The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160823AVU to Staff 96 Attachment A.pdf Section 1 Program Schedules Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 1 of 42 ID Task Name Start Finish 1 Exicter and Breaker Upgrade Mon 9/3/12 Fri 3/29/13 2 Plant Prep Work Mon 7/1/13 Fri 11/21/14 3 Bridge Crane Mon 7/1/13 Fri 11/15/13 4 Warehouse Mon 7/1/13 Fri 12/13/13 5 Station Service Infrastructure Mon 3/3/14 Fri 10/3/14 6 DC System Mon 5/12/14 Fri 11/21/14 7 Unit 3 Overhaul Tue 7/1/14 Fri 3/27/15 8 Plant Work Mon 6/8/15 Fri 9/11/15 9 Lighting Mon 7/27/15 Fri 9/11/15 10 New Control Room Mon 6/8/15 Wed 8/5/15 11 Backup Generator Mon 8/3/15 Fri 9/11/15 12 Unit 1 Overhaul Mon 7/13/15 Fri 3/25/16 13 Pant Work Mon 5/9/16 Fri 12/2/16 14 HVAC Mon 5/9/16 Fri 6/17/16 15 Sump Mon 5/16/16 Wed 6/15/16 16 Headgate Rehab Mon 7/4/16 Fri 12/2/16 17 Unit 4 Mon 7/11/16 Fri 3/24/17 18 Plant Work Mon 7/3/17 Thu 11/30/17 19 Spillgates Mon 7/3/17 Thu 11/30/17 20 Trashgate Mon 7/3/17 Fri 9/29/17 21 Unit 2 Overhaul Mon 7/10/17 Fri 3/30/18 Exicter and Breaker Upgrade Bridge Crane Warehouse Station Service Infrastructure DC System Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2013 2014 2015 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Page 1 Project: Baseline Program Schedule Date: Fri 8/5/16 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 2 of 42 Unit 3 Overhaul Lighting New Control Room Backup Generator Unit 1 Overhaul HVAC Sump Headgate Rehab Unit 4 Spillgates Trashgate Unit 2 Overhaul Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2016 2017 2018 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Page 2 Project: Baseline Program Schedule Date: Fri 8/5/16 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 3 of 42 ID Task Name Start Finish 1 Exicter and Breaker Upgrade Mon 9/3/12 Fri 3/29/13 2 Plant Prep Work Mon 7/1/13 Fri 3/20/15 3 Bridge Crane Mon 7/1/13 Fri 11/15/13 4 Warehouse Mon 7/1/13 Fri 12/13/13 5 Station Service Infrastructure Mon 3/3/14 Fri 12/19/14 6 DC System Mon 11/3/14 Fri 3/20/15 7 Unit 3 Overhaul Tue 7/1/14 Fri 3/27/15 8 Plant Work Mon 9/7/15 Mon 6/5/17 9 Lighting Mon 9/7/15 Mon 2/1/16 10 New Control Room Mon 6/13/16 Mon 10/3/16 11 Backup Generator Mon 8/1/16 Mon 6/5/17 12 Unit 1 Overhaul Mon 2/29/16 Mon 2/6/17 13 Pant Work Mon 4/11/16 Fri 12/14/18 14 HVAC Mon 4/11/16 Fri 5/20/16 15 Sump Mon 6/5/17 Mon 9/4/17 16 Headgate Rehab Mon 6/4/18 Fri 12/14/18 17 Unit 4 Mon 2/13/17 Fri 1/26/18 18 Plant Work Mon 7/11/16 Fri 9/29/17 19 Spillgates Mon 7/11/16 Thu 10/6/16 20 Trashgate Mon 7/3/17 Fri 9/29/17 21 Unit 2 Overhaul Mon 1/29/18 Fri 12/21/18 Exicter and Breaker Upgrade Bridge Crane Warehouse Station Service Infrastructure DC System Unit 3 Overhaul Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 2013 2014 2015 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Page 1 Project: July 2016 Program Schedule Date: Fri 8/5/16 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 4 of 42 Lighting New Control Room Backup Generator Unit 1 Overhaul HVAC Sump Headgate Rehab Unit 4 Spillgates Trashgate Unit 2 Overhaul Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2016 2017 2018 2019 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Page 2 Project: July 2016 Program Schedule Date: Fri 8/5/16 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 5 of 42 Section 2 Program Org Chart Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 6 of 42 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 7 of 42 Section 3 Equipment Justification Memos Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 8 of 42 Generation Engineering Memorandum DATE: July 9rd, 2013 TO: File FROM: Brian Vandenburg SUBJECT: Little Falls Generator Procurement Award Background: A Request For Proposal (RFP) to supply the Little Falls replacement generator stators was sent to four manufacturers: Alstom, Andritz, National Electric Coil, and Voith. Alstom, NEC, and Voith submitted bids in response to the RFP. Andritz did not submit a proposal because they could not meet our delivery schedule. Bid Comparison: See the table below for bid price comparison. Alstom NEC Voith Andritz New Windings and Core $6,988,415 $7,428,495 $10,777,145 No Bid New Frame Included $3,629,864 Included Total $6,988,415 $11,058,359 $10,777,145 Alstom was the lowest bidder at $6,988,415. Their offer included a replacement stator frame, core, windings, leads, and instrumentation in accordance with the RFP. NEC’s bid price of $7,428,494 was second lowest, but does not include a new frame. NEC proposal assumes the existing stator frame will be re-used with a new core and winding. By accepting the NEC offer, Avista would be taking on some risk, and if the frames cannot be reused, there would be significant impact to the project budget and schedule. NEC may also propose a new frame in the event the post award evaluation determines it is not feasible. With a new frame, their proposal becomes the highest bid price at $11,058,358.86. In addition, the construction and installation schedule would be extended if the existing frame is re-used. The frame would have to be shipped to NEC’s factory to stack the core and install the windings. The schedule is shortened considerably by providing a new frame. There is no cost savings to Avista to accept NEC’s proposal of reusing the frame because Alstom remains the lowest price. Voith’s proposal includes a new frame, however, their base price is the highest of the three bidders. Generator efficiencies are listed in the following table: Alstom NEC Voith Andritz Stator Winding Losses (I2R) 100.9kW 110kW 142.4kW No Bid Stator Core Losses 88.5kW 90.5kW 41.9kW Efficiency* 97.90% 97.77% 97.95% *Efficiency calculations using existing nameplate of 9MW Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 9 of 42 The efficiency of Alstom’s proposed generator is comparable to the other suppliers. After taking into account the value of generator efficiency over 30 year life, Alstom’s proposal is still the lowest evaluated bid as shown in the following table. Alstom NEC Voith Andritz Losses Cost 30yr* $1,427,136 $1,510,774 $1,388,706 No Bid Comparison $0 $83,638 ($38,433) Evaluated Bid $6,988,415 $10,974,721 $10,815,578 *Cost of power used is $44.08MWh per IRP Alstom did not take any major exceptions to Avista’s specified generator testing criteria. Alstom will use a subcontractor, Pre-Formed Windings, to manufacture the windings. This manufacture has been qualified by Alstom, and is ISO 9001:2008 compliant. The prototype coils will be tested by Alstom in an Alstom facility in accordance with Avista’s specification. Avista will likely visit the factory to witness the testing of prototype coils. Alstom provided references of similar projects Alstom has recently completed, including Upper and Lower Molina (Bureau of Reclamation). The machines there were similar size and voltages to those of Little Falls. The generators at Molina have performed well, the documentation has been outstanding, and the Bureau has had no major problems with Alstom. The other project listed for reference was Lake Chelan, owned by Chelan County PUD. The plant has been operational for almost 4 years and there have been almost no problems. Alstom came to Avista with their bidding manager and two generator engineers to discuss the design and manufacturing process proposed for the Little Falls generators. Alstom was able to address all of Avista’s questions and concerns regarding their proposal. A few minor issues came up during the meeting that are not relevant to the bid evaluation and will be addressed after award of contract. The two primary issues discussed are to task Alstom with the performance of the on-site testing and splicing of the generator halves, and to have Alstom perform a generator uprate study on the existing components of the generator. Recommendation: It is recommended by the generation engineering group that Avista award the Little Falls generator supply contract to Alstom for the reasons cited above. There are a few minor issues that will be resolved during the contract award process, but both Alstom and Avista are aware of these issues and have a plan to address them. