Water Power and Dam Construction - Issue February 2009
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
century 467 dams were reported to have been completely or par-
tially removed across the US [5] and the total number of removals
now stands at over 600 [6]. The pace of removal is reported to have
picked up over the decades, coinciding with the 50 year licensing
cycle under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rules
[7] (Table 1 and Figure 1).
The average size of removed dams appears to have decreased in
recent decades. This may b e due to an increase in funding for
removal of small dams over this period. For example American
Rivers administers a grant programme for the removal of small dams
as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Open Rivers Initiative.
In an analysis of 417 case studies Pohl [8] found that environ-
m
ental reasons were most commonly cited for dam removal (39%),
followed closely by safety (34%).
H
YDRO DAM REMOVALS
There is no single source of useful and accurate information on hydro-
electric dams removed in the US. The information has been collated
from a range of official sources – such as the FERC, state registers,
and the US Army Corps of Engineers and from unofficial sources, such
as the Stanford University National Performance of Dams Programme
and University of California Berkeley Clearing House for Dam
Removal Information, Idaho National Laboratory and from dam
removal activist literature (such as American Rivers). Where possible
the information has been cross checked against original sources.
Our research found reasonably complete information for 17 of
the 23 hydro dams reported as having been removed to date. A fur-
ther two removals are underway (counting the two Elwha dams as
a single scheme) and six were classified as “planned”, including the
four Klamath dams. Dams were onl y entere d into the “planned”
category if the dam owner has agreed to remove the dam, or been
ordered to remove the dam, within a set timeframe. Counting dam
removals planned and underway, the data set consists of 25 reason-
ably complete sets of data (Table 2) [9].
Several observations are immediately apparent from the data on
hydro dams removed to date:
• The dams tend to be of moderate height (range 5m to 18m).
• Most of the dams had a small installed generating capacity (0.4 to
10MW).
• The dams are reasonably old (average age 87 years at removal).
• Many of the hydro schemes had already been retired at the time
of removal (86%)
While the removed dams are often small in generating capacity, com-
parison against data for hydro dams recognised by FERC reveals
that that, the size distribution of removed dams is reasonably rep-
resentative of the stock of dams in the US, at least for dams below
100MW installed capacity (Figure 2).
The decommissioned hydro dams represe nt 1.8% of the total
number of FERC recognised hydro schemes, but the total genera-
tion capacity of 40MW decommissioned to date represents only 0.05
% of the 78,000 W total inst alled gene rating capacity of hydro
schemes in the US [10]. This is because a small proportion of large
dams provide most of the installed capacity and none of those have
been removed. Dam removal projects currently underway will
increase the total generating capacity removed to over 100MW.
Whether a tipping point has been reached is a moot point, but the
data is consistent with an emerging trend towards: removing larger
hydro schemes with greater installed capacity; removing operating
hydro schemes, not just retired hydro dams
S
EDIMENT REMOVAL
Sediment management is a major consideration in dam removal, and
probably the most significant issue on most decommissioning pro-
jects. In recent times there has bee n a trend to use mor e natural
processes to manage sediments (Box 1). Current examples include
the Condit Dam and the Bull Run hydro scheme removals, both of
which are due to be completed in 2009 [11].
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM FEBRUARY 2009 31
ENVIRONMENT
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Count
1920-
1950
1951-
1980
1981-
1990
1911-
2000
2001-
2008
Year of removal
16
31
92
137
154
Above – Figure 1: US dam removals. Please note figure only includes dams for
which height and year of removal are known. Below – Figure 2: Distribution of
dams removed, underway and planned, versus remaining FERC hydr o projects
8
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Current FERC dams
Removed dams
0-5 5-20 20-100
I
nstalled capacity (MW)
100-500 500+
1. Removal of
two dams in
Michigan
Sturgeon Dam
The 16m high Sturgeon
concrete arch dam was built on
the Sturgeon River, Michigan, in
1919 to supply 0.8MW of
hydroelectric power. In 1998 the
dam owner agreed to remove
the dam, stating that it was no longer economic to operate [13]. The dam
was progressively removed in three stages of 5m, 5m and the remainder, on
the first, third and fifth years of the removal programme [14]. Removal
commenced in 2003 and was completed in 2007 [15] at a cost of
approximately US$2M [16].
Stronach Dam
The 10m high Stronach Dam
was built on the Pine River in
Michigan in 1912, generating
2MW through an adjacent
powerhouse. High sediment
loads in the Pine River filled the
27ha reservoir just 18 years
later, in 1930. The hydro plant
operated for another 23 years,
but was retired in 1953 [12].
The Stronach powerhouse was demolished in 1996. A series of stoplogs
were inserted and progressively removed: one 150mm high stoplog per
quarter, until the river was back down to its natural level by 2003. This
gradual removal was aimed at reducing environmental effects downstream of
the dam, by gradually releasing stored sediment back into the downstream
river. Riprap was placed in some locations within the reservoir to prevent the
accumulated sediment from eroding too quickly.
