' .

(W)H r Cllll1 chill

+)
S IW;' LAWII .1N
I>rojcr. t !iO!i!j'l :~

CLIENT: I\lALCOR

AI'pr~ov /\LS

I'H I' I'AIl r: IIIl Y TI 1'1.1: illiTE

I
j .....

(1I'I' IWVI: Il HY - DIITE

/ .: L
i i
-/ / - _
_ l._ .~
IJ1uj(:c:t l...j;UI<I ~ !(; 1 , ./ I . I )
(..~-~ j /J:!/ _./'j, /1"1-,
I f

\ - --- ~

VI' 1'lviO
tl.fl'.s n, ~(!.1. ~
CI ~l llci c Lc-tCH HIItWlI
I-'\IlY /7, 1 013
S(;oll I hon 1:):CCll\iv{! Vl cc-f'I(:sitlellt

CClrl lI(/\!ullal (01 SNC-I .1'.1;11111 in(l :l lI:tJ U:;I ~ onl),

 RISK MANAGEMENT
.
SNCLAVAI..IN
Rlsl( Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

TABLE OF CONTgNTS
I. IIltloduc(loJI ......................................................,........................,.. 3
2. ICEY ELEMENTS OF THE LCP RISI( MANAGEMENT PROCESS: ..................................... 3
3. Malldate." ............................................,... ,................................................................................. 4
4. Executive StID1Dlft.'Y RepoJ'I........................................................................................................... 4 II

4.1 Management Rssesslneut of 1"lsk exposure....................................................................................... 7

S. CONCLUSiONS,....,................................................................................... 8
6. Recoml,te.ldnfloDs ..............................................................,........................................................... 9 II

7. Rislt WOI'Jcsl10p Metllo(lology........................................................................................................1,9

8. ruSll Reglste. Slllllnlnl'Y tnble 1....................................................................................................... 13

,
 RISK MANAGEMENT
+
SNCLAVAIlN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606&73 DATE April 2013

1. INTRODUCTION

The LCP project presently under development encompasses the Muskrat Falls
Hydroelectrfc Plant, associated transmIssIon lines, DC specialties and a subsea cable
crossIng. These four distinct physical speclaltles are brol<en down Into the following
respective components:
o Component 1: Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Development
o Component 3: Hfgh voltage direct current transmission system speclaltfes
o Component 4: HIgh voltage overhead transmJsslon lines Including:
o Sub.component 4A: HVdc overhead transmission lines Muskrat Falls to
Sokliers Pond
o Sub-component 4B: HVac overhead transmission lines Muskrat Falls to
ChurchW Falls
Component 2 Is the Gull Island Hydro power plant (2000 megawatts) to be developed
subsequently to Muskrat Falls, and the execution of the subsea cable across the Strait of
Belte Isre which Is not part of the SLI scope.
This RIsk assessment has been made solely by a se/ected team of SNCeLavalln
.J;merts at the reguest.!ll jhe SNC-l:avalla Pr91~ector. 1M. Ill!. Lower Churchill. _ .
Pr.oJffCt. C:Xpeptlng a I1lgh m.arket h.e,' fJP Oil mwpr ,s(ra(eglc. ~ac,",g~, tire. LCP
Project Director asked that an Intemal LCP project risk assessment be conducted
following the SNe-Lavailn risk assessment method fyplcally applied on all other
SNe-Lava/ln projects. The Risk assessment workshop was conducted by the Risk
Director, of North America Region of Global II&M Division, who has had previous
experience In hydroelectric power projects at Hydro- QuMJeclBale James SocIety
(SEBJ).
This review was conducted at SHe-Lavalln's expense with the objective of
preventing and or riiIUjllfIng any ,un((iiUseab;. risk events that" could haves
negative Impact on the project's cost and schedule and could Increase the project
exposure by more than 30% from Its original budget.

