Nepal: Upper Trishuli 1 Hydro Project Project Preparation

Nepal: Upper Trishuli 1 Hydro Project

Project Preparation Missions

March 16-23 and April 19-24, 2015

AIDE-MÉMOIRE

I. Background

1. This Aide Memoire provides a summary of key findings from two due diligence missions that were

undertaken, respectively, from March 16-23, 20151, and April 19-24, 2015. Both missions were with respect

to the Upper Trishuli (UT1) Hydro Project - a run-of-river project with an installed capacity is 216 MW to

produce an estimated 1,533.1 GWh per year – located on the Trishuli River in Rasuwa District of central Nepal.

2. The first mission (the WB mission2) was led by Sandeep Kohli, Task Team Leader (TTL), and Patrice

Caporossi, the Co-Task Team Lead (Co-TTL), while the second mission, was led by International Finance

Corporation (IFC) (the UT1 Lenders’ mission) included representatives from various commercial and

developmental financial institutions, as well as WBG members, including MIGA3. From the World Bank,

Pravin Karki, Arnaud Braud, and Leanne Farrell – covering respectively, technical, commercial, and

environmental aspects of due diligence, were part of this UT1 Lenders mission.

3. On April 25, 2015 just at the end of the UT1 Lenders’ mission, the first of two devastating earthquakes

struck Nepal. This earthquake with epicenter at Barpak, Gorkha, killed over 9,000 people, and injured over

23,000. There was widespread damage in Rasuwa District, including at the UT1 site. Road access to the site

was cut off, and there were casualties reported. The earthquake was followed by several aftershocks which

are continuing till date. Another very significant earthquake followed on May 12, 2015, with an epicenter

northeast of the Gorkha earthquake.

4. As a result of these tragic occurrences, further discussions on the project halted, as attention focused

on search, rescue, and then reconstruction. An early May, 2015 planned mission by the WB Lead Social

Specialist, Chaohua Zhang was cancelled.

5. Following two devastating earthquakes, the government as well as the partner communities are now

re-focusing on the larger hydro-power agenda, and making plans for re-engagement. In light of these

developments, this Aide Memoire is being shared to document the findings from past missions, while

recognizing that the post-quake picture has changed significantly. Therefore some of the discussions,

observations and findings may no longer be as pertinent, but are included more for record keeping.

Furthermore, there will be a need to adjust timelines, tasks, and priorities. In particular, an assessment of post-

quake damage to the site, as well as a review of design from an earthquake resilience standpoint will be needed.

1 The Nepal leg of the WB mission was followed by a smaller team (Sandeep Kohli, Patrice Caporossi, and Arnaud Braud), going

to Singapore (March 24-25), and Seoul, South Korea (March 26-27), to meet respectively, potential lenders and senior

representatives from the sponsors. In Singapore, Andre Van Hoeck (Principal Investment Officer), Katherine Koh

(Investment Officer), and John Grosebeek (Principal Syndications Officer) from IFC also joined. Andre Van Hoeck, was also

present in Seoul.

2 The WB team: Sandeep Kohli (TTL, Sr. Energy Specialist), Patrice Caporossi (Co-TTL, Sr. Infrastructure Finance Specialist),

Pravin Karki (Sr. Hydropower Specialist),Tang Jie (Program Leader), Rabin Shrestha (Sr. Energy Specialist), Drona Raj Ghimire

(Environment Specialist), Gregory Scopelitis (Energy Specialist), Arnaud Braud (Infrastructure Finance Specialist), Gunjan

Gautam, (Consultant), Barsha Pandey (Consultant) from IDA and Cristina Celentano (Investment Analyst) from IFC. Alina Thapa

(Team Assistant) provided the administrative and logistical support in the country office.

3 From MIGA, Jaeyoung Jin (Underwriter), Petal Jean Hackett (Economist), Dessislav Dobrev (Lawyer), Junglim Hahm (Korea

Representative) and Kate Wallace (Environmental and Social Specialist) joined the mission.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881

Typewritten Text

99241

Aide Memoire, UT1 -2- August 19, 2015

The World Bank is going to look into these factors, and such a review is also being undertaken by the project

sponsors and IFC, as a part of the planning.

