Repowering Study for the Northport and Port Jefferson Power Stations: Answers to Questions Received

The following are answers to questions received regarding the Repowering Study RFP.

Question 1: Has the RFP for the electric rate impact study been issued? If so can we receive a copy? Question 2: Also, our Integrated Electric Resource Planning practice resides within our T&D Strategy group. We develop several such plans for utilities each year. Has the RFP for the Integrated Electric Resource Plan been issued? If so can we receive a copy?
Answer to Questions 1/2: The electric rate impact analysis and the integrated resource planning work will be performed in house. There are no additional RFPs planned regarding the re-powering study.

Question 3: Due to the significant effort in preparing a quality proposal for you with the cost information that is required, and to allow for the holiday period, we would like to request that Keyspan consider an extension of the bid due date for two weeks to January 24th.
Answer to Question 3: The Jan 10th date needs to be maintained to support LIPA schedule requirements.

Question 4: What is the level of accuracy for capital cost and operating cost estimates required for the Phase I and II studies?
Answer to Question 4: Phase I is a scoping study that is used for the relative ranking of scenarios and thus requires less accuracy on an absolute basis. Phase II is a very detailed study that requires a much greater level of accuracy.

Question 5: Is the capital cost and operating estimates to be presented in year 2008 only or escalated for n years? Will escalation parameters be provided to successful bidder or assumptions will be made?
Answer to Question 5: Present all costs in 2008 dollars.

Question 6: Is the evaluation of cooling options (Task 5) to be conducted for both “Hybrid” and “Backyard” re-powering?
Answer to Question 6: Yes

Question 7: Task 2 indicated re-utilization of STG with existing or new condensers. Is the condition and upgrade assessment of existing condensers and cooling system to be included in the study?
Answer to Question 7: Yes. KeySpan will provide available plant condition assessment data to support this effort.

Question 8: Is there any reference soil contamination/remediation, asbestos remediation/removal studies available for both stations or these studies to be included in re-powering study?
Answer to Question 8: Specific studies have not been performed, however, information is available and will be provided that should be factored into the studies. Generally, insulation is to be assumed to be asbestos.

Question 9: Is it assumed that all steam turbines in both Northport and Port Jefferson stations available for hybrid re-powering for Phase I re-powering? What is the general condition of the STG? (operating, retired, etc.)?
Answer to Question 9: Northport Units 1-4 and Port Jefferson Units 3 & 4 are all operating and are generally in good condition. The Northport Units 1-4 and Port Jefferson Units 3 & 4 steam turbine generators are to be included in the Hybrid re-powering study. Also, Northport Units 1-4 will be retrofitted with GE “Dense Pack” HP/IP turbine modifications over the next five years (2009 to 2012) to improve efficiency.

Question 10: What is the area footprint limit of both “Hybrid” and “Backyard” re-powering for both stations?
Answer to Question 10: The entire site is to be considered available in the Phase I study to maximize megawatt output.

Question 11: Is there any preference on the type/model/manufacturer of heavy duty combustion turbine? Is comparison/analysis of various types/models/manufacturers required?
Answer to Question 11: A decision has not been made and input from the successful bidder is requested. Past re-powering studies have used the GE 7FA, but other electric system planning expansion studies have used the Siemens G machine.

Question 12: Is there any steam turbine condition assessment/ upgrade study previously conducted to support the re-powering study of 2002 (by LG)? Will this report be made available to successful bidder for reference?
Answer to Question 12: No specific studies were done. However we do have steam turbine generator condition assessment information from past overhauls available for the study.

Question 13: Any implementation phasing requirements to be considered for both re-powering options?
Answer to Question 13: The Integrated Electric Resource Planning study work performed by LIPA Planning will define the timing requirements for system expansion that will be factored into the study.

Question 14: Is the power block equipment to be located indoors for both options?
Answer to Question 14: Yes

Question 15: What is the water treatment requirement to be considered for study (part of the re-powered plant or third party supply)? Is the assessment of de-mineralized water source/type included in the study?
Answer to Question 15: A new demin system is to be assumed required for each site. Northport has a new RO/EDI system that may be reused.

