MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT-INDONESIA

GREEN PROSPERITY PROJECT

REPORT
MCA-I Deliverable
Review
Second Submission for
W3B1 # 17 FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN
of
PT. SELO KENCANA ENERGI
Green Prosperity Project
Activity 3 Window 3B1

7 April 2017

Under Contract Number 2015/Grant/015

Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Table of Contents
Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Section 1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 1-1
PROJECT DETAILS.................................................................................................................1-1
TECHNICAL REVIEW SUMMARY/ RECOMMENDATION......................................1-1
OVERALL PROJECT ASSESSMENT..................................................................................1-1
Section 2 Detailed Summary ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Engineering Review Summary ..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Social & Gender Review Summary ..................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Environmental Safeguard Review Summary ..............................................................................2-1
2.4 Project Control Review Summary....................................................................................................2-3

List of Tables

Table 1 Engineering Review Results

Table 2 Environmental Safeguard Review Results
Table 3 Project Control Review Results

i
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Section 1
Executive Summary
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name: Lubuk Gadang Mini Hydro Power Plant
Proposal Number: W3B1 - 17
Grant Agreement Number: 2015/Grant/015
Grantee Name: PT. Selo Kencana Energi
Project Location: Nagari Lubuk Gadang Timur, West Sumatera.
Project Phase: TAPP

TECHNICAL REVIEW SUMMARY/ RECOMMENDATION

Portfolio Lead Name: Jeffery Dickinson
Date Received from GAST: 14 March 2017
Date Submitted to GAST: 5 April 2017
Deliverable Reviewed: Third Deliverable, First Review; PMIS No. DLVS-0004
Deliverable Quality Assessment - Strengths:
The Implementers design has covered necessary improvements to increase the plant output.
Deliverable Quality Assessment Weaknesses, Gaps and Risks:
ENGINEERING
Over all, the design can still meet the minimum requirements. However, to produce a
comprehensive and detail grant agreement, the Implementer shall address the Omissions and
Errors in this submission.
SOCIAL & GENDER
Overall, the report still provides only a limited quantitative and qualitative data/information
and in depth analysis. The risk and opportunity matrix as well as P-SGIP should be clear and
fully connected. They all should be in the context of project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
Implementer still has not addressed most of MCA-I comments from previous review and
coaching process.
PROJECT CONTROL
The proposed schedule has not fulfilled best practice requirements, comments in Table 3 below.
Cure Options:
The documents shall be updated as per comments provided in documents.
OVERALL PROJECT ASSESSMENT

1-1
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi
Upcoming Milestones and Critical Path:
The Implementer still needs to improve the over-all Design Document for amendment of
Grant Agreement for construction.

1-2
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Section 2
Detailed Summary
This section provides details for each reviewers summary, based on their roles.

2.1 Technical Review Summary

Over all, the design can still meet the minimum requirements. However, to produce a
comprehensive and detail grant agreement, the Implementer shall address the Omissions (O) and
Errors (E) in this submission, particularly on the following items:
1. (O) Please provide a complete slope stability analysis for existing and proposed
conditions which includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Existing groundwater conditions
b. Seismic analysis
c. Evaluation of the shotcrete wall to include at a minimum:
i. Tensile strength of the ground anchors;
ii. Pullout resistance of the ground anchors;
iii. Flexural resistance of the shotcrete facing;
iv. Punching shear resistance of the shotcrete facing; and
v. An evaluation of corrosion potential of the structural elements of the
shotcrete wall including ground anchors and connections.
2. (O) Please provide complete details, consistent with design analysis, for the shotcrete
wall, including but not limited to:
a. Minimum and maximum spacing of the ground anchors;
b. Connections between ground anchors and shotcrete;
c. Minimum and maximum angle of inclination of the ground anchors;
d. Wiremesh;
e. Grout to be used; and
f. Details of the drainage system.
3. (O) Please provide a discussion for how soil and material parameters were selected for
all design calculations.
4. (E) The soil parameters selected for the slope stability analysis are higher than expected.
For example, it is not common to encounter a Sandy Silt (as presented on page 5 of the
supplement to the deliverable) with a friction angle of 30.15 and a cohesion of 82.87
kN/m2. Please review, revise, and provide justification for selected soil parameters.
5. (E) The weir seepage and stability calculations do not match the proposed weir design as
depicted on the drawings. Please review and revise.
6. (E) The head difference in the seepage calculations presented on page 25 of the
supplemental deliverable is incorrect for both normal and flood conditions. Please review
and revise.
7. (O) Please provide dam stability calculations for the following loading conditions, as
specified in Table 18 and Table 19 on pages 33 and 34 of the supplemental deliverable:

