IMMEDIATE REPORT

VISUAL INSPECTION of FRP CAN of HOT-

WELL PUMP (HWP)-2A

Chevron Geothermal Indonesia (CGI)

Darajat Plant

October 8, 2016
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES

Highlights of Inspection

1. In general, FRP CAN of HWP-2A is in good condition

2. No damage was observed at suction line of FRP CAN of HWP-2A (high risk area)
3. Several minor finding were observed at elevation lower than 2 m from the bottom of
FRP CAN of HWP-2A (low risk area) such as:
a. Some surface delamination of FRP in corner part of baffle at the bottom of
FRP CAN of HWP-2A
b. Local surface mark
c. Non-flat surfaces

Conclusions

1. FRP CAN of HWP-2A is still feasible for operation until next Shut Down Turn
Around (SDTA) or at least 4 years. Further estimation of remaining service life will
be reported in the final report
2. It is advised to conduct minor touch-up on surface delamination in baffle and local
surface mark at the wall of FRP CAN of HWP-2A (low risk area)

PT.LAPI ITB Page2|6

BACKGROUND
Chevron Geothermal Indonesia (CGI) requested PT. LAPI ITB to perform inspection process
to evaluate FRP quality of existing FRP CAN of HWP-2A. This work also includes
prediction of Remaining Service Life (RSL) of existing FRP CAN of HWP-2A.

INSPECTION METHOD

Inspection method was conducted by visual inspection and ultrasonic testing.

VISUAL INSPECTION RESULTS

Several minor findings were observed at low risk area (around 2 m elevation from the bottom
of FRP CAN of HWP-2A)

a. Some surface delamination of FRP in corner part of baffle at the bottom of FRP CAN
of HWP-2A (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Surface delamination was observed in baffle at the bottom of FRP CAN of HWP-2A.

PT.LAPI ITB Page3|6

 Since function of baffle is mainly as flow breaker during initial water flow and flow
direction during steady state condition, not as primary structural function, findings in
this area were not considered as main issue. Therefore, minor touch-up is advised.

b. Local surface mark (Fig.2)

Figure 2. Local surface mark was observed. Minor touch-up using resin and chopped fiber is advised.

c. Non-flat surfaces (Fig. 3)

Figure 3. Non-flat surface was occurred in low risk area. No action is needed

PT.LAPI ITB Page4|6

ULTRASONIC TESTING (UT) RESULTS

1. Ultrasonic testing to standard reference materials

a. Standard with delamination in the middle of FRP (Fig. 4)

Figure 4. UT result of Standard with delamination in the middle of FRP

This result indicated the presence of delamination in the middle of standard
FRP. Since the thickness of FRP is 16 mm, position of delamination is 8 mm

b. Standard with delamination just under surface of FRP (Fig. 5)

Figure 5. UT Result of standard with delamination just under surface of FRP

This result indicated the presence of delamination just under surface of FRP
standard.

PT.LAPI ITB Page5|6

2. Ultrasonic testing to FRP CAN of HWP-2A
Ultrasonic testing was performed in several places. Representative UT results at low
and high risk area can be seen in Fig. 6. All of UT results from various testing spots in
FRP CAN HWP-2A did not show any indication.

Figure 6. Representative UT results at low risk area at various elevation and section (a and b) and high
risk area (c)

PT.LAPI ITB Page6|6