a l l o w i n g f o r e s c a l a t i o n t o t h e date o f cons t ruc t i on . Esca la t i on was c a l c u l a t e d a t 8 percent annua l ly , . fo r a 31- month per iod , on the assumption t h a t b ids would be submit ted i n t he s p r i n g o f 1981. The t o t a l con- s t r u c t i o n investment, r e f l e c t i n g these allowances, i s es t imated as $11.54 m i l l i o n .

To o b t a i n t he t o t a l c a p i t a l c o s t o f t he p r o j e c t , such cos ts as i n t e r e s t du r i ng cons t ruc t i on , fees f o r l e g a l serv ices and bond counsel , and var ious miscel laneous costs r e l a t e d t o p r o j e c t imple- menta t ion should be added t o t h e investment cos t . I n a d d i t i o n , t he f i n a n c i n g o f t he development must p rov ide f o r t he payment o f i n t e r e s t on borrowed funds du r i ng cons t ruc t i on . The ac tua l r equ i re - ments w i l l be dependent upon t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a power purchaser, and adv i ce by t he D i s t r i c t ' s f i n a n c i a l consu l t an t and bond counsel concerning the method o f f i nanc ing . I n c l u d i n g al lowance f o r these costs , t h e p r o j e c t cou ld be f inanced by means'of a $13.7 m i l l i o n bond issue. Annual debt s e r v i c e f o r a 7% bond i ssue w i t h a 40-year m a t u r i t y w i l l be approx imate ly $1,030,000. Est imated annual ope ra t i ng expendi tures i n t h e f i r s t yea r o f ope ra t i on a re c a l c u l a t e d a t $150,000. On t h i s bas is , t o t a l annual cos t s a r e es t imated as $1,180,000 and the c o s t per kwh i s 21.2 m i l es .

The va lue o f e l e c t r i c a l energy i n t he P a c i f i c Northwest i s h e a v i l y i n f l uenced by t he a v a i l a b i l . i t y o f resources, and the r o l e o f t h e Federal government as a major market ing agent f o r power i n t h e reg ion. H y d r o e l e c t r i c developments have prov ided a major share o f t he r e g i o n ' s energy needs t o date. These resources have been developed by p r i v a t e l y - and pub l ic ly -owned u t i l i t i e s , as w e l l as t he Federal government. Development o f t h e r e g i o n ' s major resources o f low-cost hydropower i s approaching sa tu ra t i on , and i t f o l l o w s t h a t f u t u r e expansion o f genera t ing capac i t y w i l l i n v o l v e h ighe r - cos t thermal, smal l hydro, and nuc lear p lan ts . U n t i l r e c e n t l y , BPA has been meet ing the f u l l requirements o f a l l t h e p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s . For t h e f i r s t t ime i n h i s t o r y , BPA has informed such u t i l i t i e s t h a t i t s resources w i l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e i r growth needs a f t e r 1983. BPA has n o t i f i e d t h e aluminum, chemical, n i c k e l and o t h e r bas i c i n d u s t r i e s which i t serves d i r e c t l y t h a t i t cannot renew t h e i r power c o n t r a c t s when they e x p i r e i n t h e mid-1980's. As o f January 1979, t he South Columbia Bas in I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t i s i n t h e process o fs .negot ia t ing a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e c i t i e s o f S e a t t l e and Tacoma f o r t he purchase o f power from a 5 MW i n s t a l l a t i o n known as P.E.C. 22.7, near O the l l o , Washington. The c o n t r a c t records t h e i n t e n t o f t h e t h r e e I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r l c t s and the c i t i e s to e r ~ l e r i n t o purchase agreements cove r i ng power f rom subsequent developments w i t h i n t h e Columbia Basin P r o j e c t . Such purchase would be con t i ngen t upon t h e developments conforming w i t h agreed c o s t c r i t e r i a .