II. The World Bank Mission (March 16-27, 2015)

6. A World Bank (WB) preparation mission for UT1 was carried out with the following itinerary: (a) Nepal

(March 16-23), (b) Singapore (March 24-25), and (c) South Korea (March 26-27). The team was led by

Sandeep Kohli, Task Team Leader (TTL), and Patrice Caporossi, the Co-Task Team Lead (Co-TTL), with

the objective of conducting due diligence on the Nepal Upper Trishuli 1 (UT1) hydropower project.

7. The team met with officials from the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Energy (MoE), the

Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), the Department of Electricity Development (DoED), the Investment Board

Nepal (IBN), the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), and local commercial banks. The mission team also consulted

with development partners including Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Department for International

Development (DFID). The names of officials met during the mission are listed in Annex 1 and more details of

the discussions are in Annex 2.

8. MoE as the relevant Line Ministry, and NEA as the power off-taker, are the key counterparts for UT1.

The Nepal Water and Energy Development Corporation (NWEDC), is the Project Company, responsible for

project development and operations. The South Korean utility, KOSEP, is the lead investor in NWEDC,

alongside IFC and other partners. As per NWEDC, the construction wrap is to be provided by a joint venture

between DAELIM and KYERYONG (D&K JV), two South Korean companies. The WB team met with

representatives from all these organizations during this mission.

9. The WB team visited the UT1 project site, where they were briefed on the project structure. The UT1

project plan included: (i) underground tunneling works of about 10km (intake, headrace); (ii) a 10km, 220kV

transmission line; (iii) an underground power house; (iv) access roads totaling 18km; and (v) environmental

and social management plan. A concrete weir with radial gates (as opposed to a regular dam) is proposed to

create a head of 350 m of water. A five year construction period was anticipated.

10. Key findings and conclusions from the mission were presented at a wrap up meeting at MoE, chaired by

the Energy Secretary, Mr. Rajendra Kishore Kshatri, on March 22, 2015. As agreed at the wrap up meeting

this AM will be classified as a public document as per the World Bank’s Access to Information Policy.

III. The UT1 Lenders’ Mission (April 19-24, 2015)

11. The UT1 Lenders’ Mission was led by IFC, and included a visit by representatives from potential

lenders to UT1 – International Finance Institutions, Development Finance Institutions, and commercial banks.

In parallel, the Project Review Panel (PRP) consisting of experts linked to hydropower development, also

visited the project site during the same period, reviewing the project details with the sponsors. The PRP

members included a Geotechnical expert, a general hydropower/dams expert and an Environmental and Social

expert. The Lender’s Engineer, Montgomery Watson Harza, and representatives of the KOSEP and JADE

joint venture, as the Owner’s Engineer, were a part of these discussions.

12. The sponsors presented the visiting representatives with the details of the EPC structure, which

includes the following seven sub-contracts or packages:

PKG1: Access Road

PKG2: Head-works & Curtain Grouting

PKG3: Headrace Tunnel

PKG4: Vertical Shaft & Power House


PKG5: Hydro-Mechanical Works

PKG6: Electro-Mechanical Works

PKG7: Transmission Line

Pravin Karki as the WB representative, was present during these important PRP discussions. Initial feedback

from the PRP panel, showed no substantial issues with the project.

13. The lenders’ appraisal team for the UT1 project included IFC (Mandated Lead Arranger), other

Development Finance Institutions (ADB, FMO, Proparco, EIB, CDC, and OFID), commercial banks

(Societe Generale, BTMU, and SMBC), and advisors (Synergy as sponsors’ Financial Advisor, Shearman

and Sterling as lenders’ counsel, MWH as lenders’ Independent Engineer). The WB was represented by

Arnaud Braud.

14. Meetings were held with the UT1 sponsors (KOSEP, Daelim, Kyerong, Jade). The agenda included

project presentations (sponsors, technical, financial, E&S, and legal), lenders’ discussion, and meetings with

MoE and MoF. IFC, MIGA, and WB also met NEA, the off-taker, separately.