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 10 of 42 Criteria Andritz Kiser Voith Internationally Manufactured Turbine Runner Voith Domestically Manufactured Turbine Runner Weir AHC Total Cost N/A $1,670,379 $1,071,100 $1,407,100 $1,285,117 Runner Material N/A CA 6NM ‐ Blades/Skirt CA‐6NM CA‐6NM 304L Carbon Steel ‐ Crown Shaft Material N/A 4140 4140 4140 ASTM A508 Schedule 12/7/14 per spec (10‐10‐2014) per spec (10‐10‐2014) per spec (10‐10‐2014) per spec (10‐10‐2014) Turbine Capacity 10.5 MW 11.8 MW match existing match existing 9.0 MW Efficiency (@ 66ft)90%88.40%match existing match existing 85.40% Balancing Method N/A Static Static Static Dynamic Engineering Location N/A Norway, Michigan, U.S.A.York, PA York, PA York, PA Ottawa, Ontario, Canada N/A Norway, Michigan, U.S.A.York, PA York, PA York, PA internationally manufactured runner (location TBD) Comments (‐) performance not gauranteed (‐) no performance graphs Manufacturer Little Falls Turbine and Shaft Proposal Summary (+) duplicating 1994 design Manufacture Location (‐) non‐spec materials (+) dynamic balancing(+) duplicating 1994 design (‐) performance not gauranteed (‐) non‐spec materials (‐) incomplete proposal Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 11 of 42 Generation Engineering Memorandum DATE: April 15th, 2014 TO: File FROM: Brian Vandenburg SUBJECT: Little Falls Governor Procurement Award Justification Requests for Proposals for the Little Falls governor systems were sent out to three prequalified equipment manufactures; Alstom, American Governor and L&S Electric. All three returned proposals for the new governor system. L&S Electric was the lowest bidder with a total price of $718,480 (for all four governor systems) and Alstom’s bid was $857,600. American Governor was disqualified from bidding because they did not submit a pricesheet after multiple requests (strangely they submitted a very complete bid package but not a pricesheet). L&S Electric was also the only company able to provide the governor system in the required window for the generator outage. Alstom and American Governor disqualified themselves by not being able to supply the governor system before November. A summary of price and delivery dates can be found below in Table 1. Alstom American Governor L&S Electric Engineering Design and Drawings $133,600 No Price Submitted $110,486 Supply Governor System $642,200 $499,918 Factory Acceptance Testing $59,000 $97,978 Shipping $22,800 $10,098 Total $857,600 $718,480 Proposed Delivery Date December 8, 2014 January 8, 2015 September 16, 2014 Table 1: Pricesheet and Schedule Comparison by Vendor In addition, L&S Electric’s commercial clarifications and exceptions were minimal. Both Alstom and American Governor had substantially more clarifications and exceptions which would require an even longer award process and further schedule delays. After review of L&S Electric’s technical proposal, Avista follow up clarifications and questions. Of note, L&S confirmed that the code would be open to Avista’s editing (although any unapproved edits would void warranty on the governor system). The Little Falls team had the opportunity to visit four hydro facilities with L&S governors. The governor system was discussed with the engineers and relay techs responsible for the install and maintenance. They recommended L&S governors based on their experience. The Little Falls project team recommends award for the supply of the Little Falls governors to L&S Electric, based on their technical proposal, price and ability to meet schedule. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 12 of 42 Little Falls Switchgear Contract Eaton Cutler‐Hammer Award Justification The bids for the Little Falls switchgear went to five manufactures: ABB, Cutler‐Hammer (Eaton), General Electric, Square D, and Siemens. The only bidder to submit a bid proposal on time was Cutler‐Hammer (Eaton). Eaton’s bid price is $700,000 for 4 generator breakers, one spare generator breaker and 2 station service breakers. In addition, the switchgear cubicles and non‐segregated buswork between the generator step up transformer and the switchgear will be provided. Eaton also does not have any significant technical or commercial exceptions to the specification. In 2009, the switchgear for Upper Falls was replaced at a cost $150,000 for one breaker and the switchgear housing. Eaton’s proposal is very competitive with that, if not a little better (4x$150,000=$600,000 plus additional cost for bus ducting, 2 station breakers and a spare generator breaker). The schedule for procurement and manufacturing of the switchgear will be tight, but Eaton is able to make the deadline if the contract is awarded quickly. General Electric asked for more time to submit a bid, but the award date was already pushed out once, and further delay will jeopardize the project’s start date. In summary, Eaton was the only one who submitted the bid on time, is able to meet out schedule and price is reasonable with past experiences. For these reasons, Eaton is the selected manufacture to provide the switchgear for Little Falls. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 13 of 42 All True Tenmat CIP RBC AQ RBC TF Task 1 $0.00 $0.00 Task 2 $1,088.12 $1,847.12 $4,815.80 $23,364.00 $22,176.00 Task 3 $4,393.40 $6,517.28 $9,515.00 $30,008.00 $26,884.00 Task 4 $2,883.76 $4,128.96 $2,354.44 $30,096.00 $31,416.00 Task 5 $50.00 $200.00 Total $8,415.28 $12,493.36 $16,885.24 $83,468.00 $80,476.00 Note 1 Bid Sheet not submitted Bid Sheet not submitted Bid Sheet not submitted Note 2 only 40 units initially quoted, price above reflects 44 units Swelling greater than 0.1% Not machinable after installation Note 3 cannot be shrunk with liquid nitrogen cannot be shrunk with liquid nitrogen Note 4 COF may exceed 0.1 Leadtime (wks)3 12-15 meets schedule 10-11 10-11 Little Falls Wicket Gate Bushing Bid Comparison Selection Summary Avista has had good results with CIP bushings in the past and we believe that their product will perform well in this application. The decision was made by Generation Engineering to select CIP as the wicket gate bushing supplier for the Little Falls Modernization project. We do not have any experience with All True's product and in this case having experience is very valuable. Tenmat is unable to agree to our terms and conditions and Supply Chain would prefer not to award to them. RBC's two offerings do not meet our technical requirements Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 14 of 42 Interoffice Memorandum Generation Engineering DATE: January 30, 2012 TO: Contracts Department & Generation Engineering File FROM: Brian Vandenburg SUBJECT: Contract Award for Little Falls Excitation System Replacement (R-37613) The excitation system at Little Falls is being replaced, and Request for Proposal was sent out in December of 2011. Four manufactures were pre-approved for providing the new static exciters: Siemens, GE, Basler and ABB. All four manufactures submitted a bid. The bids were evaluated and adjusted by the engineering department to ensure comparing like bids (some vendors excluded two commissioning trips while others included it, etc). The adjustment price is as follows: Basler had the lowest bid of $538,860. GE was the second lowest at $593,440. ABB came in at $661,612 and Siemens was the high bid at $948,819. The ABB and the Siemens bid was too high to justify further investigation. GE and Basler were close enough that a deeper investigation was launched, including a conference call with both manufactures. Both Basler and GE have very similar excitation systems, but both boast small differences from one another. After discussing Little Falls Excitation requirement with both companies, it was decided to spec a 400A, 160% field forcing for the exciters. Both GE and Basler came back with adjusted prices for the PPTs. GE’s increase in price was $25,934 (for 4 units) and Basler’s was $4,800 (for 4 units). The Exciter Uprate – Adjusted Price for GE is now $619,374 and Basler’s adjusted price is $543,660. The major advantage of awarding the contract to Basler is the Upper Falls exciter is the same size Basler exciter as the Little Falls exciters. This would allow for Avista to share spare parts between the two plants. This also will minimize the amount of new training for the relay technicians, operators and engineers since there is familiarity with the Upper Falls exciter. For the reasons outlined above, the Generation Engineering department recommends awarding the contract for the new Little Falls Static Excitation System to Basler. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 15 of 42 Generation Engineering Memorandum DATE: May 13nd, 2013 TO: File FROM: Brian Vandenburg SUBJECT: Little Falls Station Service Low Voltage Switchgear Award Justification Request for Proposals for the Little Falls station service equipment were sent out for low voltage switchgear (LVSG), motor control centers (MCCs), neutral grounding resistors (NGRs), and transformers. Avista received 4 bids back for the LVSG, MCCs and transformers, and two bids back for the NGRs. Eaton was the lowest bidder for the LVSG, MCCs and NGRs. Olsen Electrics was the low bidder for the transformers. The total price for the combination of the equipment, taking the lowest bidder, is $437,966. Eaton proposed a package supply in which they would solely provide all the equipment requested. Avista would receive a 4.25% reduction in their equipment price (only on base bids, not the options exercised by Avista). With all Eaton equipment, the total price is $448,664. With the reduction offered for the bundled supply, the total price of the equipment is $432,928. This reduced price is lower than the price of the combination of the lowest bidders ($437k). In addition, Eaton would only have to perform one field commissioning trip at a cost of $9500 instead of separate trips for each manufacture. A detailed cost breakdown of the equipment