V I . PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A u t h o r i t y f o r t he ~ i s t r i c t s t o undertake development i s sub jec t t o t he terms o f t h e repayment con t rac t s w i t h t h e U.S. Department o f I n t e r i o r , Bureau o f Reclamation (USBR). Under these con t rac t s , water r i g h t s w i t h i n t he Columbia Bas in P r o j e c t a r e vested i n t h e Un i ted Sta tes , sub jec t t o t he r i g h t o f t h e D i s t r i c t s t o t he unimpaired use o f the p r o j e c t water supply. Cons t ruc t i on o f t he power f a c i l i t i e s on fede ra l l y - c o n t r o l l e d land, and use of t h e water supp ly f o r power genera t ion purposes, i s s u b j e c t t o t h e p r i o r approval o f t he Secre tary o f t h e I n t e r i o r . Approval t o proceed w i t h development a t Check 22.7 on t h e Potholes East Canal has been g i ven t o t h e South Columbia Bas in I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . Development wo.uld be governed by an agreement w i t h t h e USBR, c o n t a i n i n g p rov i s i ons whereby t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t he i r r i g a t i o n system, t he water r i g h t s of t h e Un i ted Sta tes , and i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r ope ra t i on and maintenance o f p r o j e c t reserved works a r e pro tec ted. I n a d d i t i o n , t he Bureau has requested t h a t t h e f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n s f rom the proposed development be c a r e f u l l y eva luated t o : (1) ensure t h a t t he D i s t r i c t ' s con t rac tua l o b l i g a t i o n s a r e n o t impaired, and (2) es tab l i s h water supp ly c r i t e r i a t o avo id any p r e j u d i c e t o t h e development o f new p r o j e c t lands., S i m i l a r p rov i s i ons would app ly a t Dry F a l l s .

Prepara t ion o f t he FERC 1 icense a p p l i c a t i o n and design and c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s w i l l s t a r t immediately a f t e r t he conc lus ion o f t he power nego t i a t i ons . One year has been a l lowed f o r t h e FERC 1 icense a p p l i c a t i o n approval process. The process t o o b t a i n a1 1 o t h e r necessary pe rm i t s and agreements w i l l a l s o be i n i t i a t e d f o l l o w i n g t h e complet ion o f t h e power nego t i a t i ons . Throughout t he process o f n e g o t i a t i n g agreements, o b t a i n i n g permi ts , and i n connect ion w i t h f i n a n c i n g requirements, l e g a l serv ices and p ro fess iona l adv ice regard ing f i nanc ing would be obtained.

Major c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y i s scheduled f o r t h e pe r i od between i r r i g a t i o n seasons t o min imize t h e r i s k o f i n t e r r u p t i o n t o i r r i g a t i o n system opera t ions . ' Based upon con tac t w i t h manufacturers o f h y d r a u l i c and heavy e l e c t r i c a l machinery, a pe r i od o f 15 months has been a l lowed f o r d e l i v e r y o f t he major equipment. The schedule i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e development w i l l produce power i n mid-1982.

Based upon a p r e l i m i n a r y environmental assessment of t h e p r o j e c t , t he South Columbia Bas in I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t has f i l e d a d e c l a r a t i o n o f n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impact. Since no nega t i ve responses were -received f rom t h e agencies n o t i f i e d and no oppos i t i on o r ob jec t i ons t o t h e pub l ished and adve r t i sed dec la ra t i ons were entered w i t h i n t he pe r i od o f t ime a l lowed by law, t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impact has become f i n a l .

A more d e t a i l e d environmental assessment w i l l be conducted as p a r t o f t h e FERC l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n procedure; however, i t i s our expcr ience t h a t negat ive environmental impacts would not r e s u l t f rom c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t he proposed p l a n t . On t h e o the r hand, severa l p o s i t i v e impacts can be expected. Since f i v e nuc lear power p l a n t s a re i n var ious stages o f design and c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Washington Sta te , and s ince o t h e r c o a l - f i r e d p l a n t s a r e being considered i n t he reg ion, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Dry F a l l s Dam power p l a n t would be a p o l l u t i o n - f r e e source o f energy which would he lp reduce the f u t u r e use o f these a1 t e r n a t i v e p o l l u t i n g f u e l s .

Const ruc t ion and ope ra t i on o f a power p l a n t a t Dry F a l l s Dam should have a s l i g h t l y b e n e f i c i a l impact on t h e reg iona l and n a t i o n a l economy. The power c o s t w i l l be cheaper than most o t h e r op t i ons f o r f u t u r e power t h a t reg iona l e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s a re cons ide ra t i ng . I n t h e l ong run, c o n s t r u c t i o n and successful ope ra t i on o f a hydropower development a t Dry F a l l s Dam i s l i k e l y t o spark g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s a t s i m i l a r s i t e s throughout t h e reg ion. Future cons t ruc t i on p r o j e c t s o f t h i s t ype w i l l d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t t h e l o c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n economy, and i n d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t t he reg iona l economy by he lp ing t o h o l d down the power r a t e s .