2. KEY El.EMENTS OF THE LCP RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS:

o Lower ChurchUlIs a high profile project; for the local community. the provIncial and
federal governments.
o SNC-Lavaltn Is contractually the EPCM and has an obligation to Inform the OWner
(Nalcor) with regards to any events that may Jeopardize the execuUon of the project
 +)
RISK MANAGEMENT SNCLAVAIlN
Risk Review for Lower ChurchDl Project 606673 DATE April 2013

o This new Risk Assessment report is more In Une with the objectives of the Project
Execution Plan and with SNC-LavaJfn's risk assessment guIdelines.
o The SNC-LavaDn Risk Team has revIewed the original Risk Register In force on the
proJect. The RIsk management system Implemented on the LCP did not provide for the
quantitative evaluation of Risk exposure, focusing rather on quaJltaUve risk assessment
aspects aImed mosUy at providing vislbnlty and monitoring of actions supporting Risk
mlUgation strategies. As such, It dId not provide a proper overan-encompasslng
evaluation and clear pJcture of the dollar value of each risk and the resulting total rls(
exposure for the LCP project;
o Risl< Management Is not duly empowered under the present LCP organizational
structure, which should report dJrecUy to the Project DIrector. Present organizational
reporting structure should be dJscussed and re-evatuated at the steerlng committee;
o Under this new methodology of assessIng various levels of risks, the very high
consequence risks wiU be hIghlighted and will be presented to SNC-Lavalin senlor
management and Nalcorfor their review, discussion and agreement on remedial action
plan to be Implemented. and where possible, a prevenUve action ptan put folW8rd;
o In the present risk assessment report, risks (both threats and opportunities) that could
arise during and/or after project execution were considered;
o Risks are managed through the SNC-LavaDn standard management 1001, MOINS -
RISC -lESS (based on Dyadem Intemational's Stature platfonn).

3. ~DA~ ...

Appoint a Task Force dedicated to the preparation and Issuance of an executive

management report drawing opUmlzed conclusions resulUng from the high level risk
assessment on the lower Churchill project and Identify high level mitigation strategies and
supporting action plans. usIng the standard SNC-lavalln methodology and tools.

4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT

The first LCP project risk regIster was drafted April 17th, 2013. by a group of selected
members from the Montreal, Panama and Newfoundland-Labrador offices, appOinted by
Senior Management A second project risk assessment review was conducted from the
18th of April until the 211l of April 2013. by the same team members. Both these reviews
were performed In lIght of the actual LCP project situation. and the (ncreases In plfcfng
received on some major construction packages. well above their original estlmated budget
and schedule. The project must corne to the reaDzaUon that the market response to these
large bid packages is IImHed to a few major players. The pricing tendency Is showing sfgns
of befng weD above their origfnal set budget The pricing of all the bids contractual risk
factors by the bIdders wID be much rnOI8 slgnlflcant than expected and the procurement
 RISK MANAGEMENT
.
SNCI.AVAUN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606&73 DATE April 2013

strategy ortglnally foreseen for some major packages may no longer be appUcable and may
result In a project schedule and budget overrun of more than 30% of the actual project
estimated value If the present project conditions are not altered.
The Task Force has reviewed and discussed the onglnal project risk register and decided
to proceed with the elaboration of a new risk register based on SNC-Lavalln risk
assessment methodology. so as to provide a more reaDstic and manageable portrait of the
actual project risk circumstances.
This new risk assessment approach was approved by SLI's SenIor Management at the
request of the SNC-Lavalln Project DIrector for the Lower Churchill Project.
The objective of Identifying all the potential risks of the Lower Churohlll Project was
attaIned.
A quantitative risk assessment was performed based on the relevant hydroelectrfo
experience of the appoInted Task Force Members. The calculated risk exposure for the
Lower ChurchUi project Is estimated at 2A billion CON (please refer to Risk Register Table
1). This flgure, based on the Team's experience, represents an order of magnitude of + or
- 60% of our potential cost ovenun.
This report Is at Its prellm1nary stage, sInce It has not been distributed to all the project
. . participants for their. p-erusal and commentst. .glven the. Y!9~. to .,Present tt!1s rIs~
. ,~",e.nt a:ePorJ ~ ~N~qn,Ex~tI~ M!1l'!ag~t. . ,. ., .
Out of the 52 risks originally Identlfted, 12 were retired due to double dippIng or not
foreseen as a risk. Out of the remaIning 40 Project risks evaluated. 25 are considered to be
Very HIgh Risks, 3 High, 9 Medium and 3 Low.
The VerL HI h nts 90% of the total number of Identified risks from the Lower
ChufChHI project. this IS unusua
are oreseen to occur durin and could materialize and cause the
pro to deviate from Its set schedule and baseline.
.....
A strong risk control system should be put In place to prevent the budget cost overruns that
are presenUy foreseen, to be In the 39% range. The attached risk register herein It details
the mitigation measures and actions plans that normally fonn part of the report and should
be review In depth with the project execution plan. A further detailed Risk Review should
be performed at a later stage In participation with Nalcor Energy representatives.
Value..wise (quantitative assessment), 9 out of the 25 Very High risks Identified. represent
66% of the esUmaled risk exposure value, estimated at 1.4 Billion CAD.
 +))
RISK MANAGEMENT SNCLAVALIN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