15. Key outcome from commercial discussions were:

DFIs and commercial lenders confirmed interest in financing the project and did not raise major

issues with the current project structure.

Progress of the project documents (Project Development Agreement (PDA) and Power Purchase

Agreement (PPA)) were the main concern. The list of open issues were significant (including

contract currency, government guarantee language, tariff level) and negotiations had remained

slow. Discussions on the PPA with NEA were still at an early stage.

Participants appreciated the availability of IDA guarantees. Some lenders expressed willingness

for the Letter of Credit to be for six months instead of three (to be negotiated between sponsors

and NEA). Following the meetings in Singapore (from the previous mission), three commercial

banks participated in the mission (SocGen, BTMU, and SMBC) with a strong appetite for a first

project in Nepal under the IDA loan guarantee.

MoF was very supportive of the project, confirming to the lenders’ group the full support of the

government, including its commitment to support NEA’s obligations. The Minister noted that a

dollar financed project required a level of dollar indexation in the PPA tariff.

MoE has asked NEA to share the transmission line with UT1. Parties are studying technical

options. This would require an amendment of the grid connection agreement.

Environmental and Social Assessment

16. From the environmental and social pre-appraisal review, the World Bank Group (WBG) and other

participating lenders agreed that NWEDC has made good progress on establishing sound environmental and

social management systems and is addressing various Environmental and Social (E&S) issues. In conjunction,

there were areas where additional actions were suggested to effectively manage E&S risks and impacts and

meet IFC Performance Standards (or IFC PS, which are the applicable standards for all WBG entities in private

sector led projects) and other relevant international standards. In the wrap up meeting with NWEDC, the WBG

and representatives of potential lenders, highlighted a series of critical path and other priority actions related

to E&S management. These would need either demonstrable progress or resolution prior to financial close.

Action items discussed are outlined in Annex 3.


17. Next Steps for E&S: WBG is drafting a project Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS)

and Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP), which will document all major issues related to E&S

management as per IFC PS requirements, as well as related pending actions to ensure full compliance with

IFC PS, performance indicators and proposed timeframes for their achievement. As next steps, the draft ESRS

and ESAP will be discussed and agreed with NWEDC. Prior to their finalization, specialists from WBG will

visit the project to confirm and revise as necessary, the preliminary findings outlined in Annex 3 (in particular

to account for changes to project context in light of the earthquake), further define required management

actions, and document the project’s achievement of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Broad

Community Support (BCS) of the affected indigenous communities.

18. E&S Related Disclosure: As per WBG policies on information disclosure, the final ESRS, including

ESAP, need to be publicly disclosed at least 60 days prior to the WBG Board date. If a decision is taken that

the project will use the NEA transmission line towers for power transmission, additional Environment

Assessment documentation as per World Bank Safeguard Policies (e.g., presumably an ESMF) for this

component will also need to be finalized and disclosed in the same timeframe.

19. Climate Change Screening: As per IDA 17 requirements, projects have to be screened for climate

and disaster risks. NWEDC has commissioned studies for screening climate change and disaster risks,

including the threat of a Glacier Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF).

Proposed Timeline:

20. Board Date: WBG team originally planned to present the proposed project to the World Bank Board

in July, 2015. As a result of the earthquake, a delay in this schedule is expected. However, with normalcy

gradually returning, there is a greater need for the additional power, and as next steps, discussions on Project

Development Agreement and PPA should commence soon with financial advisory support by appropriate

consultants to Ministry of Energy, and Nepal Electricity Authority being facilitated by the World Bank.

Successful conclusion of the PDA will be a very important first step in moving forward on the project.

21. The team has already begun work on reviewing aspects of dam safety under the Kali Gandaki TA

initiative, and additional efforts in this regard will also be expedited.