EXPANSION OF SHAWMUT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Fairfield, Maine

Central Maine Power Company Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation

PRDA Proposal 'Contract No. ,EW-78-F-07-1812

I. INTRODUCTION

The Shawmut Hydroelectric Project is located on the Kennebec River, 67 miles above its mouth, in the community of Shawmut, Maine. Most of the existing facilities were built in 1912. They include a 1,135 ft. long concrete gravity dam and a separate powerhouse structure containing six hydro units having a total combined capacity of 5,800 KW. Each existing unit consists of a horizontal shaft, four runner Francis turbines, with a direct connected generator located in a gallery downstream of the turbine assembly. With 4 ft. flashboards on the dam, the gross operating head is about 23 ft. The average annual plant output is presently 41,300,000 KWh.

The purpose of the feasibility study was to determine the most practical method of installing additional generating capacity at this site, and the preferred size and type of new units.

11. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED

The alternatives studied for the Expansion of Shawmut Hydroelectric Project are as follows:

A. Two fixed blades, 1720 KW, 2500 MM standardized TUBE units, in a new powerhouse at the downstream end of the existing powerhouse forebay on the west side of the river.

B. Two fixed blades, 2500 KW, 3000 MM standardized TUBE units with a new powerhouse and forebay at the east abutment of Shawmut Dam - which is situated in the, Town of Benton.

C. Removal of one or more of the existing four runner Francis turbines in the existing powerhouse and replacement with modern turbogenerating equipment.

D. Two fixed blade STRAFLO units, rated 2500 KW each, in a new powerhouse at the east side of the river (similar to Alternate B).

111. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study indicate that, Alternative A, two 1,700 KW TUBE units on the west s5de of the river, is the most viable alternative for increasing the capacity of the Shawmut Project. The powerhouse layout developed for this scheme, which is referred to as the West Side Layout, is shown in Figure 1. Due to the fairly simple nature of the standardized unit installation, construction of Alternative A could be completed in one construction season.

. Alternatives A and B were developed in sufficient detail to determine their power output and estimated construction costs, which are shown as follows :

New Installed Capacity, KW

A. B. West Side East Side Layout Layout

3,440 5,000

Average Additional Annual Output, KWh 18,000,000 21,000,000

Direct Construction Cost, $ 3,000,000 4,900,000

Gross Plant Investment, $ 4,490,000 7,060,000

Annual Energy Costs, ~ills/KWh 49.9 67.2

Savings Over Fossil Alternative, $ 198,000 (88,000)

The flow duration curve used in this study is shown in Figure 2. It is based on 11 years of record at the Weston Station of Central Maine Power Company (CMP) which is just above Shawmut. As shown on the Flow Duration Curve, the new units would Le first-on, last-off" running essentially continuously with the old units, which have wicket gates, running as flow permits.

Alternative C, the use of the existing powerhouse by replacing some or all of the existing units, was investigated briefly and found to be impractical for various reasons..

Alternative D, the use of STRAFLO turbogeneration units rather than TUBE units was found to be uneconomical. While some savings in powerhouse civil cost can be achieved by the use of STRAFLO units, the savings do not offset the higher capital cost for this type of equipment.

The anticipated ecological and socioeconomic impacts from any of the alternatives considered for this study would be minimal. They would be primarily related to construction activities which are of relatively short duration. No potential safety hazards are anticipated as a result of the proposed Shawmut Expansion.

Based on,the above Central Maine Power Company plans to proceed with the initial planning for the recommended expansion. However, because the existing license expires in 1993 a request for revision and extension of the existing license will be filed with FERC as part of our application procedure.

r b,ooo

I4,000

'W

i d 10,ooo

z .

9 - 9 W 9 = -

S U E

4wo

+=

0 0 'Zb 4cl ca eo 1 0 0

R e c w T cc -n=

DPAIM&€ - 4zm SQ. MI.

FlGJPC: 2.

aPn*torl s *Q was mu^ n-.rcuc v'qv C€t.ITQAL MAIM€ RWCL en

ornl-9 RDu3 9vuATW cue- FDe ne YSUMEmcL

ry- t -- CUJ. -

Southwestern, Pennsylvania

Allegheny E l e c t r i c Cooperat ive Inc . . R. W. Beck and Assoc ia tes .