Sturgeon Dam after Phase 1 of removal
in August 2003. Courtesy Michigan
Department of Natural Resour ces
Stronach Dam in November 2003, with
removal almost complete. Courtesy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
32 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
ENVIRONMENT
C
OST OF DAM REMOVAL
Historical costs of dam removal were inflated to 2008 US dollars
using the US Army Corps of Engineers construction cost index for
dams [17]. To allow a range of project siz es to be compared,
removal costs were also expressed as a percentage of the construc-
tion cost to build an equivalent facility (Table 3). A hydroelectric
project cost model developed by the US Department of Energy [18]
was used to estimate current US construction costs for those hydro-
electric projects. The model is based on only one input variable,
being the installed electricity generation capacity, so the estimated
costs are not site-specific and are indicative only. Nevertheless the
data suggests that removal costs are typically 5 to 50% of con-
struction costs.
T
here is some evidence that hydro dam removals are getting cost-
lier. For instance prior to 1999, removal costs were typically less than
10% of the cost of building an equivalent hydroelectric scheme of
the same installed generation capacity. Since 1999 the cost of dam
removals has increased, typically costing 20-40% of new construc-
tion costs. It is possible that the early removals were biased towards
the easiest dams to remove, where low costs made it relatively easy
to justify a removal decis ion. While local factors will affect any
removal decision, it is logical to expect that dams that are inexpen-
sive to remove will tend to be removed earlier than others.
One cost stands out in Table 2, being the Elwha dams removal
which is being conducted by the US National Parks Service. This is
clearly an outlier when compared to the other data. Reasons why
this removal project is so expensive are examined in Box 2, but can
be summed up in a single word: sediment.
F
ACTORS AFFECTING COST OF REMOVA L
Regression analysis was used to indicate the most significant factors
influencing cost of dam removal. Elwha data was excluded because
it is an outlier, and the four Klamath dams were excluded because
of the uncertainty regarding the timing of their eventual removal and
due to the wide variations in projected removal costs reported in the
l
iterature. All costs for the 18 remaining dams in the data set were
brought to 2008 dollars using the USACE cost index.
Simple linear regressions indicated that installed capacity, and dam
height were the most significant factors. A multiple linear regression
analysis found that these two factors combined accounted for 83%
of the variation in removal cost.
Estimates of reservoir area were only available for nine dams. A
simple regression analysis tentatively indicated that reservoir area is
important, ranking below installed capacity as a predictor of cost,
but ranking above dam height.
Table 2: Removal of hydroelectric projects in the US - selected case studies
Removal FERC Dam River State Dam Installed Reservoir Inflated Built Age at Retired Reason for
Complete No. Height Capacity Size Removal Removal Retirement
Cost
(
year) (m) (MW) (Ha) ($M) (year) (years) (year)
Completed
1973 Lewiston Clearwater ID 14 10 2.9 1927 46 Reservoir full of sediment
1973 2482 For t Edwards Hudson NY 10 2.85 78.9 2.0 1898 75 1969 Cost of repairs to aged
structures
1991 10694 Willow Falls Willow WI 18 1 40.5 1.0 1870 121 1985 Flood damage
2000 2306 Newpor t No 11 Clyde VT 6 1.8 0.4 0.8 1957 43 1996 Partial collapse
1998 10696 Mounds Willow WI 18 0.4 23.1 0.7 1926 72 1963 Economic reasons
1999 2389 Edwards Kennebec ME 7 3.5 462.6 4.2 1837 162 1999 FERC denied relicensing for
fish reasons
2000 3688 East Machias East Machias ME 5 1.5 0.7 1926 74 1962 Inadequate power generation
2001 10781 Orienta Iron WI 13 0.8 0.7 1947 54 1985 Flood damage
2002 7118 Smelt Hill Presumpscot ME 6 1.1 0.4 1898 104 1996 Flood damage
2002 4180 Sennebec St. George ME 5 0.4 0.4 1916 86 1961 No longer of use with the
advent of larger generators
2003 2580 Stronach Pine MI 5 0.8 27.3 1.1 1912 91 1953 Reser voir full of sediment
2005 7490 Embrey Rappahannock VA 7 6 11.5 1910 95 1968 Inefficient compared to larger
dams
2006 20 Cove Bear ID 8 7.5 3.0 3.5 1917 89 circa 2004 Cost of repairs vs. revenue
2006 11433 Madison Sandy ME 5 0.547 0.5 1903 103 2006 Relicensing required
Electric Works fish ladders - too expensive
2005 2471 Sturgeon Sturgeon WI 15 0.8 100.4 2.3 1919 86 Mitigation for operation of
other We Energies projects
Underway
2009 477 Marmot & Sandy ME 14 22 22.5 1912 97 Upgrade costs and fish
Little Sandy
2012 Elwha and Elwha WA 65 28.1 265.1 227.0 1910 102, 86 Restore the river and fish runs
Glines Canyon & 1926
Planned
2009 2342 Condit White Salmon WA 38 14.7 526.1 27.8 1913 96 No longer economically
viable with rising
environmental costs
2012 2659 Powerdale Hood OR 3 6 6.5 1923 89 1/04/2010 Cost of fish compliance
2082 J.C. Boyle Klamath OR 21 80 170.0 20.4 1958 Restoration of river
Company (600 miles) for fish runs
Copco No. 1 CA 38 20 404.7 22.1 1918 Restoration of river
(600 miles) for fish runs
Copco No. 2 CA 10 27 16.2 4.0 1925 Restoration of river
(600 miles) for fish runs
Iron Gate CA 53 18 382.0 40.0 1962 Restoration of river
(600 miles) for fish runs
w w w .rizzoas s o c . c o m
'(6,*1 $1$/<6,6 ,163(&7,216 &216758&7,21 0$1$*(0(17
&25325$7( +($'48$57(56 3,776%85*+ 3(116</9$1,$ 86
3+21( )$;
PROUDLY
BUILDING ON
YEARS
OF RCC & DAM
CONSTRUCTION
EXPERIENCE.