can be found in Table 1. Avista asked for various options for the station service equipment. After evaluation of the bids, Avista will exercise option A for arc-resistant LVSG and option B for rackout style MCCs. These options were taken into consideration during the evaluation process, and Eaton was able to provide both options required. Eaton’s proposed Magnum DS switchgear meets all the technical needs as described in the specifications: The equipment adheres to applicable IEEE, ANSI, and NEMA standards, and provides numerous technical advantages including arc flash resistant construction, racking breaker designs, user serviceable parts, 125 VDC control schemes, extensively adjustable trip units with electronic monitoring options, and maintenance mode abilities. Eaton’s proposed Flashguard motor control center meets all the technical needs as described in the specifications: The equipment adheres to applicable IEEE, ANSI, and NEMA standards, and provides numerous technical advantages including a racking bucket design, user serviceable parts, electronic trip units, customizable bucket wiring with extensive I/O, and adequate terminal blocks. Eaton’s bundled price is the lowest price when compared with taking the lowest bidder of each piece of equipment. Also, Eaton took no exceptions to our technical specifications and Avista has a master agreement with Eaton for the commercial terms. For these reasons, it is recommended by the generation engineering group that the bid for the low voltage switchgear be awarded to Eaton. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 16 of 42 Equipment Low Bidder Total Price All Eaton Equip Eaton Discount Low Voltage Switchgear Eaton $189,925.00 $189,925.00 $181,853.19 Option A (Arc Resistant) $13,420.00 $13,420.00 $13,420.00 Motor Control Centers Eaton $78,325.00 $78,325.00 $74,996.19 Option B (Rackout Style) $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Transformers Olsen Electrics $58,800.00 $69,498.00 $66,544.34 Neutral Grounding Resistors Eaton $32,496.00 $32,496.00 $31,114.92 Total $437,966.00 $448,664.00 $432,928.63 Table 1: Pricesheet comparison by Vendor Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 17 of 42 Section 4 Program Governance Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 18 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 1 of 8 Project Name: Little Falls Modernization Program Project ID: ER‐4152 1 Key Roles  Executive Steering Committee: o Andy Vickers, General Production Sub Support Director o Bruce Howard, Director Environmental Affairs o Scott Kinney, Director Power Supply  Project Sponsor: Andy Vickers  Program Manager: Brian Vandenburg  Project Manager: Brian Vandenburg  Project Management Team Stakeholders: o Jacob Reidt, Construction Contractors and Project Management Manager o Steve Wenke, Chief Engineer o Glen Farmer, Electrical Engineering Manager o Kristina Newhouse, Controls Engineering Manager o PJ Henscheid, Mechanical Engineering Manager o Mike Gonnella, Hydro Operations and Maintenance Manager o Jerry Cox, Spokane River Plant Operations Manager o Bob Wiesbeck, Project Delivery Manager o Randy Pierce, General Foremen, Mechanic Shop o Brad McNamara, General Foremen, Electric Shop o Jeff Vogel, Lead Relay Tech o Michele Drake, Hydro Compliance Services o Speed Fitzhugh, Spokane River License Manager 2 Statement of Mission Need 2.1 Business Need/Project Objectives Little Falls Program State: Prior to the upgrade projects beginning in 2012, much of the plant equipment was the original installed equipment from 1912. Two of the four turbine runners were the original, and two were replaced in 1999 and 2001. The generator exciters are the original DC generators with an amplidyne control system installed in the 1940’s replace a manual control system. The generators were last rewound between 1956 and 1968. Three of the four generator governors use a customized Distributed Control System (DCS) and limitorque’s to drive the wicket gates installed around 1989. From 2006 to 2010, the number and duration of forced outages at Little Falls has increased due to equipment failure. A decision has been made to modernize the Little Falls Plant to increase operational reliability which equates to Decision Gate‐0 (DG‐0)1 representing approved mission need in the project management lifecycle and documented via the approved business case. The Little Falls Plant Modernization Program will replace equipment at the end of useful life associated with the generating units to reduce equipment failure forced 1 Decision Gates are used in Project Management practices to represent key project milestones that identify the exit point from one phase of the project, and entry into the succeeding phase, only upon approval by appropriate authority. Each decision marks an increase in commitment of resources and is based on a successful and complete preceding phase. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 19 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 2 of 8 outages. Replacement of the equipment responsible for the majority of the outages will be prioritized first, followed by plant preparation for the large generation unit upgrades. Yearly projects to replace the majority of the generator’s components will then conclude the modernization of Little Falls by the 2018 timeframe with a total modernization program budget estimated at ~$59M (refer also to Section 6.0 for estimate accuracy based on phase of project). The total program, inclusive of all subprojects, is roughly estimated as outlined in the following table. Refined estimates will be developed for each project as project planning progresses and a performance baseline is developed. Primary LFMP objectives include:  Replace equipment at the end of useful life associated with the generating units to reduce equipment failure forced outages and loss generation through a series of logically sequenced projects conducted annually through 2018. Secondary LFMP objectives include:  Provide early integrated planning across all key stakeholders during development of the baseline to anticipate risks and allow for more reliable cost and schedule estimation during the planning stages thereby increasing reliability of the performance baseline.  Provide a framework for a documented and systematic way to collect and analyze data for future projects, identify and control risks, control variances identified in the data analysis, and report results during the project execution phase. Little Falls Management Program Project Description Estimated $ Estimated Construction Window Exciter and Switchgear Upgrade $3.5M COMPLETE Plant Prep Work Bridge Crane Refurbishment $876K COMPLETE Long Lake Warehouse $1.4M COMPLETE Station Service Infrastructure $3.0M COMPLETE Compressed Air System $100k COMPLETE DC System $800K COMPLETE Unit 3 Overhaul $14.8M CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY Plant Work Lighting $500k COMPLETE New Control Room $600k DESIGN UNDERWAY Est. Construction Start: April 2016 – June 2016 Backup Generator $600k DESIGN UNDERWAY Est. Construction Start: July 2016 – September 2016 Unit 1 Overhaul $9M DESIGN UNDERWAY Est. Construction Start: February 2016 – January 2017 Plant Work Sump $400k April 2016 – May 2016 Plant Security System $200k June 2016 – July 2016 HVAC $400k June 2016 – July 2016 Downstream Warning System $400k June 2016 – August 2016 Unit 2 Overhaul $9M January 2017 – December 2017 Plant Work Head Gate Refurbishment $4M July 2017 – December 2017 Unit 4 Overhaul $9M January 2018 – December 2018 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 20 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 3 of 8  Provide for the ability for each modernization project to be managed in a standalone fashion, as well as within an overall program work breakdown structure thereby providing the ability to be integrated into the overall Little Falls Modernization Project for the comprehensive programmatic/management view.  Evaluate and rank projects using integrated stakeholder input from the project planning activities against matrix planning categories (e.g. Personnel and Public Safety, Potential Environmental Issue; Regulatory Mandate, On‐going Maintenance issue, Decrease Future Operating Costs (Time, Materials), Increase Efficiency (Revenues – Power Usage), Obsolete parts and equipment, and Risk of Imminent Equipment Failure) to support development of annual work plans used for Capital Planning.  Improve understanding of impacts to decisions (e.g. resources/time).  Collect lessons learned to be applied to future projects for continuous improvement. 2.2 Regulatory Drivers Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO) requires that all employers who are engaged in operating a business on reservations give preference to qualified Indians in all aspects of employment, contracting, and other business activities. Little Falls is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as having significance to the history of their community state, or the nation. 