INTRODUCTION . .

The proposed Maxwell Hydroe lec t r i c P r o j e c t on t h e Monongahela River i n southwestern Pennsylvania w i l l u t i l i z e t h e 19.5-foot d i f f . e r e n t i a 1 head of t h e e x i s t i n g Maxwell Locks and Dam t o develop an annua l energy .o f about 36 m i l l i o n kwh. From t h i s f e a s i b i l i t y a s s e s s - ment s t u d y f o r t h e Allegheny E l e c t r i c Cooperat ive Inc . of Harr isburg, Pennsylvania t h e pre- l iminary i n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t an 8-MW p l a n t may be i n s t a l l e d wi thout s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t - i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e e x i s t i n g locks . I n a.ddJ.tion t o s i t e reconnaiaaance and a n a l y s i s of e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , t h i s s tudy included a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t arrangements and equipment, power o u t p u t , c o s t e s t i m a t e s , economic a n a l y s i s , and a p re l iminary environmental review.

A t t h e P r o j e c t about 3.0 m i l e s sou th of P i t t s b u r g h , t h e Monongahela River i s about 600 f e e t wide i n a w e l l de f ined v a l l e y up t o 1 ,500 f e e t wide wi th r a t h e r p r e c i p i t i o u s , b a n k s of weathered sedimentary r o c k s r i s i n g about 300 f e e t above t h e v a l l e y f l o o r . The 4,990 square-mile d r a i n a g e b a s i n l y i n g a long t h e nor thwest s i d e of t h e Allegheny Mountains has a humid c o n t i n e n t a l c l i m a t e wi th t h e average annual p r e c i p i a t i o n v a r y i ~ l g from about 40 inches a t t h e P r o j e c t up t o about 50 inches i n c l u d i n g 100 inches of snowfa l l i n t h e upper b a s i n a t e l e v a t i o n s up t o 4,842 f e e t . With an average of about 8,770 c f s , t h e streamflow a t t h e s i t e v a r i e s s e a s o n a l l y from a n average of 2,760 c f s dur ing September up t o 18,530 c f s dur- i n g March. Two r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e upper b a s i n p rov ide r e g u l a t i o n by peaking power from Lake Lynn and low-flow augmentation from Tygart Lake i n a d d i t i o n t o f l o o d c o n t r o l .


The e x i s t i n g Maxwell Locks and Dam i s one of n i n e such n a v i g a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s of t h e Corps of Engineers on t h e main stem of t h e Monongahela which has a n annual t r a f f i c of about 40 m i l l i o n t o n s , predominantly c o a l barges going down r i v e r . The e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y provide3 a 19.5-foot l i f t through t h e two 84-foot wide . locks a long t h e r i g h t bank of t h e r i v e r by a dam composed of f i v e r a d i a l g a t e s each 84 f e e t long on a broad c r e s t e d concre te weir founded on rock . A t t h e l e f t bank t h e powerhouse s i t e i s s e v e r e l y c o n s t r i c t e d i n t h e 90 f e e t between t h e dam abutment and t h e r a i l r o a d on t h e c u t bench of t h e r i v e r bank about 60 f e e t above t h e streambed. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x t e n s i v e a'nchorage system r e q u i r e d t o s t a b i l i z e t h e excavated s l o p e s i n weathered rock , o t h e r unique s i t e c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e r a t h e r d i f f i - c u l t a c c e s s , l i m i t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e a and t h e dramat ic r i s e of t h e t a i l w a t e r i n t h e lower n a v i g a t i o n pool whi le t h e upper pool l e v e l i s held c o n s t a n t by r a i s i n g t h e sp i l lway g a t e s t o p a s s f l o o d f lows.

. '. PROJECT ARRANGEMENT

A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l t e b n a t i v e arrangements , u n i t s and s i z e s , t h e p re l iminary i n v e s t i - g a t i o n i n d i c a t e s . t h a t t h e 'most' ecbnomical arrangement of t h e powerhouse would i n c l u d e f o u r v e r t i c a l u n i t s of 2-MW each. A s shown i n Exhib i t A , a conven t iona l i n t a k e with h y d r a u l i c l y opera ted s l i d e g a t e s would convey up t o 6,500 c f s through a covered power condui t over and behind t h e e x i s t i n g abutment s t r u c t u r e t o a b u n i t powerhouse s i t u a t e d a long t h e bank below t h e dam. The powerhpuse and water condui t a r e s i t u a t e d t o minimize t h e excava t ion on t h e s t e e p s l o p e below t h e r a i l r o a d .