2
5
ON
DAM
CTION
$*(0(17
E.
34 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
ENVIRONMENT
F
ACTORS INFLUENCING DAM REMOVAL
It has already been seen that most hydro dams removed to date had
already been retired. Clearly this is a good predictor of likelihood of
removal. Other factors influencing the likelihood of dam removal
were expected to include:
• Size – smaller dams being may be more likely to be removed.
• Rank – smaller dams in a portfolio owned by an operator could
be more likely to be removed (for example as a form of mitigation
for continued operation of others).
• Region – dams on pacific salmon rivers may be more likely to be
removed.
In fact, when compared to the FERC database, no significant over-
all difference was found in likelihood of a dam being removed due
to the size (Figure 2), at least for dams below 100MW installed gen-
erating capacity. Rank was also examined but only a weak relation-
ship was found, which may have simply been chance. The overall
historical data showed no compelling evidence of regional differences
in the likelihood of dam removal (Table 4). However closer inspec-
t
ion of the data shows that many of the early hydro dam removals
were on the Atlantic coast, but most recent and planned dam
removals are on the Pacific coast. This emerging trend may indicate
that activism focused on Pacific salmon rivers is beginning to have
an effect. In summary none of these additional factors were found to
be good predictors of the likelihood of a dam being removed.
2. Removal of dams on the Elwha River
The 33m high Elwha and 65m high Glines Canyon storage dams produce a combined
total of 28MW of electricity, but they also isolate spawning areas in the headwaters
o
f the Elwha River for several threatened fish species. These privately-owned dams
w
ere built in 1910 and 1926, predating formation of the Olympic National Park in
w
hich they are now located.
The US National Parks Service is proposing to spend a total of US$ 308M to
purchase and remove both dams by 2012, and has already commenced
construction of downstream mitigation wor ks, in preparati on for dam removal [19].
The first contrac ts are for improvements to water supplies to downstream
c
ommunities, which wil l be adversely affected by high sediment loads in the first
f
ew years after dam removal. I n fact the cost of removing the dams and works to
s
tabilise silt in the Elwha reser voirs represents a minority of the overall cost (see
figure opposite). Excluding purchase of the hydro schemes, the estimated cost of
the Elwha removal project is 181% of cost of buil ding equivalent new hydroelectric
power plants.
Much of the Elwha project costs are for downstream mitigation works, such as building new water treatment plants to cater for elevated sediment loads and
replacing septic tank systems in floodplains, which will now be inundated again. These mitigation works exceed the cost of removing the dams. A major factor is
that the proposed sediment management method is to let the river erode the accumulated sediments over a relatively short period of time. Over the first three
years following dam removal it is expected that high sediment loads will affect the quality of water supplies for downstream communities and industrial users.
Sediment will also temporarily raise the river bed levels, requiring additional flood protection works [20].
This sediment management solution was chosen by the National Parks Service in 1995 because it was cheaper than dredging the reser voirs to remove the
sediment. The US National Parks Service has an aggressive policy of removing such dams from national parks [21] and the federal declaration of several species
of fish present in the Elwha as threatened, and other factors may have precluded a slower and possibly cheaper, staged removal process.
D
ownstream mitigations
44%
Buy hydro
2
6%
Remove
3
0%
Breakdown of Elwha decommissioning costs
Table 3 Removal costs of hydroelectric projects in the US
Dam Height Installed Physical removal Removal cost Removal cost inflated to Estimated 2008 construction Ratio removal to Est.
capacity complete cost 2008 using USACE Index Cost (INEEL) construct cost
(m) (MW) $USm $USm $USm
Historical
Lewiston 14 10 1973 0.6 2.9 47 6%
Fort Edwards 10 2.85 1973 0.4 2.0 17 12%
Willow Falls 18 1 1991 0.6 1.0 20 5%
Newport No 11 6 1.8 2000 0.6 0.8 12 7%
Mounds 18 0.4 1998 0.17 0.2 7 3%
Edwards 7 3.5 1999 3.0 4.2 19 22%
East Machias 5 1.5 2000 0.5 0.7 10 7%
Orienta 13 0.8 2001 0.5 0.7 6 11%
Smelt Hill 6 1.1 2002 0.3 0.4 8 5%
Sennebec 5 0.4 2002 0.3 0.4 4 9%
Stronach 5 0.8 2003 0.8 1.1 6 19%
Embrey 7 6 2005 10.0 11.5 31 37%
Cove 8 7.5 2006 3.2 3.5 37 9%
Madison Electric Works 5 0.547 2006 0.5 0.5 5 11%
Sturgeon 15 0.8 2005 2.0 2.3 6 37%
Underway
Marmot & Little Sandy 14 22 2009 17.06 22.5 92 24%
Elwha and 65 28.1 2012 227.0 227.0 126 181%
Glines Canyon
Planned
Condit 38 14.7 2009 17.5 27.8 65 43%
Powerdale 3 6 2012 6.3 6.5 31 21%
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM FEBRUARY 2009 35
ENVIRONMENT
T
IMING OF REMOVAL OF OPERATING DAMS
When the case histories are examined in depth, as part of a process
of relicensing, then an interesting pattern emerges. What appears to
happen, time and again, is that the owner agrees to decommission
an operating dam and, in return, the dam is allowed to run on for a
number of years to pay for it’s own removal.