1-3
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

a. Normal
b. Normal + Seismic
c. Flood Design
d. Flood Design + Seismic
e. Flood Design + Seismic (implementation period)
8. (E) Several errors were discovered in the dam stability calculations and may be
contributing to higher than expected factors of safety. Please review and revise. If the
factors of safety are too low, the dam cross section shall be modified as necessary. The
following errors were identified in the calculations:
a. The sum of the vertical moments in Table 14 on page 32 is incorrect.
b. Page 30, Table 10, Column Force (ton) V has been calculated incorrectly. The
area of the triangular sections has been calculated as rectangular sections and is
producing a higher than expected gravity load and resisting force from the dam.
c. Page 32, Table 14 gives the vertical moment for uplift in the same direction as the
vertical moment due to gravity. Please revise.
d. The method for calculating the sliding factor of safety for normal and flood
conditions is not appropriate. Please review, revise, and provide justification for
the selected method of analysis.
e. Page 36, Table 21 shows the allowable bearing capacity has been increased
depending upon the loading condition. Please provide justification for this
increase.
f. It may be advantageous to reduce the tail water force to 60% for the dam stability
analysis to create a more conservative condition.
9. (O) The document, Annex. K Mechanical Specifications gives the turbine design flow at 7.5
m3/s. At a net head of 55 m the turbine output is expected to be around 3.7 MW, giving an
electrical output around 3.5 MW per unit thus making an installed capacity of 7 MW. The
report indicates that the turbine will run above capacity but does not provide a discussion
on the impacts that it will have on the sustainability of the project (i.e. the lifespan and
operation/maintenance of the equipment). Operating the equipment this way could lead
to an over-estimation of the amount of energy output and adversely impact financial
feasibility of the project.
10. (O) Please provide email correspondence from manufacturer verifying feasibility of the
turbine suction head design and lubrication system design. The provided correspondence
included in Annex H is informal and does not confirm correspondence.
11. (O) Please provide stability calculations for retaining walls shown on the drawings.
12. (O) Please provide stability and seepage analyses for the gabion walls used for the river
normalization.
13. (O) Please provide drainage details to address surface drainage/runoff around the river
normalization. The details submitted in the supplemental deliverable only address
drainage along the left side of the river normalization. Details for all areas to be modified.
14. (O) Please provide design calculations and details for scour protection of the gabion walls.
15. (O) Please consider installation of warning system or means to restrict access to the river
normalization in areas where people may be harmed due to the sudden increase in flow
produced by the power house shut down.

1-4
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

16. (0) It may be advantageous to place a geotextile fabric behind the gabion wall for the
purposed of preventing the migration of fines from the native soil into the gabion baskets.
17. (0) Please provide inflows to the project for the 1, 3, 5, 10, and 25-year precipitation
events to provide information to the contractor regarding the design of the cofferdam and
the temporary bypass system.
18. (0) Please provide contractor specifications. improvement.

1-4
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Table 1. Engineering Review Results.

CONTRACT Result
Project Doc. No. Document Title MCA-I REVIEWS OR REPLIES
Deliverable 3 Detail Main Report River capacity and flow data on page 102
Improvement of contradicts the river capacity and flow data
Project Development presented on page 101. Please review and
revise.
Annex B Drawing Civil MHPP-LBG-01-002 Coordinates are provided for the proposed
structures, but are not referenced to major
features or related to any proposed dimensions.
Coordinates are generally provided for the
contractor to establish the location of the weir and
ancillary structures. Please revise.
Please provide labels for all proposed and existing
contours. This comment applies to all drawings.
Please provide match lines for all drawings which
span more than one page. This comment applies
to all drawings.
It appears that some existing contours overlap
each other. Please review and revise. This
comment applies to all drawings.
MHPP-LBG-01-003 Drawing shows the downstream end of the
sandtrap offset from the existing water
conveyance. Please provide a detail for this area.
MHPP-LBG-01-004 Please provide dimensions and X/Y coordinates
for extents and limits of all slope protection and
waterway cover segments.
Please provide legend for all included hatching.
The comment applies to all drawings.