Annex 1: List of Officials Met

Ministry of Finance

Mr. Madhu Kumar Marasini, Joint Secretary, IECCD

Mr. Hari P. Pandey, Under Secretary

Ministry of Energy

Mr. Rajendra Kishore Kshatri, Secretary

Mr. Keshab Dhoj Adhikari, Joint Secretary

Department of Electricity Development

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ghimire, Director General

Mr. Madhu Bhetuwal, Deputy Director General

Nepal Electricity Authority

Mr. Mukesh Raj Kafle, Managing Director

Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar Manandhar, DMD

Mr. Sher Singh Bhat, DMD

Mr. Anil Rajbhandari, Director

Mr. Hitendra Dev Shakya, Director

Mr. Rabindra Chaudhary, ESSD

Investment Board Nepal

Mr. Radhesh Pant, CEO

Asian Development Bank

Mr. Tika Limbu, Portfolio Head

Mr. Pushkar Manandhar, Energy Officer

Department of International Development

Ms. Ashufta Alam

Nepal Investment Bank Ltd.

Mr. Jyoti Prasad Pandey, CEO

Prime Commercial Bank

Mr. Narayan Das Maharjan, CEO

Laxmi Bank

Mr. Sudesh Khaling, CEO


Annex 2: Partnerships – From WB Mission in March, 2015

1. Discussions with MoE

Energy Table and Connection Agreement concluded between developer and the NEA.

Parallel transmission line issue: (NEA and also the developer will be building the transmission

line of same voltage which will run parallel to each other for almost 8.3 kms)

Two options discussed at MoE:

o Loop in loop out arrangement at Trishuli 3A hub. This would lead to change in energy

table and thus change in connection agreement, this is an unlikely option

o Taller towers to carry NEA line as well as UT1 line (8.3 km), however, maintenance

could be an issue.

Estimated cost of UT1: During discussions at NEA it was mentioned that the cost estimation

seemed high, but that their internal team was capable of reviewing the cost. Health and safety

cost in particular were singled out as pretty high.

PPA negotiation: The tariff negotiation was on-going, the negotiated tariff should be based on

cost, but discussions were ongoing on what cost estimates to use. Since there is no provision to

revise the PPA later, it is the best estimate that is considered for the PPA rate.

Excess Power from UT1: The issue of excess wet season power in early period of the contract

was discussed. MoE pointed out that over the contract period there would be need for a lot more

power than even UT1, and that with regional exchange, spillage was not likely.

PDA agreement: Negotiations were on-going on; foreign exchange risk issue was a key point.

Preparation of sector and NEA analysis

2. During the mission the team met with NEA’s Directors for System Planning, Power Trade, Finance,

Transmission, Generation, Distribution & Consumer Services and Internal Audit. The objective was to

understand the strategic and operational issues of NEA as well as gather historical data, forecast and corporate

plans for the next few years sufficient to conduct a diagnostic of NEA and develop a view on NEA’s financial

sustainability and off-take credibility. Additionally, the team discussed this issue with ADB and PwC who are

leading a more comprehensive financial modeling to design a restructuring plan for NEA.

3. The team agreed with NEA on a set of data and plans to be provided by NEA to allow a satisfactory

completion of this analysis as part of the due diligence for IDA’s support to Upper Trishuli 1. The team would

like to highlight the time-sensitivity of the data requests and encourage NEA to revert in a timely manner. The

team will follow up on these requests with NEA.

B.3 Discussions with other DFIs (ADB and DFID)

Discussions with ADB and follow up in Kathmandu

ADB team briefed about ADB’s ongoing and pipeline projects. ADB projects mainly are focused on

implementation of high voltage transmission line and cross border links.

ADB recently appointed consulting firm (Deloitte) to carry out review of the power trading company.

Meeting with DFID (UK)

4. DFID is a significant player in Nepal hydropower sector, and in particular has funded staff and advisors

for the IBN for the last 3-4 years. DFID is discussing with other IFIs regarding continuation of support.

5. CDC (private sector arm of DFID) has Nepal as one of its two priority frontier markets (alongside

Northern Nigeria).