This achieves a classic win-win: the river restoration activists win
by getting another section of the river restored, and the po r tfol i o
owner wins because, having accepted that the dam will be removed,
the hydro then generates it’s own removal fund. Savvy hydro port-
folio owners use the removal of one dam to burnish their environ-
mental credentia ls, while ensuring that the vas t majority of their
hydro generation capacity portfolio is relicensed.
S
UMMARY OF HYDRO REMOVALS
While a large number of dams have been removed in the US, this
has started from a very large base, in a country with a long history
of industrialisation.
The arguments for planning the removal of dams are c ogently
summarised by John Seebach of American Rivers: “Dams are tools,
but like all tools, they eventually wear out and stop serving a useful
purpose: even a revenue-generating benefit like hydro power doesn’t
always outweigh the cost associated with a dam’s environmen tal
impacts or public safety hazards. When these costs begin to outweigh
the benefits, it’s time to take a serious look at decommissioning.
Removal should always be an option in relicensing, but since many
of our hydro dams are still quite functional and produce benefi ts
that are deemed worth the costs, it’s not going to be a serious option
in the majority of hydro licensing cases.
“ The problem with hydro dams is that, even t hough they’re
designed with a non-permanent 100-200 year life span at best, they
aren’t planned that way: the question of what to do with them when
they’ve outlived their usefulness is one that’s not dealt with serious-
ly during the initial permitting and construction of a dam, which is
assumed to be a permanent fixture. As a result, when a dam needs
to be removed, the taxpayer is often stuck with the bill, even if the
dam was constructed, owned, and operated by private investors who
profited from that investment. We need to consider the entire life-
cycle of infrastructure when we decide to build it, rather than push-
ing that cost onto future generations of taxpayers.”
Removal of the Elwha dams a nd the recent Klamath Dams
Agreeme nt may represent a tipping point, where the appetite for
dam removals will rapidly grow. However it is more likely that it
represents a rebalancing of the relative weight given to electricity
generation, recreational and environmental considerations.
Kevin Oldham, Director, SPX Consultants Limited, PO
Box 25 953, 11A Polygon Rd, St Heliers, Auckland, New
Zealand. Tel: +64 9 575 5758. Email:
kevin.oldham@spx.co.nz
Table 4: Proportion of hydro
dams removed by region
R
egion Total No. of FERC Total No. of Hydro % of Total
Recognised Dams
H
ydro Projects Removed
FERC FERC
Licensed Exempt
Pacific 257 247 504 12 2.4%
Desert 30 27 57 1 1.7%
Central 210 65 275 5 1.8%
Great Lakes 52 10 62 2 3.2%
East Atlantic 487 254 741 10 1.3%
Continental US 1036 603 1639 30 1.8%
[
1] Source: Lowry, W. (2003). Dam Politics. Georgetown University Press, p 84.
[2] Source: Fimrite, P. (2008 November 14). Step taken toward removing
Klamath River Dams. San Francisco Chronicle. Accessed at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
b
in/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/11/14/MNA21441S7.DTL
[3] Source: http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/quick-links/press-
room/press-releases/klamath-dam-removal-agreement-is-the-cornerstone-
for-a-comprehensive-plan-to-restore-the-klamath-basin-1
[4] Dams in the NID meet one of three sets of criteria: 1) over 6 ft high and
impounding over 50 acre ft of water (1.8m and 67,000 m3): or 2) over 25
f
t high and impounding over 15 acre ft (7.5m and 20,000 cubic metres):
or 3) pose a serious downstream hazard.
[5] Dam Removal Success Stories: Restoring Rivers Through Selective
Removal of Dams that Don’t Make Sense, American Rivers/Friends of the
E
arth/Trout Unlimited, 1999
[
6] Source: FAQ on Dam Removal (2005) American Rivers,
http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/FAQ_on_Dam_Removal.pd
f?docID=2981
[7] Doyle et al, (2000), Dam Removal : Physical, Biological and Societal
C
onsiderations, Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers Joint
C
onference on Resources Planning and Management, Minneapolis, July 30-
August 2, 2000
[8] Pohl, M. (2002). Bringing down our dams: Trends in American dam
r
emoval rationales : Dam removal.. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association. 38, 1511-1519.
[9] Due to space limitations not all of the collated data can be presented
here. A copy of the complete information, on Excel spreadsheet, is
available for download from www.spx.co.nz.
[10] Source: US Energy Information Administration (2008). Existing
Capacity by Ener gy Source, 2006
[11] Decommissioning Plan for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, Filed by
Portland General Electric Company with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, D.C. FERC
Project No 477, Nov 2002
[12] Stronach case study largely drawn from Morris, G.L. and Fan, J (1997).
Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1997. p17.15. Sturgeon
case study drawn from Michigan Department of Natural Resources
[13] WEPC (1998). 10-K405 Filing, SEC File 1-01245, Accession Number
107815-98-5. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 1998.
[14] Emery, L. (Undated). The Sturgeon River Pr oject: A Case Study,
Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC
[15] Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_27415-80309—
,00.html. Accessed 28 October 2008.
[16] DEQ (2007). State of the Great Lakes Report: Restoring the Lakes.