2.3 Metrics Demonstrating Need A summary of GPSS unit failure percentages at Little Falls from 2000 to 2014 to document current unit condition is as follows: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Unit 1 99.4% 99.5% 98.8% 99.3% 95.9% 95.4% 96.9% 98.4% 70.3% 89.1% 97.3% Unit 2 99.1% 99.4% 98.3% 99.1% 97.4% 97.3% 98.8% 96.5% 70.8% 97.1% 99.1% Unit 3 99.4% 99.5% 99.3% 99.1% 99.1% 99.0% 93.5% 96.9% 99.5% 77.4% 51.3% Unit 4 98.9% 89.8% 96.3% 99.4% 97.7% 98.8% 98.2% 99.3% 99.6% 77.5% 98.7% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 Little Falls Unit Availability Factor (AF) Percentages Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 21 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 4 of 8 2.4 Measures to Determine Project Success Primary objectives will be met when plant operation and reliability metrics for each unit are improved then maintained over time thereby benefitting customers, and project completion is on time and within budget to the approved performance baseline while maintaining compliance with all environmental requirements. If the secondary objectives are met, it will improve accuracy of cost and schedule estimation, which in turn improves resource planning for engineering, functional area support, and crafts. By including each project as part of a programmatic work breakdown structure (WBS), it will provide a management roll‐up capability for greater portfolio management of resources. 2.5 Impact if Not Approved This program replaces aging, failing equipment. If not approved, the following outcomes could be seen:  If a generator fails prior to replacement, it is estimated that the outage would result in a two year unplanned down‐time of lost generation.  Personnel safety is at increased risk for unit failure if not undertaken since recent unit failures resulted in catastrophic failures.  A savings in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs is expected and can be realized sooner if undertaken. 3 Assumptions, Risks, and Considerations 3.1 Assumptions: (Expected Conditions)  Little Falls HED is excluded from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Spokane River Project licensing.  Infrastructure requirements (i.e. plant prep work listed in the table in Section 2.1) at the site will be completed prior to undertaking the unit work.  An approach of buying new parts vs. rehabilitation of old parts will be used since expected conditions based on the age and complexity of the units cannot be effectively predicted.  Construction will be completed by 2018.  A steering committee will be established for executive management check in’s and approval of decision gates throughout the project lifecycle. The executive steering committee decision gates include the following: o DG‐0 Approved Mission Need (completed with approval of the capital planning request (CPR)) o DG‐1 Approve Alternatives Evaluation & Selection o DG‐2 Approve Project Execution Plan (PEP) o DG‐3 Approve Performance Management Baseline o DG‐4 Approve Start of Construction o DG‐5 Approve Start of Operations 3.2 Risks: (Potential Deviations)  Runoff and annual maintenance requirements are not aligned with the execution schedule for the unit overhaul. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 22 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 5 of 8  Drawings are inaccurate and/or institutional knowledge is not well aggregated and documented that resolves differences in existing drawings.  Equipment is not delivered on time or is delivered with non‐conformance to plan specifications.  Crews are unable to perform the work as planned.  Accuracy of resource allocation for baseline estimation is limited since only a total breakdown of man hours by month was collected during Unit 3. 3.3 Considerations  Mid‐management project team stakeholder input will be sought at a minimum to (1) identify resources upon approval of the charter, (2) ensure functional requirements are comprehensively defined by the project team at the onset of the project, (3) ensure adequate criteria and options are evaluated prior to selection of alternatives based on the complexity of the project, and (4) review the final design documents to ensure requirements were successfully met. This will allow for transfer of institutional knowledge within Avista to the project team. 4 Applicable Interfaces Stakeholder interfaces requiring assigned resources in order to achieve the project objectives are as follows (check all that apply). The specific roles and responsibilities, frequency/ type of communication, and agreed upon engagement points will be documented in a communication plan: ☒ General Engineering ☒ Electrical Engineering ☒ Controls Engineering ☒ Mechanical Engineering ☐ Civil Engineering ☒ Design Engineering ☐ Substation Engineering ☐ Distribution Engineering ☐ Transmission Engineering ☒ Operations Engineering ☒ Operations (Electric/Gas/Hydro) ☐ Gas Engineering ☒ Protection Engineering ☐ SCADA Engineering ☒ Facilities ☒ Asset Management ☒ Construction Manager ☒ Master Scheduler ☒ Crews ☒ Environmental ☒ Cultural/SHPO Resources ☐ Hydro/FERC Licensing ☒ Network Communication (IT/ET) ☒ Supply Chain – Contracts (Bid) ☒ Supply Chain – Materials/Equipment ☐ Real Estate ☒ Legal ☒ Corporate Communications ☐ Corporate Marketing ☐ Fleet ☒ Rates and Regulatory ☒ Project Accounting 5 Resource Requirements and Schedule 5.1 High Level Project Deliverables To meet the primary project objective, a final project execution plan which includes the following, will be completed for all projects. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 23 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 6 of 8 PROJECT PHASE DELIVERABLE DELIVERABLE DESCRIPTION Initiation Phase Charter Document that briefly outlines the project identification number, key management resources, project profile of business need and project objectives, high level deliverables, project artifacts, assumptions/constraints, key integrated planning resources needed across functional areas, and a planning cost estimate used to establish the authority of the Project Manager and provide parameters for the project resources and negotiation of support with functional managers for execution of the project phases. Stakeholder Assigned Resources List Document identifying the list of key stakeholders by name and role that will serve as the technical, managerial, or advisory support to the project. Planning Phase Planning Kick‐Off Meeting Minutes Meeting minutes documenting the project team kick‐off following approval of the charter and assignment of resources to the integrated project team to discuss the charter business need and project objectives, high level deliverables, project artifacts, and assumptions/constraints in preparation for defining the functional requirements. Project Execution Plan Document consolidating all planning elements into a single document used to guide both project execution and project control, document planning assumptions and decisions, facilitate communication among stakeholders, and document approved scope, cost, and schedule baselines. Functional Requirements Matrix Clear definition of the project, the problem or opportunity being solved, and what success looks like, from both the current state and desired end state, and project constraints any solution must meet as defined by the integrated project team. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) – Conceptual and Final Conceptual document outline of the WBS that will allow the project manager to identify functional responsibilities and be used to facilitate detailed stakeholder development of the project schedule with dependencies and budget estimates. Final provided upon completion of the detailed project schedule development at the appropriate level required to manage the project. Seven (7) project phase areas common to all projects should be included in the WBS structure, then specific project details defined below for Avista consistency:  Project Management  Investigation  Design  Procure/Contract  Permitting  Construction  Verify/Startup/Checkout Project Team Roles/Responsibilities Document identifying the list of key stakeholders by name and role that will serve as the technical, managerial, or advisory support to the planning phase of the project. Communication Plan Document describing type of communication frequency with stakeholders to achieve the project measurement baseline. The plan elaborates on identification of roles and responsibilities by identifying the lead and support functions for each key document to be produced during the project (a.k.a. circle/dot matrix) and types/frequency of communication. Risk Plan Document identifying the broad risks, likelihood of occurring, and consequence determination of whether there is opportunity or loss potential associated with it. This risk plan is considered the conceptual phase in order to assist in defining the appropriate technical solution to be illustrated in the planning documents and project schedule. Governance Process Document integrating a framework for