B.4 Discussions with Banks in Kathmandu

6. The team met with representatives from Laxmi Bank and Nepal Investment Bank, in order to better

understand local banks’ appetite and capacity to finance large hydropower projects. The two banks have

recently financed small hydropower projects (ranging from 3 to 23MW) and both expressed interest for further

lending to the sector. The sector is considered profitable and regulation requires local banks to have 12% of

their exposure in agriculture and power sector. The banks are open to long tenor possibly up to 16 years

(including 4 year grace). However, given the short term nature of their deposits, they cannot fix the rates and

have to reset them, by consensus within the lenders’ group, every 6 months. This uncertainty on the rates would

be difficult for UT1 sponsors. Also, the banks have restrained capital and can only lend a few millions each.

Usually they syndicate 7-8 banks on a hydropower deal but a local bank tranche for UT1 would require more

which would add complexity.

7. The local banks met considered the risk of NEA defaulting as a sovereign risk and therefore saw

limited benefits in the World Bank guaranteeing this risk. The local banks are mostly concerned by equity

injection and construction risk. They often mitigate the latter by asking for corporate guarantees.


Annex 3: Environmental and Social Safeguards

1. A group of E&S experts from World Bank, IFC, MIGA, ADB, FAO, SMBC, plus the Lenders’ Engineer’s

environmental and social consultant, conducted a 2-day site visit to the project area during the mission.

The group visited the project access road and main camp at Mailung, observed the weir location from a

viewpoint near Dhunche, and also drove up the river valley to the Langtang Khola confluence to

understand the basin-level development context and socio-environmental conditions. The group also met

and held discussions with Halvard Kassa (independent fish expert), representatives from Langtang

National Park, representatives from the Dhunche office of WWF-Nepal and another local NGO working

with local communities in the national park, NESS consultants (who had recently completed an E&S

construction audit of the project), and project affected people from Gogane, Mailung and Haku Besi

villages.

2. The World Bank Group (WBG) and other participating lenders agreed that NWEDC has made solid

progress on establishing sound environmental and social management systems and addressing various

E&S issues, but that additional actions are needed to effectively manage E&S risks and impacts and meet

IFC Performance Standards (the applicable standards for all WBG entities) and other relevant international

standards. Key issues discussed with NWEDC focused on issues considered most critical path / urgent,

requiring evidence of progress prior to Board decisions by WBG and other lenders. However, because of

the earthquake immediately following the mission, these will need to be revisited when the project is taken

up again for financial consideration, and adjustments made to account for the changed reality on the ground.

3. Critical path: Access road safety, stabilization, and rehabilitation: Because access road construction

was ongoing at the time of the mission, E&S management issues related to the road were flagged as of

utmost urgency, and include in particular the following:

a. Landslide risks: The mission requested NWEDC to conduct a geotechnical assessment of the potential

for road construction to trigger a landslide, and develop a controlled blasting/hillside cutting

management plan. . This has become even more important in the post-earthquake context. Such an

assessment should cover the full road alignment, and in particular the areas of recent and historic

landslides and where villagers reside uphill and could be potentially threatened if a landslide were to

be triggered.

b. Road safety: A full road safety plan was requested to be developed immediately for the access road,

as local residents were already making use of the sections of completed road alongside project vehicles.

When access road construction is started up again, community use cannot be reasonably prevented by

NWEDC, but needs to be accounted for in safety-related protocols, communications/signage, and other

measures to minimize and mitigate the risks of accidents involving local community members or their

livestock.

c. Road stabilization and rehabilitation: The mission requested development of a stabilization and

rehabilitation plan for the access road, and at least some progress on its implementation within a

portion of the already-constructed road stretch. The urgency of this action may be reconsidered in the

post-earthquake context, but such a plan will still be needed when access road construction resumes.

Stabilization and rehabilitation works should also cover the downhill segment of the road, where

existing vegetation is damaged or destroyed by rockfalls and dumping of spoils related to road blasting


and earthworks. In areas where downhill damaged vegetation belongs to community forest user

groups, this should also be dealt with in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan.