Question 16: Task 2 stated that certain supporting site facilities may be re-used in the design. Is the condition, adaptability, relocation assessment of these facilities to be included in the re-powering study?
Answer to Question 16: Yes

Question 17: Do we need to consider multiple distillate fuels (no. 2, low sulfur, ultra low sulfur)?
Answer to Question 17: This will be determined by the air quality study significant impact levels (generally low sulfur 0.05 % S or less).

Question 18: Does our study price have to include the cost of a physical inspection, life assessment and recommendation of upgrades or will it be paid by Keyspan/LIPA? Can it be a later adder to the contract?
Answer to Question 18: Life assessment shall be included in your base work scope.

Question 19: For the backup liquid distillate fuel supporting studies, is barge delivery to be assumed at the site? Do we have to consider any changes to the offshore delivery at Northport?
Answer to Question 19: An assessment of the fuel unloading systems is to be included for both sites. Both Northport and Port Jefferson have barge unloading facilities. Conversion to accommodate distillate fuel storage and delivery is part of the study scope.

Question 20: Will costs for the SIS be provided to us during the study? Is SIS to be considered for new CC plants?
Answer to Question 20: KeySpan will share our limited SIS cost information for your review and assessment for use in the study (on a confidential basis with permission from the patent holder). An independent feasibility evaluation and conceptual layout is required for each site. Also, a cooling tower study is available for Northport.

Question 21: Please confirm that electrical transmission upgrades and costs associated with re-powering or a new CC plant will be provided. Any necessary upgrades to the LIPA owned substations are by proposer?
Answer to Question 21: LIPA planning will provide the transmission upgrade requirements and cost estimates as well as the associated substation upgrades. The Contractor shall determine the plant electrical design and allow for substation expansion space requirements.

Question 22: Provide the steam inlet conditions for all turbines to be re-powered.
Answer to Question 22: Northport Units 1-4 are 2,373,000 lbs/hr at 1000F and 2400 psig
Port Jefferson Units 3 & 4 are 1,200,000 lbs/hr at 1000F and 1800 psig.

Question 23: Are site plans available in CAD?
Answer to Question 23: More detailed site plans will be made available to the successful bidder.

Question 24: Are the LM6000 units at Port Jefferson included in the re-powering study?
Answer to Question 24: Not directly. These units are independent but share some common facilities such as the gas supply that needs to be taken into account.

Question 25: When were the two units at Port Jefferson mothballed? Is it the intent to include these units in the re-powering studies?
Answer to Question 25: Units 1 and 2 are not to be re-powered but are candidates for demolition to support re-powering of Units 3 & 4. They have been mothballed for about a decade.

Question 26: What is the current gas supply capacity at each site (i.e., line size, pressure and flow). Is there additional capacity available?
Answer to Question 26: Northport is supplied by the Iroquois gas main. Port Jefferson is supplied by a 16 inch diameter 350 psi KeySpan gas pipe. Part of the re-powering study is for KeySpan and Iroquois to supply the reinforcement requirements and costs to support the various identified re-powering scenarios.

Question 27: Does KeySpan have a minimum per station MW output target after re-powering?
Answer to Question 27: No

Question 28: Article 9.2, page 13, bullet 3: states that “no more than four (4) additional pages of relevant project descriptions and other qualifications material” may be provided. “In addition, describe three (3) projects similar to the one requested in this RFP”. Are the three projects similar to be included in the four pages of project descriptions or in addition to the four pages of project descriptions? If they are in addition to, what is the page limit for the three projects?
Answer to Question 28: Page limits referenced in Section 9.2 (third bullet) were meant to apply to relevant project descriptions and other qualifications and do not apply to the description of the three (3) projects similar to the one requested in the RFP.

 

 

Last Updated: 03/14/2008