Annual Report Prepar ed by the Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, 2007.
[17] UASCE (2008). Civil Works Construction Cost Index System
(CWCCISEM 1110-2-1304), US Army Corps of Engineers, 31 March 2000,
updated to 31 March 2008.
[18] Model developed by Idaho National Laboratory of DoE from an analysis
of several hundred hydropower projects of between 1MW and 1300MW
capacity constructed in the US since 1940. Refer INEEL (2003), Estimation
of Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower Resources , Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, US Dept of Energy, June 2003.
[19] Source: US National Park Service Press Release at
http://www.nps.gov/olym/parknews/elwha-restoration-project-
update.htm
[20] Source: p312 of Elwha River Restoration Draft Sediment Management
and Monitoring Plan, Appendix B in Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration
Implementation Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement, US National Parks Service, July 2005.
[21] The US National Park Service had removed over 100 dams on NPS
land by the turn of the century. Source: The World’s Water 200-2001, Peter
Gleick, Island Press, 2000
Sources
IWP& DC
36 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
TRAINING
planning, this course introdu ces participants to procedures that
should be followed in order to comply with today’s requirements
for good environmental planning. The international financing of
hydro depends on this, and the well being of millio ns of people
relies on it.
Participants learn how Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)
are typic ally organised and carried out through the concept of
Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM). As
a result they become better prepared to analyse results and identify
proper mitigating measures. The focus is on pro-active planning of
hydro power devel o p m e n t s as part of int e g r a t e d watershed man-
agement to ensure sustainable utilisation of natural resources.
Special attention is given to social and cultural issues and the
effects of hydro power on vegetation, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
as well as issues related to sediment transport. Theoretical input is
likewise illustrated and emphasised through field trips t o various
catchments and projects in the middle and southern part of Norway.
3) H
YDROPOWER
F
INANCING AND
P
ROJECT
E
CONOMY
Meeting the Challenges of Financing Hydropower Pro jects in
Liberalised Markets – 1 week course
Hydropower Financing and Project Management (HFPE) aspires to
provide participants with insights into a variety of financing models
for hydro power projects looking at both private and public require-
ments and solutions. Participants are introduced to the concepts nec-
essary in the assessment a hydro projects economic viability, with
an emphasis on the challenges of a liberalised energy sector.
The course focuses on project financing and the role of energy in
a country’s economy as well as legal and institutional framework.
The planning process of a project, with emphasis on the economic
and financial consideratio ns and assessments, are elaborated.
Environmental and social considerations and risk analyses are also
introduced.
The course is aimed at management personnel and executives with
responsibilities in the planning and decision process of hydro power
projects on a national/regional or company level. A technical or an
economic background is relevant.
T
HE International Centre for Hydropower (ICH) acts as a
joint international forum for industry and institutions in
the field of hydro power and related areas. The centre sup-
ports the hydro power industry by gathering, developing
and marketing know-how on environmental, social, technological,
economic and administrative aspects of hydro.
Its objective is to act as a showcase for and to promote the indus-
try in general by organising courses, workshops and conferences.
The current programme consists of the following six courses.
1) H
YDROPOWER
D
EVELOPMENT AND
M
ANAGEMENT
The Planning and Management of Hydropower Resources in the
Context of Integrated Water Resources Management – 3 week course
The objective of the course is to provide participants with the knowl-
edge of the fundamentals of planni ng and management of hydro
power resources development, in the setting of integrated water
resources management as well as part of mixed energy systems. By
focusing on both theoretical and practical issues, course participants
will be able to contr ibute more effectively in th e management of
energy resources in their own organisation/country.
The course deals with questions related to current international
trends with regard to the restructuring of the power sector where
economic/financial questions and environmental issues are central
themes together with legal and institutional framework.
Theoretical input is illustrated and emphasised through field trips
to various catchments and projects in the middle and southern part
of Norway. Executives and middle management personnel from
power companies, ministries, private and public agencies will bene-
fit from this course.
2) H
YDROPOWER AND THE
E
NVIRONMENT
Management of Environmental and Social Aspects of Hydropower
Development – 3 week course
Aimed at senior professionals who deal with environmental issues
in hydro power and dam projects, or those that influence project
The International Centre for Hydropower (ICH) was established in 1995 as a hydro
power portal in Norway. Its main focus is to raise standards of competence for industry
personnel in both developed and developing countries. Carole M Rosenlund gives an
overview of ICH’s current course programme
Gaining through training
Participants
attend a
study tour
A study session at the ICH
4) C
ONTRACTUAL AND
L
EGAL
A
SPECTS IN
H
YDROPOWER
D
EVELOPMENT
Enhancing the Dev elopment of Hydropower through Efficient
Management System – 1 week course
Considering today’s challenges faced by agencies and professionals
dealing with water resources and energy legislation, political and
commercial trends, this course is aimed at decision makers and exec-
utive management personnel from public agencies, ministries and
power companies that are, or soon will be, dealing with water man-
agement and energy related questions.
The main objective of the course is to provide the participants with
an updated knowledge of how to create workable management sys-
t
ems based on the legislation that exists or is evolving, or is devel-
oped as part of bilateral institutional cooperation. The focus is on
the intermingled challenges of developing, at the same time, the nec-
essary legal framework, the institutional development, the hydro
and energy devel o p m e n t / m an a g e me n t and the parallel process of
creating skilled key personnel who are capable of managing the legal
regime in an efficient manner.