2-5
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

MHPP-LBG-02-001 The dimensions are illegible. Please correct.

This drawing shows the crest of the dam at El.

+606.00 and the crest of the downstream apron at
El. +606.40. Please review and revise.
This drawing indicates the upstream dividing wall
is being left in place. This contradicts page 25 of
the Detail Improvement of Project Development
Report which states the wall should be
eliminated.
It may be advantageous to provide a demolition
plan showing which sections of the existing dam
will be removed as part of the design.
The elevation of the upstream dividing wall is
shown at El. +612.00. This elevation conflicts with
what is shown on MHPP-LBG-02-002.
Drawing indicates that the upstream, left wingwall
does not abut the left embankment. This may
create an unsafe condition if soil erodes from the
embankment. Please provide comment on this
design.
MHPP-LBG-02-002 Please provide details and drawings on how the
proposed weir will connect to the existing gate
structures.
Drawing shows an approximately 1500 mm notch
in the weir. Please provide details and dimensions
for this notch.
Drawing MHPP-LBG-02-002 shows an
approximately 1.2 m tall section of dam and 7500
mm long grout curtain below the dam. These
features are not included on MHPP-LBG-02-002
through MHPP-LBG-02-004. Please review and
revise to provide consistency between drawings.

2-6
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Please provide labels for all proposed materials

and major features. For example, the drawing
shows an unknown material between the 20 cm
thick concrete and 10 cm thick sand bedding. This
comment applies to all drawings.
The drawing shows the proposed weir section is
divided into 3 parts. Please provide details on the
construction joints for these sections.
MHPP-LBG-02-003 The drawing shows a 20 cm thick concrete lining
along the base of the weir. This appears to be
inconsistent with the lining shown on MHPP-LBG-
02-002; the lining thicknesses are both 20 cm, and
the scale of both drawings is 1:100 but the
drawings do not match.
MHPP-LBG-02-004 The drawing shows the crest of the dam at El.
+606.00 and El. +612.00. Please review and revise.
MHPP-LBG-02-005 Please provide calculations and material
requirements for the grout curtain.
MHPP-LBG-02-009 Please provide labels for all major features. This
comment applies to all drawings.
MHPP-LBG-05-001 Please provide a scale for this drawing. This
comment applies to all drawings.
MHPP-LBG-05-003 Cross Section at Station 1+000 shows a cover over
the waterway. This contradicts what is shown on
drawing MHPP-LBG-05-001 which shows no
cover over the waterway at Station 1+000.
It may be advantageous to place a subbase below
the access road to prevent unwanted settlement
or movement of soils.
MHPP-LBG-05-004 Please provide details for ground anchors and
grout.
Please provide details for drainage layer for

2-7
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

shotcrete wall.

MHPP-LBG-06-005 Drawings show a line approximately 946.251 m

through MHPP- long. Please provide description of label indicating
LBG-06-012 what this line is.
MHPP-LBG-06-013 Stations 0+050 to 0+150 are labeled existing
through MHPP- conditions. Please provide proposed conditions
LBG-06-029 for these stations.
Please provide details for how fines from the
surrounding soil will be prevented from entering
the proposed gabion baskets.
Please provide stability calculations for gabion
wall.
Stations 0+250, 0+300, 0+350, 0+400, 0+500,
0+600, and 0+750 show the top of the gabion
basket wall extends past the top of the river
embankments, but no backfill is placed adjacent to
these structures. Please review and revise.
Drawings show Slope Protection installed from
Stations 0+550 to 0+650, Stations 0+750 to
0+850, and Stations 1+200 to 1+250. However,
according to the Detail Improvement of Project
Development Report, the areas that require slope
stability protection are Stations 0+620 to 0+720,
Stations 1+080 to 1+180, and Stations 1+680 to
1+780. Please review and provide slope
protection for all necessary areas.
MHPP-LBG-07-008 Stations 0+550 and 0+850, show the waterway
to MHPP-LBG-07- placed below grade without a cover. Please review
009 and revise.
MHPP-LBG-08-001 Please provide labels for all major features.