Risk elements:
The 40 risks rankIng from Very High to Low Risks have been Identified by the Team
members and represent an estimated cost of 2.4bUJion CAD. It has been evaluated In view
of the actual potential cost trend of the project's contractual situation. surrounding
economic and socioeconomic environment
The followIng 9 Very High Prtme Contract risks captured and evaluated give a fair
description of the present project risk situation.
1) Restricted pool of major contractors capable of bidding on the very large
packages developed for the LCP (already out for bids allowing for limited
posslblnty to re-scope or develop new packages). Fewer bids could be
submHted and at higher than orlglnal budgeted cosl This Risk Is valued at 225
MIllion (C1) - Risk number 1
2) The unavallablDty to provide sufficient camp accommodation facIlities may force
Contractors to find altemate accommodations which could lead to mobilization
and start-up delays. resuiUng In claIms and ultimately project schedule delays.
This risk valued at 203 Mlmon (C1) - Risk number 32
3) A significant portion of the local labour market works In Western canada. LocaJ
~ .. workers are Inexperfenced In the LCI:' nature of work. CurrenUy. the NL Hebron
. proJeot I~ c:omP.Stlng wlth. 01J projept '"~ I~ cttQcUng ~bQuJ'8llJ ~ 9ffenpg 99Q~ .
conditions. The ullJlvallablllty of qualified construcUon manpower may lead to
schedule delays and extra labour costs, as well as impacting on the quality of
the works. Increased ~fety risks. etc. For Ci. the main trades Issues beIng
carpenters. electricians. Iron workers (rebar). concrete pouring speclallsts. For
03, main trades Issues being electrfclans. For C4, maIn trades Issues being
lineman. This risk valued at 180 Million (For al~ - Risk number 4
4) Due to the heated market conditions In transmission lines market (currently
the case In Alberta; LCP Is dealing with the same bIdders) and the size of the
construction packages. fewer bids could be subm1tted and at higher than
budgeted cost Also. very few of these major contractors will be able to perfonn
these large packages In the proposed timeframe. This risk value at 180 MIllion
(C4) - Risk number 18
5) Major components, such as turbines and gates, wiD be procured and
manufactured In China. Based on SLI past experiences; quality. performance,
warranty service and schedule problems can be anUcfpated with these Lump
Sum turnkey packages (I.e. major claims and delays). This risl< valued at 168
MIllion (C1) - Risk number 5
 RISK MANAGEMENT
.
SNCLAVAUN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

6) Powerhouse and spillway concrete works are planned on a three year duration
(2 wfnter seasons) with a very tight and aggressive schedule provkllng IHUe
float. which might result In additional delays (possible 6 months) and costs. this
risk is valued at 128 MUlion (C1) - Risk number 2
7) As start-up of the spHlway, river closure and river dlversJon are to be fulfilled-In
during an "Ice-free" window. There Is no float In the schedule with the preceding
activities (EA refease, camp, road. etc.). Any delay In these previous activities
may trfgger missIng the diversion wfndow which will result In a one year delay In
the project schedule. Furthermore, there Is also the technIcal risk of being
unable to finish the work within the 'ce freeP window Umeframe. This risk is
valued at 96 Million (C1) - RIsk number 3
8) Large EPC (Tum-Key) packages sent to a restricted pool of specialized DC
manufacturing firms not used to perfonn all Inclusive TK work Incrudlng eMl
work. These added risks will most likely result In higher than estimated Bid
Budget costs. this risk Is valued at 90 Million (C3) - Risk number 11
9) As no geotechnical investigations have been performed In the river under
footprint of dam and cofferdam, adverse conditions could be discovered during
construction leading to major rework, cost ovenuns and delays. thIs risk Is
.valued.at 90.Mnnon.(C1)..:.Rlsk number 33 ..