4. Critical path: Environmental and Social Management Systems:

a. NWEDC staffing and management: NWEDC’s cash-flow limitations prior to financial closure make

it impractical to implement their full staffing plan for E&S management until financing is secured.

Nonetheless, the mission stressed the need to bring on board additional community liaison officers as

per the agreed staffing plan on an expedited time frame. In addition, stronger evidence is needed of

attention to E&S issues as the management level, including mechanisms for fluid flow of information

and decisions between technical and E&S staff within the company. Lack of such systems undermines

effective and timely incorporation of environmental and social considerations of detailed design and

construction planning processes, and also raises risks that information being shared with stakeholders

may be incomplete or inaccurate.

b. Contractor and subcontractor management: NWEDC was requested to urgently develop systems to

monitor and verify that subcontractors to the EPC contractors (who constitute the bulk of the project’s

labor force) also follow the same labor and EHS plans and standards that are required of the EPC

contractors, in accordance with NWEDC’s company policies and agreed management plans. This

should include mechanisms to make sure that subcontractors actually source workers from the

workforce training programs for local communities and fulfill local hiring targets set by NWEDC.

5. Critical path: Stakeholder engagement: NWEDC was commended for solid progress in strengthening

engagement and communications with local communities, including establishing a grievance mechanism

just a few weeks prior to the mission. Nonetheless, redoubled and sustained efforts were requested to

ensure and demonstrate that:(a) communities understand the full scope of the project and its potential

impacts; (b) concerns of local communities related to the project – including notably about potential risks

and impacts of blasting and road construction works, and issues associated with worker influx – are being

effectively heard and addressed by the company, and all stakeholders are aware of the grievance

mechanism for ongoing issues and concerns; (c) systems for community engagement and communications

encompass ALL community members, not just official and/or self-proclaimed representatives; (d)

unrealistic expectations about what the project can and will provide for local communities are being

managed; and (e) Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Broad Community Support (BCS) can be

achieved and clearly documented. Relatedly, NWEDC was requested to clarify and broadly communicate

its strategy for providing workforce training and employment opportunities to local communities.

6. Critical path aspects of environmental flow management: NWEDC was requested to ensure

coordination between environmental, technical and financial teams so that environmental flow

management aspects are appropriately factored into key related design and financial decisions of the

project. . Specifically:

a. Fish pass: Final results of additional fish baseline data collection efforts were not expected

for another year, yet detailed designs of the weir were already advancing. Therefore, as a

precaution, the mission requested that the detailed design for the weir should explicitly allow

for accommodation of a future fish pass if required. A preliminary conceptual design for a

potential fish pass was also recommended to be developed so that a placeholder cost estimate

could be reflected in the overall project cost.


b. Environmental flow financial sensitivity analysis: A sensitivity analysis to determine the

maximum dry-season environmental flow release volumes to which NWEDC can commit was

flagged as a requirement for WBG Board consideration of the project. This analysis is

necessary to underpin the compliance approach to IFC PS 6 (Biodiversity Conservation and

Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources), as the WBG cannot support a

project that results in net loss of natural habitat (e.g., the aquatic habitat of the diversion

reach) unless it has been robustly documented that this is unfeasible for the project.

7. Critical path: Power transmission approach: Pending final decisions on whether the project’s

transmission line would share the towers of a planned NEA transmission line running through the project

area or be constructed separately by NEA, corresponding E&S assessments and management plans will

need to be put in place in conformance applicable lender E&S standards. In either case, the transmission

line will be considered an associated facility from the perspective of lender E&S standards, and will

therefore needs to be developed in line with lender standards. If the project ties into the NEA-constructed

transmission line towers, the World Bank may furthermore require that Bank Safeguard Policies be upheld

by NEA for the project-associated stretch of this publicly developed project. In that case, corresponding

safeguards instruments (likely to be an Environmental and Social Management Framework – ESMF)

would need to developed and disclosed at least 60 days before approval of the IDA Guarantee, in

conformance with the Bank’s Safeguard Policies. NWEDC was requested to reach clarity on the approach

for power transmission so that a final determination can be made on critical path E&S documentation

requirements for the IDA Guarantee, and related actions could get underway.