resolving issues and managing problems to the Performance Measurement Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 24 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 7 of 8 PROJECT PHASE DELIVERABLE DELIVERABLE DESCRIPTION Baseline as they arise during the life cycle for project planning and execution. This includes changes to the project’s scope, schedule, charter, or budget which are documented and provided to a decision‐making body. Document/Data Management Plan Definition of the file structure and minimum documents to be maintained in the electronic project file. Files typically address: why the project was initiated, the scope of the project, expenditures on the project, official communication records associated with the project, final commissioning of the project, and project personnel. Project Schedule Integrated project schedule containing defined task and subtasks, durations, dependencies, and functional responsibilities that will support network analysis. The tool (e.g. MS Project, Primavera) will be selected by the Avista Project Manager. Budget Estimates by project Integrated project schedule containing resource loading of hours and cost of individuals assigned to complete the work identified in the project schedule. Engineering Design Packages Phase 0 Alternatives Analysis/Feasibility Study (5%‐10%) Phase 1 Conceptual Design (30% ‐ 50%) Phase 2 Preliminary Engineering (50% ‐ 75%) Phase 3 Design Execution (90%) Phase 4 Completed Construction Drawings and Specifications (100%) Statement of Work Document combined with the plans and specifications that is submitted to Supply Chain with a contract request to assemble a construction bid package. Bid Package Package developed using a team consisting of Supply Chain, the Construction Contracts Administrator, and the engineer/project manager used to solicit bids from contractors to execute the work. Construction Transmittal Package that includes the design drawings, specifications, accounting information (what project numbers the crews are to charge their time to), vendor data sheets, and any special instructions for executing the work. Executing Phase Pre‐Construction Meeting Minutes Meeting to go over any final instructions, roles, clarify any questions regarding work scope and schedule, environmental requirements, and discuss safety requirements. Commission Testing and Acceptance Plan Document that ensures the new equipment is going to function as it was designed and works properly. Instrument and control settings and functions must be confirmed and documented. The engineer prepares a commissioning plan and works with the relay shop general foreman and plant operations to coordinate this step. Closing Phase Operation & Maintenance/Instruction Manual Compilation of equipment literature and manuals provided by the vendor, along with engineer prepared list of minimum maintenance requirements and frequency for maintenance. Equipment manuals, O&M manuals, and other O&M procedures will be provided to the Maintenance Engineer to be entered into Maximo to generate future work orders to perform the recommended periodic maintenance. Lessons Learned Document A document capturing lessons learned from stakeholders on all phases of the project. Final Project Summary Report Report summarize design steps along the way, important design considerations, comparison of the planned vs. the actual project schedule, the budgeted costs vs. actual costs, summary of change orders and scope changes that affected Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 25 of 42 Program Initiation Charter Planning Phase Approval Little Falls Modernization Program Charter Page 8 of 8 PROJECT PHASE DELIVERABLE DELIVERABLE DESCRIPTION the schedule and costs, list of applicable project drawings (both reference and new drawings), files/records created, key project stakeholders that participated, contractors/vendors involved, and associated contract costs. 5.2 What will NOT be delivered? No other plant systems other than what is outlined in this document will be delivered as part of the Little Falls program. Of special note is the Little Falls spillgate overhaul will specifically be excluded from this program. 6 Planning Cost Estimate As identified in Section 2.1, the anticipated cost of the Little Falls Program is $58M. Refined estimates will be developed as project planning progresses and a performance baseline is developed. Cost estimates are by definition prepared with less than complete information and have inherent levels of risk and uncertainties. The basis for the planning cost estimate as follows:  The initial estimate of $58M the program was prepared based on judgement estimation at the 1‐2% project design which equates to a Class 5 estimate with an accuracy range of ‐20 to +100% (see Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International matrix below). The matrix presents the level of project definition, typical end use, methodology, expected accuracy, and preparation effort associated with the cost estimate.2 2 The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International is an international non-profit professional educational association that provides services related to cost estimating, cost/schedule control, and project management to a wide range of professions and industries. AACE defines five levels of cost estimates for a project (reference AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R‐97). Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 26 of 42 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 27 of 42 DATE: PROJECT: ATTENDEES: SUBJECT: • • • • • • • Issue Tracker: Little Falls Unit 1 Modernization Weekly Check In • " Vl<-v\ 5'...,_f:t ~~"'l / 8ec._r,L~~ • • • • • • • • • • Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 28 of 42 • • • • • • • • • • Executive Summary Project name: Date: th Prepared By: Overall Status Program Summary: The Little Falls plant modernization is intended to modernize the plant, reduce O&M costs, forced outages and create a safer work environment. Green – On Track, Yellow – Date or Budget at Risk, Red – Impacts Date or Budget, Gray – Not Active Milestones Planned Act. / Est. Planned Act. / Est. Unit 3 Modernization (GOC#1605) 7-7-14 7-7-14 3-27-15 1-22-16 Unit 1 Modernization (GOC#1746) 7-6-15 1-25-16 3-25-16 9-30-16 Powerhouse Lighting Upgrade 11-1-14 11-10-14 12-31-15 2-1-16 Backup Generator Install 1-15-15 1-15-15 6-5-16 6-5-16 Control Room Upgrade 3-1-15 3-1-15 3-31-16 5-15-16 Activity Summary 1. Continue work on reassembly of unit 3:  Delay of assembly due to Avista generation crews assisting with windstorm storm activities. Stakeholder meeting December 16 to discuss new completion timeline  Continued checkout of electrical devices 2. Pre-construction meeting for powerhouse lighting upgrade complete, construction in January 3. Generator on site for unit 1 4. Design review complete for new control room Concerns/Potential Issues 1. Assembly of machine continues to run into small delays. Target of January 22nd for completion of unit 3 Action Steps to Address Concerns/Potential Issues Stated Above 1. Continue monitoring of the assembly work. If more issues are encountered, a mitigation plan will be developed Planned Activities 1. Commissioning specialist on site January 11th through 22nd 2. Continue reassembly of unit 3: Bore coupling bolts, machine turbine for proper fit, install generator covers 3. Electricians wiring field devices to monitoring enclosure 4. Engineering underway for backup generator project and unit 1. 5. Starting design for spillway controls replacement, downstream warning system and GSU transformer panel 6. Lighting replacement project construction kickoff January 4th. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 29 of 42 Design Summary Milestones Planned Act. / Est. Planned Act. / Est. Duplicate Unit 3 drawings for Unit 1 4/10/15 4/10/15 12/15/15 2/15/16 Backup Generator Procurement RFP 5/1/15 5/1/15 10/30/15 11/20/15 Spillway Controls Replacement Design 10/1/15 10/1/15 6/1/16 6/1/16 Downstream Warning Design 10/1/15 10/1/15 6/1/16 6/1/16 Engineering Design Summary Mechanical 1. Commissioning document ongoing review 2. Field support for ongoing alignment activities 3. Developing final commissioning plan Electrical 1. Controls 1. Ongoing review of unit 3 PLC code 2. Review of commissioning plan 3. Review rough draft of spillway controls design ready for review Contracts Summary 1. Generator: Unit 1’s generator was delivered and in storage until after unit 3 outage. 2. Wicket Gates: Rough casting ongoing 3. Backup Generator: Proposals received, rough draft of award completed, waiting on final pricing for factory testing Consultant Work Summary Cirrus Design and Drafting 1. Waiting for as-builts for unit 3 2. Started scanning drawings of completed work to begin as-built process JMK (Electrical Engineering) 1. Addressing bid questions as they come up 2. Completed preliminary Alternative Analysis for GSU transformer protection upgrade Ernie Robenson (Architect) 1. Final bid package by end of 2015. Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 30 of 42 Construction Summary Milestones Planned Act. / Est. Planned Act. / Est. Dry Commissioning 9/21/15 1/11/16 9/25/15 1/15/16 Wet Commissioning 9/28/15 1/18/16 10/2/15 1/22/16 Unit 1 Disassembly 11/1/15 1/25/16 1/19/16 3/18/16 Generator Floor Lighting Replacement 1/4/2016 1/4/16 2/1/16 2/1/16 Construction Summary Mechanics 1. Completed turbine machining 2. Completed building water and oil piping, waiting for disassembly for install 3. Completed ductwork modification 4. Ongoing line boring for coupling bolts 5. Started assembly on upstream side and working down the unit Electricians 1. Rewired ceiling fans 2. Completed wiring generator RTDs 3. Ran wire for headgate control 4. Ongoing work on bearing RTDs, oil system and air devices Relay Techs 1. Ongoing review of unit program 2. Checked I/O as completed 3. Assisting in scanning on as-built drawing Contractor Work Summary 1. Lighting contractor to begin January 4th, complete in three weeks Construction Contracts Summary Lighting 1. Work authorization signed, inspector assigned and work ready to begin in 2016 Control Room 1. Control room final design by end of 2015 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 31 of 42 Meeting Minutes DATE: July 5th, 2016 PROJECT: Little Falls Unit 3 Modernization SUBJECT: Unit Non-Critical Punchlist Items need to be addressed but not critical to having the unit complete are listed below. Unit Protection Settings During startups, the unit has timed out when trying to synchronizing. This has caused the bus lockout relay to operate, tripping unit 4. The protection engineering group is working on a long term solution but gave us direction to bypass the bus lockout relay in the event of a synchronization time out and instead try the synch again. (Protection temp fix in, Randy Spacek working on long term solution). As-Builts Work continues on the as-builts for unit 3. A few additions came up on the drawings during commissioning that will be incorporated and a few clarifications need to be addressed. Once the commissioning is complete, the prints will be completed and duplication for unit 1 will start. (Bryce will be done with as-builts Friday, 3/4 but Tom has a few last tweaks that need to be incorporated). SCADA The new SCADA system needs to be commissioned. This will require coordination with the network engineers, comm shop, protection engineering, relay shop and others. Once complete, unit 3 and the following units can be cut over to the new SCADA system. Greg will program SMP and long term solution will be complete. (Will follow up with Greg Sharpes). Ductwork Insulation Install The insulation needs to be completed around the modification area of the ductwork. This work will take roughly two days to complete but not critical to operation of the unit. This work will be coordinated after the unit is online. (Schedule to be in July). Communication between LL and LF Nicole will put together transmittal describing some work to increase communication between the two plants. Governor PT Interface Modules Need to swap spare module and module on unit 1. Unit 1 may be delayed because governor package is still packaged for shipping. Instruments  Vibration sensor not reading correctly  Scroll case pressure transducer not working properly Water System Unit 3 water system need to be hooked up to plant water header. Local Area Network Continue to get random alarms. Seem to indicate random breakdown on communications on the new local area network. Stuart Reed and Net Ops working on solution. (Emailed Stuart 3-1 asking for update) Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 32 of 42 Wonderware Tag Updates Minor edits to tags in Wonderware. Clean up duplicate entries and tag comments that are incorrect. (ongoing edits by Greg Sharpes) Governor Training The unit 1 governor system is at the Long Lake warehouse. For training, the new governor system will be wired and plumbed up in an operational mode. L&S will come on site for 2 days to have hands on training for all interested. This training will be coordinated after unit 3 is online with the mechanics and operators (and any other interested parties). (Schedule July 19 and 20) Operator Training The operators continue to develop Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) for unit three. This includes the new Wonderware screens, unit Operator Interface Terminal (OIT) and governor & exciter OIT. It also includes new clearance points and alarm lists. SEL Test Equipment Unit 3 has test equipment installed for SEL to test some new protection functionality. The test equipment is wired and ready but SEL will need to come onsite to commission the test equipment after unit 3 is complete. (SEL will be on site Friday 3/4). Unit Flows A long term solution for unit 3 flows based on the new turbine flows is required. Operators will estimate. Short term solution complete, working on long term solution. Governor Manual Avista will sign off on the governor manual when the system is fully functionally tested and released for commercial operation. (Brian will sign off and release). Oil System The oil switches for the lower and upper oil tank are on order and need to be installed. The primary protection from overtopping of the oil system is the level transducer (currently installed), the switch is a backup. (The switches are on site but need to be installed and wired up) Generator Breaker Breaker faulted, spare is in service. Eaton has been contacted and repair will be coordinated. A bid was received and contracts are underway. (Howard bringing breaker into shop). Governor Oil Pump Pump trips off due to overcurrent. Not sure why pump is drawing so much current. Unit PRN Working with engineering to complete Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 33 of 42 Issue Tracker DATE: December 8th, 2015 PROJECT: Little Falls Plant Modernization PROJECT MANAGER: Brian Vandenburg Issues Being Addressed: Priority Date Issue Assignment Due Date High 4/23/2014 Crew Availability – Both electric and mechanic crews  Mechanic crews have worked on maintenance from 9/8-10/9 (5 wks) Continue to monitor progress, update unit 3 schedule as crew size changes. Brian Ongoing Medium 8/25/2015 Wonderware screens built for unit 3 Brian/Relay Techs High 12/1/2015 Relay Tech requests week of January 4th for checkout, mechanics and electricians need to be complete by then Brian/Mechanics/ Electricians 12/15/2015 Issues Resolved: Priority Date Issue Assignment Due Date High 11/3/2015 Project behind schedule, will not hit proposed December commissioning date RESOLVED: Delayed commissioning unit January, rescheduled L&S to be on site in January. Brian 12/1/2015 Medium 5/5/2014 Protection engineering short staffed RESOLVED: Settings issued to field Brian 11/21/2015 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 34 of 42 Archive: Priority Date Issue Assignment Due Date Medium 10/6/2015 Need to store unit 1 equipment RESOLVED: Generator will be stored at LL powerhouse, governor and turbine will be stored at LL warehouse Brian/Operations/ Mechanics 10/12/2015 High 9/15/2015 Turbine hits wicket gates RESOLVED: Machined down turbine to give proper clearance, 4 week delay approved. Tracy/Mechanics 9/29/2015 High 8/25/2015 Unit alignment, need proper alignment between seal rings and turbine Resolved: Removed turbine bearing bases to machine down, 4 week delay approved Tracy/Mechanics 8/27/2015 Low 8/11/2015 Test box for testing speed sensor RESOLVED: Mechanics built new test box Mechanics 12/1/2015 Medium 8/5/2015 Wicket gate pins still don’t have enough play RESOLVED: New pins were ordered (10 pins), 2 week delay approved. Brian/Tracy 8/18/2015 Medium 7/21/2015 Wicket gate pins don’t have enough play RESOLVED: New wicket gate pins have been ordered (20 pins), 2 week delay approved Brian/Tracy 7/23/2015 Medium 3/1/2014 Develop Unit Program – Get L&S involved RESOLVED, L&S On site for pre- check Alexis Nov 1st, 2015 Medium 6/16/2015 Alstom provided the wrong wire for the Y-Point RESOLVED: New wire ordered Nathan/Electric crews 6/23/2015 High 5/19/2015 Generator covers don’t fit generator, modifications required RESOLVED: Modifications made, required 150 extra man days, schedule updated accordingly Mechanic crews 12/1/2015 Low 6/2/2015 Install generator RTD enclosure on other side of generator RESOLVED: Contacted Alstom and change was approved Brian/Alstom 6/5/2015 Low 3/31/2015 Material handling (loading and unloading) at plant an issue RESOLVED: Forklift for use at plant to ease loading and unloading Brian 4/14/2015 High 3/30/2015 Generator splice failed RESOLVED: Alstom and Avista agreed to new method for splice, will return to site and complete work Brian/Alstom 5/19/2015 High 3/5/2015 Bushings wrong size for new bore RESOLVED: Ordered new bushings Tracy 3/10/2015 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 35 of 42 Medium 2/10/2014 Develop Unit 3 Commissioning Plan RESOLVED Engineering Team 9/1/2015 Medium 2/3/2015 Inspector for generator splice