The course focuses on improving the management of the legislation
through harmonising overlaps in the policy, regulatory and operational
functions of public institutions. An efficient management of legal
framework will also support the financing of hydro power develop-
ments, by avoiding legislative obstacles that hamper financial solutions.
5) S
OCIAL
I
MPACT
A
SSESSMENT COURSE
(Online training programme for sound Social Impact Assessment
processes)
The SIA (Social Impact Assessment) course introduces participants
to procedures that should be followed in order to comply with today’s
requirements for a sound social impact assessment process, includ-
ing strategic priorities and national guidelines. It will also help to pro-
vide tools for planning hydro power and other water-related projects
in the best possible way on a national, regional and local level.
The course is tailor-made for distance learning on-line. The com-
plete course consists of 13 modules, estimated at five hours work-
load per module. Each module should be completed within a week;
ie the normal course duration is 13 weeks.
To complete the c ourse, participation in discussions as well as
written exercises must be completed and a course diploma is issued
upon completion. The course is aimed at power companies, author-
ities, NGOs, relevant private enterprises and others working with
development of resources requiring a structured knowledge process.
It is required that course participants for SIA shoul d ha ve a rele-
vant university education, a minimum five years of working expe-
rience in the water resource sector, moderate computer skills, good
command of the English language and access to a computer and an
email account.
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM FEBRUARY 2009 37
6) E
LECTRICITY
R
EGULATORY
I
NITIATIVE
S
EMINAR
- ELRI
ELRI is a training programme for regulators, primarily from devel-
oping countries. Organisers are the Norwegian regulator (NVE) in
cooperation with ICH. The 2008 seminar was the sixth in the series.
Previous seminars have been attended by participants from a number
of regulatory institutions in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Intended for executives of power companies, ministries, water
resource and energy agencies, and relevant private sector enterprises
with management responsibility, the ELRI course is also of value to
engineers interested in developing their career within power markets.
This course aims to introduce participants to the key features and
experience with power sector reform in the Nordic power market,
d
etails the different regulatory systems used in the Nordic power
market and examines the relevance of these experiences to electric-
ity industries in developing countries.
Towards the end of the course, a panel discussion of senior fig-
ures in the Norwegian power sector is arranged to answer partici-
pants’ questions and a special topic ad dr e ss e s the implications of
independent power producers for poverty in developing countries.
N
EW COURSES
ICH is continuously developing new courses for the benefit of the
industry. Topics for these courses are based on feedback from course
participants and surveys conducted in several countries. The latest
additions to the 2009/2010 portfolio are courses on:
• Dam safety – An introducti on to the inspection of dams and
hydraulic structures with a focus on how to identify deficiencies
that may affect safety both in the long and short term. The course
is aimed at participants from government agencies, dam operators
and dam owners.
• Risk Management – to be introduced in the 2010 course programme.
• Small Hydro – scheduled for 2010.
• Negotiation techniques – The course concerns the art of negotiat-
ing contracts related to hydro power developments. Numerous
cases during recent years have shown that this is a topic necessary
for many developing countries in particular in order to reduce the
gap of skills when meeting very professional and skilled negotia-
tors from law firms, contractors and financial institutions.
• Condition Monitoring and Maintenance Planning of Turbines –
These courses cover Francis, Pelton and Kaplan Turbines, are part
web-based (online) and designed for management and technical
staff at existing power plants. To be launched this year.
F
UTURE PLANS
The International Centre for Hydropower is looking to continue
developing its current course pr ogrammes and to intr oduce new
courses that will benefit the industry significantly.
This October, ICH has organised a regional training programme
for Central America in Guatemala and a new course will be offered
again next year. It is hoped to regionalise ICH activities in Central
America as well as in Africa.
Together with the GTIEA secretariat (Greening the Tea Industry
in Eastern Africa) in Kenya and the Kafue Gorge Regional Training
Centre(KGRTC) in Zambia, ICH has prepared a project proposal
for Norad that contains a four-year training programme for small
hydro development and operation in the tea industry in eight Eastern
African countries. ICH is also keen to develop similar training pro-
jects in cooperation with companie s and authorities in Tanzania
as well as other African countries.
Carole M. Rosenlund is responsible for the e-learning
systems and online turbine series of courses at the
International Centre for Hydropower
Please visit www.ich.no for more information
or email: mail@ich.no
TRAINING
IWP& DC
Other activities
Regularly updated development plans form the basis of ICH’s activities and
priorities. Over the years it has also been engaged in:
• Secretariat and project management for the International Energy Association’s
Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes; Annex
V: Education and Training (four-year project with Japan, Sweden, Norway)
• Project management for the three-year extension of IEA’s Hydropower
Agreement in the new Annex VII: Hydropower Competence Network in
Education and Training (Japan, Sweden, Norway)
• The implementation of a five-year development plan for a hydraulic laboratory
in Kathmandu, Nepal. ICH was a Norwegian partner, in cooperation with
NTNU, sponsored by Norad.
• International networking – ICH also works with the International
Hydropower Association (IHA); International Network on Small Hydropower,
China (IN-SHP); International Association for Small Hydro (India); and the
European Small Hydro Association (ESHA).
38 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
TRAINING
E
LECTRICAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS
The results of an electrical hazards analysis constitutes one of the
most important factors in the selection of personal protective equip-
ment, developing a training programme for qualified persons, and
developing an effective electrical safety programme.