A l t e r n a t i v e arrangements cons ide red i n c l u d e bulb and s t r a f l o u n i t s a s ... w e l l a s a s i n g l e tube u n i t and f o u r smal l s t andard ized tube u n i t s . The s i n g l e tube u n i t a p p e a r s . t o be. t h e . a

most p r a c t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e but t h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t i s i n excess of t h e proposed v e r t i c a l u n i t s . The c o s t o f a n arrangement w i t h f o u r s t a n d a r d t u b e u n i t s of 2-MW each appears t o be compe t i t ive w i t h t h e v e r t i c a l u n i t arrangement bu t t h e powerhouse would extend i n t o t h e r i v e r below t h e dam s p i l l w a y exposing t h e powerhouse t o f l o o d f lows . With a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s

' c o n s t r u c t i o n would be accomplished i n two s t a g e s w i t h dewate r ing by a c e l l u l a r cofferdam.

POWER OUTPUT

A f t e r deduc t ing t h e water r e q u i r e d f o r l o c k o p e r a t i o n s and g a t e l eakage , t h e power o p e r a t i o n s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e 8,000-kW p r o j e c t can develop a n ave rage annua l energy of 35.9 m i l l i o n kwh and a n average annua l c a p a c i t y o f 4,914 kW, d e l i v e r e d a t t h e load c e n t e r . The P r o j e c t would be t i e d i n t o t h e l o c a l 25-kV d i s t r i b u t i o n system of West Penn Power Com- pany wi th l i n e l o s s e s deducted t o d e l i v e r power i n t o t h e n e a r e s t Allegheny s e r v i c e a r e a about 40 mi les e a s t of t h e P r o j e c t .

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The e a r l i e s t p r a c t i c a l schedu le f o r t h e P r o j e c t i s a n on- l ine d a t e of January 1985. A t t h a t t ime t h e T o t a l Investment Cost i s e s t i m a t e d t o be from $17,800,000 t o $18,100,000, depending on t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e assumed f o r i n t e r e s t d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n .

A s shown i n E x h i b i t B economic f e a s i b i l i t y was s t u d i e d by comparison o f t h e e s t i m a t e d annual c o s t o f t h e P r o j e c t wi th t h e p r o j e c t e d c o s t s of con t inued wholesale power purchases

... equa l t o t h e power ou tpu t of t h e P r o j e c t , w i t h f i n a n c i n g l o a n s from t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e sour- I-u c e s . These a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e 7% and 9% i n t e r e s t r a t e REA l o a n s , and f i n a n c i n g under t h e

Na t iona l Energy Act a t 7-1/8% i n t e r e s t on 75% of t h e P r o j e c t c o s t , and a d d i t i o n a l f inanc- 4 2

i n g a t 9% on t h e ba lance . Current REA f i n a n c i n g would be a t about 9% whereas t h e 7% r a t e .? . i s cons ide red a p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h e f u t u r e . With c o s t s based on REA f i n a n c i n g a t 71, and

,. b e n e f i t s based on t h e p r o j e c t e d power c o s t s of West Penn Power Company, b e n e f i t s begin t o ,: * ? exceed t h e c o s t s d u r i n g t h e f i f t h yea r of o p e r a t i o n w i t h a cumulat ive n e t b e n e f i t i n t h e n i n t h y e a r , and t h e accumulated p r e s e n t worth (1985 l e v e l ) becomes p o s i t i v e d u r i n g t h e t e n t h yea r o f o p e r a t i o n . With t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of 9% REA and 7-1/81-98 DOE f i n a n c i n g , t h e accumu- l a t e d p r e s e n t worth v a l u e s show t h a t t h e p r o j e c t b e n e f i t s a r e l e s s t h a n t h e c o s t s f o r t h e

-i f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n . I

.w A .