work? RESOLVED, Electricians will provide inspection services for 3 weeks Brian/Howard 1/15/2015 Low 3/10/2015 How will we handle the penstock flow measurement install? RESOLVED: Contractor will turn key flow measurement install. Tracy April 9th, 2015 Medium 3/12/2015 Will we reinstall the old generator covers? If so, new covers need to be built because the end windings are longer than the old ones. Operations wants the covers back on (to keep it cleaner). RESOLVED: The covers will be required to cool the new generators. Design on new covers ongoing. Brian May 2nd, 2015 High 3/14/2015 When will final transmittal for station service be sent out? Schedule slip has caused concern. RESOLVED: Final drawings will be sent out for station service on May 2nd. Nathan 3/13/2015 Low 3/12/2015 Will we sandblast and paint the penstocks during the overhaul? This will most likely be O&M and space will be VERY limited inside the powerhouse for the contractor’s equipment. RESOLVED: O&M does not have money this year and space constraints will prohibit us from painting and sandblasting. Brian April 18th, 2015 High 1/2/2015 The GPSS group does not have a standard control philosophy for operating the generators. RESOLVED: Alexis and the rest of the controls group has worked with Operations and the Relay Shop to establish department control philosophy to use at Cabinet and Little Falls. Alexis 2/15/2015 High 9/15/2014 Field poles are in worse condition than expected, 12 week delay for repairs. Outage schedule will be adjusted accordingly RESOLVED, CO to contract and unit 3 outage extended. Brian Nov 1st, 2014 Low 9/1/2014 Wicket gates in worse condition than expected RESOLVED: Repair plan established and repairs moving forward. Tracy 9/15/2014 Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 36 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 1 of 6 Project Name: Little Falls Unit 3 Modernization Project ID: 20205022 Project Manager: Brian Vandenburg 1 Participants Lessons Learned Participants Project Team Tracy West, Howard Johnson, Larry Wendt, Tom Berg, Alexis Alexander, Nicole Ethum, Karen Carter, Shelly Washburn, Robin Bekkedahl, Kevin Powell Stakeholders Generation Engineering, Cental Shops, Operations,Contracts, Network Engineering, Protection Engineering Steering Committee Andy Vickers & Bruce Howard 2 Project Performance Overview The Little Falls unit 3 overhaul consisted of a complete generator replacement (frame, core and windings), turbine assemply replacement, governor system replacement, generator cable replacement, controls & protection system replacement, field pole replacement and oil system replacement. All major parts of the scope were completed as designed. The original schedule was 9 months, based on unit upgrades at Noxon and preliminary scoping meetings. The actual schedule took 18 months. The significant delay in the completion of the project was due to a many unforeseen conditions, equipment not supplied to spec, short handed crews and a lack of efficiency due to the lack of experience overhauling a Little Falls unit. The original budget was $10.6M. The actual project spend was $15.3M. Of the $5M over the original budget, $4M was caused by the extra 9 months of labor. The other $1M of overages was miscalanous material, including generator cable, field pole end caps and development of the unit code. 3 Lessons Learned Overview Lessons Learned are defined as the learning gained from the process of performing the project. The purpose of documenting Lessons Learned is to share and use knowledge derived from the experience to: o Promote recurrence of desirable outcomes (What went well?) o Preclude the recurrence of undesirable outcomes (What opportunities were discovered for future improvement?) 3.1 What went well? General Feedback Feedback Cause The crews identified issues early Foremen did an excellent job of looking a month ahead of where they were and prep for that work. An example is the coupling bolts, they were identiflied as being too small before we needed them. Bridge crane worked well The crane was overhauled prior to the upgrades and was equipped with a remote Warehouse used for storage Warehouse was build prior to the construction projects to stage equipment Cirrus Design & Drafting Cirrus worked to ensure all our drawings matched Avista standards and turned around asbuilts quickly Operator for commissioning An operator was assigned specifically for commissioning and provided outstanding support Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 37 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 2 of 6 Most contracts were issued for all four units, minimizing the amount of rework on each contract The contracts were written for four years. This worked well in most cases. Perodic updates to power supply helped to flush out suprises before GOC submitted Feedback on unexpected GOC updates was considered midway through project and communication was increased Consistant updates in Spokane River Relicensing meeting allowed awareness to all stakeholders Feedback on lack of regular updates from project manager prompted an increase in attendance to meeting Historic representative consultanted early and often when changes to powerhouse were proposed Project manager engaged stakeholders during project scoping phase Mechanical Feedback Feedback Cause Oil system well designed, valves in correct place, redundancy built in, gate valves replaced Feedback from crews and operators during design Stator tolerances were correct Manufacture designed generator correctly, outages were taken to allow manufacture time to take measurements Wicket gate bushings eliminated grease Used the same greaseless bushings as Noxon Brake system designed with manual lever, located on wall and easy to change out Feedback from crews and operators during design Cooling water system was well designed Feedback from crews and operators during design Electrical Feedback Feedback Cause Panel construction is similar to substation, provided efficiency in labor and parts Engineering studied substation panels and designed to mirror their panels, reduce number of one‐offs. Standard material on panels Coordinated with substation and electric shop Generator running cool, 24 RTDs in generator provide ample feedback Specifications written for class F insulation and many RTDs to allow for spares in the event some fail Cable tray moved higher on upstream wall Modified height after disassembly and cable tray in the way Generator cables handle full output of generator Cables ordered larger in order to handle full load of generator but also to fit in floor ducting MCC well designed, lots of room and all buckets similar Spec called for Avista standard equipment, asked for additional space to make wiring easier Installed U3M on generator floor and able to eliminate wiring to PLC Designed to eliminate wiring to upstairs due to lack of cable tray New field ground relays provide more feedback Replaced old field ground relays after encountering a lack of programmability with them Panels wired in field not shop. Would have been too heavy to install with panels pre‐built Coordination with electric shop to determine best method for installing panels SEL project Stator splice was completed second time with new design Avista asked Alstom to leave, recharge back at home, come up with a new plan. CT skid was difficult to install with generator stator in place Size of CT skid was larger than expected Controls Feedback Feedback Cause Relay tech felt involved in unit code design Weekly conference calls helped relay tech stay up to date on latest development of unit code Code is straightforward and easy to follow Control engineer’s involvement lead to simple and effective code New PLC was easy to use and versatile Switched from Modicon to Allen‐Bradley PLC SEL‐735 meters are much better than JEMStars Generation engineering pushed for a switch, worked with relay shop and protection to make the swtich SEL‐700G overall has been successful, no longer stand alone autosynchronizers Generation engineering pushed for the switch from SEL‐300G to simplify our design Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 38 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 3 of 6 Pre‐Commissioning Site trip by L&S for one week before commissioning was helpful to address preliminary issues Additional relay techs on site during commissioning was crutial to commissioning success Relay shop assigned additional techs Relay techs on site to help with Wonderware screens Relay shop assigned additional techs Network engineer appericated support from relay tech Procurement Feedback Feedback Cause Material ordering for control equipment divided up clearly Mechanical engr orders any devices that touch process fluid, control engr orders all other devices Sent turbine back to be reworked Engrs felt comfortable making the hard choice to send back, LDs helped to ensure new turbine was returned ASAP Governor funcitionality Governor specification was developed by outside governor consultant (both controls and mechanical) with