OSHA requires the employer to perform a hazard assessment of
the workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE)
is necessary. NFPA further defines what is required in the hazard
assessment by requiring a shock hazard analysis and a flash hazard
analysis for equipment operating at 50V or more. The shock hazard
analysis is used to determine the voltage exposure, shock protection
boundaries, and the required PPE necessary to protect employees
and minimise the possibility of electrical shock.
A
s a result of the hazard assessment OSHA also requires training.
Each employee shall be trained to know at least the following: when
PPE is necessary; what PPE is necessary; how to properly don, doff,
adjust, and wear PPE; the limitations of the PPE; and the proper care,
maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.
NFPA addresses the requirements for arc-rated, flame-resistant
(FR) protective clot hing and pe rsonal protective equipment for
application with a flash hazard analysis. When work is to be per-
formed within the flash protection boundary, the flash hazard
analysis must be used to determine the incident energy levels that
the employee will be exposed to. The incident energy value is then
used to select the prop er arc-rated, fla me-resistant (FR) personal
protective clothing and equipment to be used by the employee for
the specific task to be performed.
Other PPE that is often overlooked is the requirement to use insulat-
ed hand tools. OSHA requires that when working near exposed ener-
gised conductors or circuit parts, each employee shall use insulated tools
or handling equipment if they might make contact with such conduc-
tors or parts.
A common misc onception is that when usin g insulated tools,
rubber- insulating gloves are not needed. The prima ry purpose of
rubber gloves is shock protection and the primary purpose of insu-
lated tools is to prevent an electrical arc-flash. They must be used
together in order to help avoid electrical hazards.
E
LECTRICAL SAFETY PROGRAMME
OSHA states that safety related work practices must be employed
to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct
or indirect electrical contact, when work is performed near or on
equipment or circuits which are or may be energised. Energised work
applies to work performed on exposed live parts (involving either
direct contact or by means of tools or materials) or near enough to
them for emplo yees to be exposed to any hazard they present.
Conductors and parts of electric equipment that have been de-ener-
gised, but have not been locked out or tagged, shall also be treated
as energised parts, and this applies to work on or near them.
If the exposed live parts are not de-energised, other safety relat-
ed work practices must be used to protect employees who may be
exposed to the electrical hazards involved. Such work practices will
protect employees against contact with energised circuit parts direct-
ly with any part of their body or indirectly through some other con-
ductive object.
Only qualified persons should work on electric circuit parts or
equipment that have not been de-energised. Such persons should be
capable of working safely on energised circuits and must be famil-
iar with the proper use of special precautionary techniques, person-
al protective equipment, insulating and shielding materia ls, and
insulated tools. If work is to be performed near overhead lines, the
lines shall be de-energised and grounded, or other protective mea-
sures shall be provided before work is started.
Dennis K. Neitzel currently serves as the Director of AVO
Training Institute in Dallas, Texas, US.
dennis.neitzel@avotraining.com
www.avotraining.com
E
LECTRICAL power systems today are often very complex.
Protective devices, controls, instrumentation and interlock
s
ystems demand that technicians be trained and qualified at
a highly technical skills level. Safety and operating proce-
dures utilised in working on these systems are equally as complex,
requiring technicians to be expertly trained in all safety practices and
procedures. The goal of any training programme is to develop and
maintain an effective and safe work force.
In the US, one objective of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administrati on (OSHA) and the National Fi re Protection
Association (NFPA) is to protect employees from electrical hazards
in the workplace. There must be a strong emphasis on qualified per-
sons only performing work on or near exposed energised and de-
energised electrical systems and equipment in all industry sectors.
An understanding of the potential hazards of electricity, which
include electrical shock, arc-flash and arc-blast, must be addressed
as a major part of training and qualifying employees.
T
RAINING REQUIREMENTS
One of the most important aspects of electrical safety is to ensure
that all employees who are or may be exposed to energised electri-
cal conductors or circuit parts are properly trained and qualified.
The first thing that must be discussed is to identify who a qualified
person is. This has always been a point of debate throughout indus-
try, but is clearly defined by the National Electrical Code (NEC),
NFPA 70E, and OSHA. The NEC defines a qualified person having
the ‘skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation
of the electrical equipment and installations and has received safety
training on the hazards involved’.
In addition, NFPA states that employees are required to be trained
to understand the specific hazards associated with electrical energy,
the safety-related work practices and procedural requirements. These
training requirements are necessary to help protect employees from
the electrical hazards associated with their respective job or task
assignments as well as to identify and understand the relationship
between electrical hazards and possible injury. Training in emergency
procedures is also required when employees are working on or near
exposed energised electrical conductors or circuit parts.
OSHA regulations require employers to document that employ-
ees have demonstrated proficiency in electrical tasks. A needs assess-
ment is required before any significant training can be developed
and implemented for a qualified person. This assessment involves
relevant company personnel who are aware of the job requirements
and all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Information that
is collected will provide insights into any past or present performance
problems that must be addressed in the training programme.