F CONCLUSIONS

The P r o j e c t i s cons ide red t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e and wi thout any major environmental i s s u e s . It shows economic f e a s i b i l i t y p r o v i d i n g s a t i s f a c t o r y f i n a n c i n g terms a r e a t t a i n a b l e . Such s a t i s f a c t o r y f i n a n c i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c l u d e a 7% REA l o a n , which might c o n s i s t of a combinat ion of 5% and 9% REA loans , o r DOE f i n a n c i n g under t h e new Nat iona l Energy Act w i t h t h e 25% p o r t i o n o f t h e l o a n no t covered being f inanced w i t h 7% o r lower i n t e r e s t l o a n s ( p o s s i b l y th rough REA).

I f s i g n i f i c a n t F e d e r a l dam-user f e e s were charged f o r t h e use o f t h e Maxwell Locks and Dam i t i s g e n e r a l l y a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e P r o j e c t would no t be f e a s i b l e . Such f e e s have been a s s e s s e d on t h e l i c e n s e s of h y d r o e l e c t r i c developments a t some F e d e r a l dams i n t h e p a s t but f o r low-head p r o j e c t s t h e concept o f such f e e s a p p e a r s t o be i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c u r r e n t F e d e r a l program t o promote low-head development.

Nolrnal W.I. E1.743.5

Mlurmpohrlo R i r n

Fl0. ' LICI*D - C.".#.....C,,," . . LO'CATION MAP I ,*I, D.l,l.l.lt"tl

u-;.ru..d 3r.n won-. ' . (I,.., "..,(*lo" no,"'. on-8 . o ~ ~ f quohor rtwo ~ ~ k . 2 1 7 6

. . . LEGEND - m :;:2. : r;l E.isl'"a ......,.. st,"ct"re- - Concealed

. . SECTION C-C . ., 10' L.-

Slide pole wllh 201-0L0.

UP hydraulic hdst Scale

Railrood E1.792 - - - R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES

I N C I N I U AND CONYILlANlS " ,~

.S.ank. W#.hiwa ' , . D.mr.Cob.bo

crm 7- nib5.r s"m.. .nh'.ub VnlOl

ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

8 4

SECTION B-B SECTION .A-A ' '

. .

MAXWELL HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT

" PROJECT ARRANGEMENT VERTICAL UN'ITS

DATE: March 1979 1 Exhibit A

Project on-llne

PROJECT YEARS

2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

3.0

In rn u A -1 0 o 2.5 LL 0

In Z 0 2 2.0 I

I- Z 3 0 I a 1.5 J u 3 z Z u

1.0 1985 1987 1989 199 1 1993 1995

CALENDAR YEAR

.

R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fW61NEfll AND COIQULTANTS

a a n ~ e . w h i m Donm. - Onnl b i T a r B"M4 sdh, OIlOt

ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA .

MAXWELL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

ECONOMIC COMPARISON

PROJECT COSTS AND BENEFITS

Ml€ March 1979 Exhibit B

NOTES I. Project annual cost with a 3 5 year REA loan at 7%,or half at 5 % and half at 9%. 2. Project annuol cost with a 35 year REA loan at 9 % 3. Project annuol cost with a 30 year DOE loan at 7-l/8 for 75% of the total

loan,ond the balance at 9 % with a 3 0 year convention01 loan. 4. Project benefits bosed on West Penn Power Compony wholesale power costs as

projected by Southern Engineerlng Company.

BROADWATER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Toston, MT'

Tudor Engineering Company

PRDA ~ropos'al Contract No. EW-78-F-07-1822

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.nited States Department of Energy to conduct a study to investigate the feasibility of' developing the Broadwater Hydroelectric Project. The Department, in turn, issued a subcontract to Tudor Engineering Company to perform a major portion of the study. Also, subcontracts were issued by the Department to the Lowell C. Hansen Company of Helena, Montana for surveying and by Tudor to Hydro-Research Science of Santa Clara California for a hydraulic model study.

. .. The Broadwater Hydroelectric Project would be located at Toston Dam, which was built

in 1940, is a concrete gravity overflow dam which diverts irrigation water to the agricultural land around Toston.

Two alternate configurations were evaluated for the Broadwater site. One, known as the conventional alternative, would consist of a powerhouse structure contiguous to the left abutment of the existing structure. This configuration would be typical of the arrangement commonly used at similar sites. The other configuration, known as the apron- mounted alternative, would consist of four turbine-generator units mounted on the downstream apron of the existing spillway. This configuration would be unique and could have significant implications for the development of many low-head hydroelectric sites in the nation.