8. Additional priority issues::

a. Development of a comprehensive biodiversity management plan, encompassing both activities inside

Lantang National Park as well as in community forests on the right bank, will be needed to ensure no

net loss of natural habitat and biodiversity as a result of the project. This plan would also address the

project’s contribution to cumulative impacts at a watershed scale stemming from development of

multiple hydroelectric projects and the GoN’s planned joining of the project access road with the

national highway to China further upstream within 3-4 years.

b. NWEDC was requested to clarify with the Government of Nepal regarding GoN expectations on

project access road construction standards, if any, given its future intended use as a national highway.

The timelines for such highway development should also be clarified in order to assess implications

for the project, if any in terms of maintaining controlled or priority access during the project

construction period.

c. NWEDC was requested to finalize and adopt the draft land acquisition, resettlement and livelihood

restoration plans that had been completed just before the mission. Post-earthquake, these plans will

now likely need to be updated and reworked before adoption.

d. NWEDC still needed to finalize all detailed construction management plans, including spoils and

waste management, explosives / controlled blasting; management of construction labor camps and

associated influx, etc. This is still applicable as construction on the project resumes.


Annex 4: Technical Specification of UT1

1. The Upper Trishuli-1 HEP is located on the Trishuli River, the Project will divert up to 76 m3/sec of

flow from Trishuli River over a distance of about 12 kilometers to the powerhouse located at Mailung, utilizing

the available head of 345 m for electricity production. The proposed installed capacity is 216 MW consisting

of three Francis units to produce 1,533.1 GWh (Contract energy is 1456.4GWh) of energy per year on average.

Firm energy is calculated as 853.7 GWh and secondary energy as 679.4 GWh. The Trishuli River originates

in China and is a trans-boundary river and one of the major tributaries of the Narayani River (which flows into

the Ganges in India) basin in central Nepal. OP on international waterways is triggered and notices have been

served to the neighboring countries on February 27, 2015.

2. The headworks consist of a concrete dam about 60 m high from the foundation. All the structures are

founded on alluvium which will be excavated to a suitable depth to firm foundation. The headworks create a

normal pool level of El. 1,255 m and divert water to a river intake. Water is diverted by means of the river

intake to three settling basins connected to the intake tunnel and headrace tunnel. After passing through the

de-sanding basins, water is fed into the headrace tunnel. Under normal operating conditions, the water surface

behind the headworks is maintained at El. 1,255 m. All water, less the environmental release, is diverted to

the powerhouse. River flow in excess of the amount for power generation is passed through the spillway gates.

3. Water utilized for power production is withdrawn from the de-sanding basin through the intake and

transported through a 10 km of headrace tunnel and penstock to an underground powerhouse located on the

right bank of Trishuli River and approximately 348 m below the ground. As for geological characteristics, two

rock types of schist unit and gneiss unit appear. Investigations showed that schist was distributed in the area

covering about 26 % of tunnel length, and gneiss about 74 %, respectively. Gneiss has higher strength than

schist. Currently shotcrete lining is planned for rock type I, II, III and concrete lining is planned for rock type

IIIb, IV, V grades.

4. Nepal being in an active seismic risk zone, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and Peak Ground

acceleration (PGA) was performed for Rasuwa site.

5. The powerhouse is proposed as 18.7 m wide, 83.0 m long and 43.9 m high. The powerhouse substation

will be located at the right side of Trishuli River. It will include three power transformers, five 220-kV circuit

breakers, a takeoff structure, eleven disconnect switches, surge arresters, a power line carrier

transmitter/receiver, and all associated substation hardware. Approximately 10 km of new 220-kV, single

circuit transmission line will be constructed between the Project and the Trishuli 3B Substation. The revenue

metering equipment will be located at the receiving end of the transmission line and will consist of main and

check meters, which will be used to measure and record the amount of electrical output delivered at the 220-

kV voltage level.

Documents

Nepal: Upper Trishuli 1 Hydro Project Project Preparation