Dennis K. Neitzel gives an insight into training
requirements to ensure electrical safety
Playing it safe
Hydro training and electrical safety
In recent years the AVO Training Institute has worked with the following hydro utilities:
Hydro Ottawa
Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA)
PacifiCorp
Avista Utilities
Grant County PUD
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
IWP& DC
Seattle City Light
Salt River Project
Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA)
PSEG
FirstEnergy
23-26 June 2009 • Reykjavik • Iceland
Advancing
Sustainable
Hydropower
www.hydropower.org
The International Hydropower Association is pleased to announce its initial World Congress sponsors and partners:
Registration for the IHA 2009 World Congress is now open.
Register online at www.hydropower.org or contact us today to find out more:
Tel: +44 20 8652 5290 Email: congress@hydropower.org Web: www.hydropower.org
nels are twin tunnels – one was expected to act as a drainage tunnel
with the other for transportation and removal of blasted debris.
However, the many inflows experienced in the tunnels led to
severe problems with the excavation work, delaying construction.
In some areas the inflows did not reduce as much as assumed, with
post grouting work proving difficult. An earlier paper on the water
inflows at Jinping was pu blished in the October 2008 issue of
International Water Power & Dam Construction, where the authors
described the inf lows and related geo logical s tructures – and the
change in strategy in dealing with the inflows. This new paper is an
attempt to characterize the water inflows and the water bearing
zones, and introduces the principles, key equipment and grout mate-
rials found useful in sealing the cavities and faults.
W
ATER INFLOWS AT
J
INPING
Types of groundwater inflows encountered
During excavation, the twin tunnels experienced large water in-bursts
and gushing water. Before break-through of Tunnel B in May 2008
and Tunnel A in August 2008, inflows in the east side tunnels had
accumulated up to 7m
3
/sec (Huang and Wu, 2008). After the first
water in-burst on 8 January, 2005 – when the east side of tunnel B
had been excavated to about 3055m – efforts were made to drain the
water and seal inflows through post-grouting. These post-grouting
works are still being carried out, becoming more effective over time.
Of the many water inflows that were encountered at various loca-
tions, there were 11 significant water in-bursts with more than
200L/sec entering the tunnels (Huang and Wu, 2008). The water
came from joints, joint zones and faults, often karstified to form
channels and cavities, with almost continuous water flow.
Sometimes the blast holes were so close to the water bearing zone,
that the blasting actually encountered the water. Or, after blasting,
the pressurized water in the cavity split the fractured rock masses
and burst into the tunnel. The statistical data shows that, quite often,
water inflows with a large volume and high pressure occurred at
single locations. Based on the difference in flows, the water inflows
may be classified as follows (Norconsult Report No. 3, 2004): a)
Seepage for volumes < litres/day; b) Dripping for volumes of
litres/day to m³/hour; c) Water inflow for volumes of m³/hour to many
m³/minute; d) Water in-burst for volumes > many m³/sec; e) Gushing
water or jetting water for pressurized inflow of water many litres/sec.
Water-conducting zones
According to geological investigations and observations carried out,
the surface water enters into the ground through faults and fissures
in the soluble and brittle carbonate rocks which, over time, devel-
oped karst phenomena like open joints, chan nels, and even large
cavities. The high water pressures – sometimes more than 8MPa –
caused severe problems for the tunnel excavation works.
Table 2 shows the estimated lengths of rocks in the main geologi-
cal units along the twin access tunnels. In the Zagunao formation in
the west side of Tunnel B, in the section BK2+683-BK2+696m and
40 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
TUNNELLING
T
HE 17.5km long access tunnels for the Jinping hydro
scheme are located in the Jinping Great Bend region and
consist of two parallel (twin) tunnels spaced 35m apart
(axis to axis) (Huang and Wu, 2008). Their construction
has allowed traffic from the Jinping I and Jinping II hydro projects
to avoid 138km of roads located in steep valleys often subjected to
earthquakes, and allows for more convenient communication
between the two projects. Passing beneath the Jinping mountains,
the tunnels have up to 2500m overburden and are mostly located in
limestone and marble (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1).
A 4km long test adit excavated before the tunnels’ construction
experience d large water inflows from the combination of faults
and karst cavities, makin g it clea r that th e access tunnels would
likely encounter similar lar ge infl ows. Or iginally, prob e drilling
was to be carried out to discover any water-conducting structures,
which would then be grouted prior to construction of the twin tun-
nel s. During excavation, however, i t was decided that t he water
bearing zones would be filled later – the water would be drained
and post-grouting would be carried out once the inflow and pres-
sure had reduced. The main reason for this is the fact that the tun-
Since the first pressurised water inflows entered the east side of access tunnel B at the Jinping
hydro project on 8 January 2005, efforts have been undertaken to seal the flows through
grouting. Ziping Huang and Shiyong Wu introduce some principles of the post-grouting
work, including equipment and grout mixes, classify the water inflows and conducting zones,
and present details on the post-grouting works carried out in the west side tunnels
T3 Upper Triassic
Y
a
l
o
n
g
R
i
v
e
r
Y
a
l
o
n
g
R
i
v
e
r
T2 Middle Trassic
T2b Baishan formation
T2y Yantang formation
T2z Zagunao formation
T1 Lower Triassic
T3
T3
P2
T3
T3
T2z
T2z
T1
T2y
T2y
T2b
T2b
T2b
Mofanggou Spring
Laozhuangzi Spring
Spring
Jinping II HPP
Jinping I HPP
J
i
n
g
p
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
u
n
n
e
l
s
0 5km
Figure 1: Geological map with location of the access tunnels. All rocks
Triassic (205 - 250. million years old)
Grouting works at Jinping