To assess the economic feasibility of the project, and to determine the better alternative, both alternatives were thoroughly evaluated. The evaluations included the preparation of site layouts, an estimate of the potential generation, a determination of the project cost, an assessment of the project economics and a brief overview of the environmental aspects. Additionally, a model study was performed for the apron-mounted alternative because of the unusual flow conditions of the configuration.

The result of the evaluations was the determination that the apron-mounted alternative was the best option for development of the Broadwater site. Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation PL-984 loan program, previously considered inapplicable to small hydroelectric projects, was determined to be viable and economically superior to the other financial options commonly used. Using these two options, the cost per kilowatt for the Broadwater site was determined to be $1,180 and the cost per kilowatt-hour in the first year of operation was calculated to be 17.4 mills/kWh. The latter value is considerably less than the value of energy of 26.6 mills/kWh estimated for western Montana, thus indicating a feasib1.e project.

, 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

- plates showing the proposed layouts of the two alternate configurations are attached to this.summary. The conventional configuration would utilize four tube turbines, totaling ten-megawatts, in a powerhouse structure to be built on the left abutment of the existing dam.. The powerhouse. would be attached to the dam and would become an integral part of th'e impoundment facility. The tube turbines would be mounted in the manner typically used for tube turbines. The turbine runner would be located in the water passageway directly downstream of the'trashracks. Downstream of the runner, the passageway would bend slightly and the turbine shaft would pass through the passageway wall to the speed increaser and generator. Considerable 'excavation would be required to provide approach and tailrase channels f or-this alternative.

. -

The apron-mounted configuration would utilize four vertical shaft propeller turbines, with a total capacity of 9.8 megawatts. The turbine cases would be encased in a mass concrete addition to the downstream face of the dam. The speed increasers and generators would be located in a superstructure to be built above the spillway. The configuration would be what is commonly known as a flume-type configuration. Flow to the turbine runner would not pass through a closed conduit. Instead, an impoundment, formed by the powerhouse structure, would be created on the downstream face of the spillway. Water would be withdrawn directly from this impoundment, through the turbine runner and out the draft tube. The turbine shaft would pass directly through the impounded water to the speed increaser and generator located on a floor above.

Each of the alternatives would include the replacement of the existing flashboard system, which increases storage capacity during the summer months, with radial arm gates. The gates would provide increased operational flexibility and would allow a constant water surfce elevation to be maintained on the turbines.

The two alternatives would operate similarly through the range of normal operation. All of the reservoir release would be routed through the power plant. During periods of high flood flows, however, the two alternatives would operate differently. Both would shut down as the increased tailwater made power generation impossible. Additionally, however, the apron-mounted alternative, which would occupy a section of the existing spillway, would have to be reconverted to a spillway function. To accomplish this, the back wall of the powerhouse would consist of fixed wheel gates, which could be raised to allow the passing of spill. It was determined that the construction of this configuration would not significantly reduce this spillway capacity. The flood that would require operation of the fixed wheel gates would be an infrequent event with an estimated recurrence interval of twenty years. In addition to the function of the fixed wheel gates during periods of spill, the gates would also serve as stop logs during routine plant maintenance.

A model study was prepared of the apron-mounted configuration because of the unusual flow conditions involved. The model contractor, Hydro-Research Science of Santa Clara, California, prepared a model of a single turbine bay. The model as evaluated during both the normal operation and the spill modes. No serious flow problems were discovered in either mode. A minor vortex problem in the normal operation mode was solved by the installation of a vortex breaker.

Both alternatives would include the replacement of the existing diversion intake structure with a new structure, located at a higher elevation, to accomodate the higher reservoir water surface elevation created by the radial gates.

111. PROJECT ECONOMICS

As a preliminary step to the calculation of project feasibility, the potential power generation and project cost was estimated for each alternative. The generation from each alternative, based upon .an operation study using fifty years of hydrologic data, was determined to be approximately fifty-five million kilowatt-hours per year. The project costs, including contingencies and indirect costs, were determined to be $11,500,000 for the apron-mounted alternative and $13,200,000 for the conventional alternative.