2-8
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

2.2 Social & Gender Review Summary

Overall, the report still provides only a limited quantitative and qualitative data/information and
in depth analysis. The risk and opportunity matrix as well as P-SGIP should be clear and fully
connected. They all should be in the context of project. The report still have some moderate gaps
as follows:
- Data and information need to be improved based on inputs.
- Lack of information on environment impacts to women and vulnerable groups. It still need
detail explanation.
- In general, the risks and opportunities are supported by data/information. However, it still
need improvement in term of clarity.
In general, there is a link between risks and opportunities matrix and P-SGIP. However, it need
synchronize refer to clarity as above mentioned.

2.3 Environmental Safeguard Review Summary

MCA-I conducted ESMS and ESMP coaching clinic on 13 17 March 2017. During coaching clinic, MCA- I
technical and environmental safeguard teams identified potential risk of community safety in regard to
water discharge through the head pond spill-way when the hydro power is shut down. There will be
large volume of water at 20 m3/s released into the river through the channel. This will have a potential
risk of community safety who commute along/down stream of river.

Implementer still has not addressed most of MCA-I comments from previous review and coaching
process. The conclusion is that the developed ESMS and ESMP has not met MCA Indonesia minimum
requirements. MCA-I suggest the implementer to develop an early warning system to alert community
when they shut down the power plant and discharge water through the head-pond spill-way.

This potential risk is already known to the community since the power plant is already in operation.
It should be improved and consulted to the community. Engineering of the channel to bring the water
speed to less than 2 m/s will need the channel to be straightened and widened. However, these
potential risk has not been properly assessed in ESMS despite statement letters from the land
owner/user (holder of land-use right) have been provided. The ESMP has no specific mitigation
measure for the above risk. Please see detail comments in Table below.

Table 2. Environmental Safeguard Review Results.

MCA-I First Review

No.
27 February 2017
1. The fish lader is not supported by
appropriate design for the particular
fish found at site.
2. Considering the impact of flood
caused by Lubuk Gadang MHPP
construction and operation to
community paddy field in the past,
SKE is requested to develop proper
mitigation measures. The mitigation
measures shall include a mitigation
hierarchy to anticipate and avoid, or
MCA-I Second Review
Gap is closed. The main report, Detail Improvement of
Project Development Lubuk Gadang Hydro Power
Plant Windows 3B 17, has included the fish ladder
design.
Gap. Soil Stabilization and Erosion Abatement
Management Plan is available. However, the
management plan still does not include a mitigation
hierarchy to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance
is not possible, minimize, and, where residual impacts
remain, compensate/offset for risks and impacts to
the affected people.
Statement by the land owner/user (holder of land-use

9
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

MCA-I First Review

No.
27 February 2017
where avoidance is not possible,
minimize, and, where residual
impacts remain, compensate/offset
for risks and impacts to the affected
people.
3. There are still inconsistencies
between Risk Register with ESMP
matrix.
4. Implementer is requested to insert
Environmental and Social
Performance Datasheet.
5.
6.
MCA-I Second Review
right) to be included in the report.
Gap. There are still inconsistencies between Risk
Register with ESMP matrix.
Minor Gap. ESPD is still not available. ESPD should be
included in ESMS.
Minor Gap. Policy Statement still has not been signed.
Gap. During coaching clinic, MCA-I technical and
environmental safeguard team identified potential
risks of community safety in regard to water spilled
out when the hydro-power is shut down. There will be
a large volume of water released suddently into the
river. This will have a potential risk of community
safety who live along/down stream of river. We
suggested implementer to develop an early warning
system to alert community when they shut down the
power plant and open the spill out chanell. This
potential risk and system should be disclosed and
consulted with the community. However, the above
potential risk has not been properly included in ESMS.
There need to be specific mitigation measure for the
above risk in ESMP.

2.4 Project Control Review Summary

2.4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this third Deliverable activity is to review the Schedule of Lubuk Gadang Mini
Hydro Power Plant.