Avista oversight Generator cables fit in conduit Worked with manufacture and crews to make sure proper size cable for ampacity fit in conduit Bearing FAT Mechanic included in FAT trip, helped to provide pointed feedback Used jig to modify transition piece Mechanics came up with a great solution to perform the work 3.2 Opportunities for improvement? General Feedback Feedback Cause SCADA group was not engaged before commissioning Project manager did not engage SCADA group early on, process for engaging SCADA group is not clear Material ordering process for department The department lacks material tracking system and storage system. Misc material was lost many times. Can’t turn off lube oil pumps locally Design oversight Linear dimensions of turbine not constant in each unit OEM drawings do not match field Generator RTD enclosure not large enough and on wrong side of generator It was difficult to foresee this issue during procurement of the generator Thrust bearings on downstream side need to be reduced OEM drawings did not match the equipment in the field Shaft coupling bolts too small Turbine manufacture did not send correct size of bolts Eccentric pins were not ordered with enough float The wicket gates needed more adjustment than expected No isolation valves on cooling water Design oversight, didn’t origionally see a need for additional isolation valves Filters for generator cooling dry out when water isn’t applied Swamp coolers introduce moisture into generator and therefore and only used during summers Communication punchdowns are an additional source of failure Network design calls for punchdowns, are they necessary? Conduit in governor oil piping trench was replaced with cable tray Changed to cable tray to allow for better access to cable MCC was designed to have all unit 3 on one MCC instead of splitting pump A and pump B to different MCCs. This was switched in the field The original design called for all loads on one unit to be on that MCC. This decision was reached because it would be a rare event one MCC was down and the unit still needed to be running MCC overload was not designed correctly, devices replaced in the field Exact loads for some of the MCC loads were not known during procurement. Engineering estimated loads and miscalculated on a few of the loads DeviceNet for the U3M was difficult to commission This was the first time using DeviceNet and hiccups are not uncommon on new equipment Some drawings were transmitted multiple times without rev clouds Engineering oversight Some drawings were transmitted multiple times with different drawing numbers Engineering oversight Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 39 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 4 of 6 Drawings not completed at start of construction The unit upgrades are backed up against each other, this does not allow the asbuilt process to be completed and duplication before the next unit. The operations group was not engaged early enough in the design The department does not have a standard controls philosophy and the design team did their best to include the operators but a few things were missed SEL project was not well outlined and confusion followed Engineering did not meet with the crews to outline the intentions of the project and the transmittal was poor and incomplete The network design was slow coming The project manager needs to be more proactive in engaging the network group River operator was not included enough in project decisions early on The project manager didn’t include both plant and river manager in emails pertaining to project updates Condition of the field poles was unknown and was in worse condition than expected. Change order from GE was much higher than may have been required and we agreed on all four units with GE Bidding all four units at once is helpful in most cases (not having to rebid things every year) but in this case it wasn’t, since the exact condition of the field poles was not known GE did not let one of the other field pole companies bid on the work Delstar did not bid on the LF field poles because GE didn’t allow them. This needs to be addressed in the future Procurement Feedback Feedback Cause Stator splice failed first round The manufacture did not have a well thought out process for completing the work Turbine did not meet spec Turbine manufacture completed sloppy work Turbine roughness was low smoothness, should be higher class next time Turbine spec called out for low class of runner smoothness Wicket gates and distributor discs took longer to remachine than expected As found conditions of wicket gates were much worse than expected, did not match OEM drawings Generator covers did not fit Covers were not built well, crews modified to make them fit Minor material was sent to plant Send all minor material to Mission, plant not always staffed to unload material Governor was installed with cheap valves Spec did not call out for Swaglok values Alstom supplied the wrong flexable cable for generator connection Avista did not call out unshielded cable for the generator connection Bearing RTDs were ordered with short wire lengths Engineering did not understand how the RTDs would be installed Field poles were late Field pole end caps were found to be cracked and in need of replacement. New end caps were 6 weeks to procure Field pole wedges weren’t long enough Field poles and grooves in rotor were various sizes, making a one size field pole key difficult to be useful for every pole. Paint shop painted all surfaces two colors, joining faces should have been silver No drawing existed and was an oversite of the team Sand was in the bearing pedistle from sandblasting Bearing pedistles will be stripped not sandblasting, oversight of the team Turbine bearing water jackets were full of clams Water has clams in it, cooling water flowing through bearings, unforeseen condition Disassebly Feedback Feedback Cause Generator foundation cracks needed various constancies of epoxy, not stocked locally The cracks appeared to be large but the epoxy procured would not work for that size of crack Removed distributor by sweeping it out of the way Disassembly of this magnitude at LF hasn’t happened in years, a better process emerged Didn’t have proper generator cable asbestos report Poor document management Reassebly Feedback Feedback Cause Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 40 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 5 of 6 Turbine shaft to be installed before generator shaft Installed generator shaft first and was difficult to get to fit in slot Wicket gates hit the turbine OEM drawings did not match field Needed a fiber drop box on floor Origional network design called for separate runs for all communication equipment Commissioning Feedback Feedback Cause Commission all field devices before starting unit commissioning Team did not budget enough time to review code and complete commissioning Commissioning engineer left before all code was checked out Team did not budget enough time to review code and complete commissioning Commissioning engineer was not ready for site No preparation was done to address many of the bugs in the code before the site commissioning 4 Lessons Learned Next Steps 4.1 Action Items (near term) Owner Action Item Tracy West Order new lower oil tank transmitter Tracy West, Larry Wendt, Bryce Kohler Scan unit 1 draftchest with seal rings to determine proper tolerances for turbine Brian Vandenburg Contact Alstom about larger RTD enclosure, switching sides of generator Tracy West Working with bearing manufacture to reduce the thurst tolerances on the downstream turbine bearing Tracy West Coordinate with turbine manufacture to ensure correct size of coupling bolts are sent for unit 1 Tracy West Various sizes of eccentric pins will be ordered to ensure proper adjustments can be made Brian Vandenburg Check with Alstom to see if we can get rid of the swamp coolers Engineering Clean up cable and material list Protection Reissue settings for generator synch Tracy West Work with OEM to modify manufacturing process for turbine Brian Vandenburg Get CO issued to get Swaglok valves installed on governor system Brian Vandenburg Request the generator terminals busbar come blank from Alstom Brian Vandenburg Get CO in place to replace end caps on field poles Tracy West Work with Northwest Sandblast and Paint to get each surface painted properly Alexis Alexander Work with L&S to clean up unit code before unit 1 4.2 Initiatives Owner Initiative Item Engineering Look for opportunities to use substation standards where possible GPSS The department needs to take a fresh look at material ordering, tracking and handling (BPI project kicking off to address this, still needed to be noted since this comment came up many times) Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 41 of 42 Lessons Learned Avista Confidential Page 6 of 6 4.3 Communication Plan Owner Communication Item Brian Vandenburg Work with engineers and crews to issue lessons learned Staff_PR_096 Attachment A Page 42 of 42