Three possible sources of financing were considered in evaluating the Broadwater project; the potential Department of Energy loan program, the Bureau of Reclamation PL-984 loan program and conventional financing through revenue bonds. The PL-984 loan program hs been previously considered to be inapplicable to 'small hydroelectric projects. Conversation with Bureau officials, however, established that the Bureau is willing and anxious to make these funds available to small hydroelectric developers. Using the interest rates and repayment periods pertinent to each funding source, the unit energy production cost was calculated for each of the possible configurations and financial options. These were as follows:

Energy Production Cost

Apron-Mounted Conventional

DOE Lvan PL-984 Revenue Bonds

. , . . From d a t a g a t h e r e d a n d p u b l i s h e d by t h e F e d e r a l Ener.gy R e g u l a t ' o r y C o m m i s s i o n , t h e v a l u e o f e n e r g y i n w e s t e r n M o n t a n a - w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o be 2.6.6 mi l l , s /kWh. ' Thus t h e B r o a d w a t e r p r o j e c t i s f e a s i b l e , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e a l t e r n a t i ' v e s . used. . However) - i t i s ' c l e a r t h a t t he1 PL-984 l o a n o p t i o n a n d t h e a p r o n moun ted c o n f i g u r a t i o n a r e t h e b e t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e s .

0 t h e

u l d

n e p o s s i b l e d i s a d v a n t a g e o f t h e PL-984 f i n a n c i n g i s t h e l o n g p r o c e s s i n g t i m e ; r e q u i r e d B u r e a u . The p r o j e c t s s c h e d u l e d e v e l o p e d d u r i n g t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r o j e c t

b e e x p e c t e d t o go o n - l i n e no e a r l i e r t h a n O c t o b e r 1 9 8 3 , u s i n g t h e s e f u n d s . T h i s i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e y e a r l a t e r t h a n c o u l d b e a c h i e v e d u s i n g e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r f u n d i n g s o u r c e s .

The . e f f e c t of i .nf l a t i o n was a l s o e v a l u a t e d . I t was shown t h a t g r e a t e r f u t u r e power v a l u e s f r o m i n f l a t i o n g r e a t l y e n h a n c e t h e p r o j e c t f e a s i b i l i t y . F o r e x a m p l e , when t h e a s s u m e d i n f l a t i o n r a t e i s i n c r e a s e d f r o m z e r o p e r c e n t t o t h r e e p e r c e n t , t h e . b e n e f i t / c o s t r a t i o o f t h e c o n v e n ' t i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n f i n a h c e d w i t h r e v e n u e b o n d s a s s u m i n g a t e n p e r c e n t d i s c o u n t r a t e , i n c r e a s e s f r o m 1 .02 t o 1 . 3 7 .

I V . SUMMARY

The a p r o n - m o u n t e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n was shown t o b e a v i a b l e a n d e c o n o m i c a l l y s u p e r i o r a l t e r n a t i v e f o r t h e B r o a d w a t e r s i t e . T h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n c o u l d h a v e w i d e u s e a t o t h e r , s i m i l a r s i t e s : t h r o u g h o u t t h e n a t i o n . The B u r e a u o f B e c l a m a ' t i o n PL-984 l o a n s w e r e a l s o shown t o b e a v i a b l e a n d e c o n o m i c a l l y s o u n d o p t i o n f o r p r o j e c t f i n a n c i n g .

- . - - . .. . . . . . -, . .- . . -

SITE 'PLAN YmL: I'.W

DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION OTLn OT Y D l T U

SOIT, r.u PI

A R ( O N ~ ~

L

I

TYPICAL PO~~E~WUSE LrnDVT-4 RE&+ -L BR DGE R 1 N SIAIL P YOWTUI~

m r : ;.Lo W A T E R W

w m ~ E : f.l.-o @RON MWNXD PLTERNNNE

PLPN AND SECTIONS man

3.

. .- . . . . . -

HMFPMIW*XLSEPLAN m u %a(: C.c.0 mlDIirYL

SECTION A w: f . , ' .~ ff Y*Tm

- A m TYY

awmmwl. ALTEwAmE

F U N , S O C T M PM WOUT nm

5

BRIDGE SEClK?A m: f 4.0

UF'STRW ELEVATION OJWNSTREAM ELEVATION I -L:I..W WI na.m'

1

PLAN AND ELEVATIONS PLAE

4 '

Small/ LowmHead Hydropower PRDA-1706 - UNT Digital ...

Documents