2.4.2 Scope of Review

Scope of review is CPM schedule proposed by Implementers.

2.4.3 Result
Considering this deliverable is Concept Definition / FEED phase, schedule proposed has not
fulfilled best practice requirement with comment in the Table 3 below.

As a general comment:
Typically, this type of crash program has a high risk in schedule completion. Construction risk
should be identified and managed.

10
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi
No. Key Item Results if the first Submission Review
1 Milestone - Add one start and one finish milestone and make it
as activity with constraints.
- Add construction and non-construction milestone
that represent major achievement during the
construction
2 Scope Please advise why scope of work "waterway cover
plate" still exist while slope stability has been covered
in the other WBS?
3 Network Activities has no successor, please find detail in
attachment 1 (yellow background)
There are no Open-ended activities except start (start
milestone) and finish activities (finish milestone)
4 Quantity of Work Please show quantity of work column in the schedule
e.g., m3, kgs, m, etc.)
5 Constraint Please release all constraint except start date, and
finish activities (milestone). e.g., act. No. 35.
6 Calendar Please revise project calendar from calendar days to 6
days per week working days.
7 Detail Please provide engineering WBS and activities in the
Engineering master schedule.
Detail Engineering should be based on discipline (Civil,
mechanical, electrical).
8 Critical path - After fixing open-ended activities, please revisit
critical path.
- It seemed that activities of Excavation activity 13
is too conservative. Based on our calculation, by using
Excavator PC-200, it takes just about 12 working days
to complete the work, while in the schedule it takes
35 calendar days. Please advise.
9 Critical path Please provide basis assumption of productivity utilized
in the major activities such as excavation, concrete
work. This productivity will be used as baseline
productivity later on.
Table 3. Project Control Review Results.
Second Submission
Has been included in revised schedule (Annex d)
There is a different works between water way cover
plate and slope stability
It has been revised. No successor for last activities at
each section.
It has been revised.
It has been revised accordingly.
It has been revised accordingly.
It has been provided accordingly. Detail Engineering is
applied for EPC Phase.
The critical path is trash rack procurement
provide evidence, PO/ ETC that delivery of Trash Rack is so long.
The assumption productivity of excavator is 60 m3/day.
The assumption productivity of concrete is 30 m3/day
depend on transportation devices to deliver the
concrete to site.
11
Results of the Second Submission Review
Non construction e.g., cross cutting activities milestone and activities has not
included in the schedule i.e. Land Acquisition, Permit acquired, etc as required.
Noted.
1. Please provide successor even though its last activities in the section. If technically
it does not have successor, please link it directly to final milestone.
2. Please provide Task of Overall Commissioning and Testing.
3. Please add one milestone of "Project Finish" as final activities in the project.
4. Please check again task consistency / logic aligned with construction activities, e.g.,
"Task ID 58. Mob-Demob Heavy Equipment". This activity should be done once
activities related to heavy equipment complete e.g., " Task ID. 61. Land Disposal".
Please revisit again the network.
5. Overall review identified that the project has performed crash program.
Typically, this type of crash program has high risk in schedule completion.
Construction risk should be identified and managed.
Noted
Please provide one "project finish" milestone as final activitis in the projects.
There is NO calendar day assigned to the Task (Attachment 1)
Not detail. Please provide engineering breakdown based on document type:
Datasheet and Specification, Calculation, Drawing, and Material Take Off (MTO).
Please re-assess.
Please make justification why Trash Rack procurement is the critical path. Please
Typically, it should be part of Civil work.
Noted
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

No. Key Item Results if the first Submission Review Second Submission Results of the Second Submission Review
10 Man Hours Load Please provide load of man hours for construction PEP is developed by EPC contractor. They will Provide Noted, prior to construction the schedule with resource loaded should be provided.
activities that is aligned with man power mobilization detail construction schedule based on their method. Attachment 2 is the sample of developing resource to be loaded to Schedule based
Plan in the PEP. on Man days requirement of each work e.g., Concrete, rebar, and form work.

Acronyms and Abbreviation

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

CPM Critical Path Method
PEP Project Execution Plan

12
Review of Third Deliverable Second Submission from PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Figure 1. Calendar Days (not updated)

13