4.1 MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF RISK EXPOSURE

The risk Team reviewers have serious concerns In arda to the strategy In ~ 0
reatlze the LoWer pro eel. The packagIng strategy used as reflected In the risk
nuriibers 1, 11 ancl18 above; Is cause for concern. The project will face multiple problems
with the large EPC contractors who will be holdrng the project's budget and schedule
hostage and decrease our bargalnrng power; and should they fall to execute the work, the
LCP project will also fall, and at a huge cost The Public's fnte~t. as well as the Provincial
and Federal governments' Interests need to be safeguarded.
The EPC's will price the same risks that we have foreseen with a premium and the project
management team when negotiating with the lowest bidders, It will most likely occur
outside the project's budgetary range. EPC contractors wJlJ use all the loops In the contract
documents to Issue claIms.
Procurement and manufacture of major critical project components In China will be a major
cause of concern to the project and at multiple levels, Le., quality, warranty, after-seNlee,
schedule. design changes, etc. In Mines and Metallurgy the major suppners give the
 RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

casting of large structures to Chinese oompanles. but the heart of their sophisticated
equipment Is made In Europe or other Industrialized nations, where quality control
standards are more rigorously adhered to.
Manpower avaUabllity Is a big oonoem In the Alberta 011 and gas Industry. They have
developed to attract labour from Newfoundland. a frequent f1y-ln fly-out rotation and a
generous salary and conditions package; this In a province with normally low Income taxes.
We have also a competing project In Newfoundland; the Hebron project Is In the 011 and
gas Industry and Is also draIning whatsoever manpower Is left available. The Lower
Churchill project must attract a different manpower (earthworl<s and civil works). The
environment where the project Is being developed Is difficult and the camp conditions are a
major concern If we are to attract and retain skilled manpower.
We have used the experience of a dedicated group of Experts In the Energy sector to help
the LCP project team In Identifying the main key elements that should be used to develop a
credible risk assessment. based on SNC-LavaUn's risk management approach so as to be
able to capture these various levels of risk that best portray the project's actual situation.
Our approach Is based on the ISO 31000 Intematlonal recognition and Is In line with our
Corporate Guidance procedures.
this Is a high prome project for the Newfoundland government, whose Guarantor Is the
.F.ederaJ .govemment.IUs.strongly.suggested.thattheseJdentfffed.rlsks.be.dtscussed.opsnly-.
. and with full.transparency amongst the' Parties, 80 as to be able to .aRgn the project team.
when execuUng the proposed m!UgatIon plans.
SNC-Lavalln, as the ProJecfs E.P.C.M. has the legal obUgaUon to advise Its cUent of any
m~ riskS 'lhat will cause preJtidki8to the 0ect and whfch deviates ~lgn~cantIY trom ,fS
budget arid iClied 8. ur p~t concern Is at the act will Incur
mo~ cost overrun If the proJ~t..~oes not take action on the risk etenleiiiS
raised In Bie Risk ASSeSSment Report. The actuafprcijiCrStruc{ure Is cOntrlbuting-to'thls
IriCiiaSlilg-rrsk'fador:cnenthaslffiifted experience In huge civil work and earth-fiDed dam
work, power lIne and power station works

6. CONCLUSIONS

The present project execution schedule offers no float and critical acUvlUes could be
delayed, such as the Dam, Spillway rice freeD window time frame), long lead Items, only to
mention few of them. The actual problem to deliver the camps early. will affect the project
downstream. AdditIonally, the speclftc manpower needed to realize these hydropower
facilities will be difficult to find. Most Important the expert committee believe that the
manpower needed to fulfill the work should be In the nefghbourhood of 2500 people and

8 J
f,
 RISK MANAGEMENT
+
SNC LAVAUN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 60&&73 DATE April 2013

the project Is presently workIng with 1500. This concem has to be reviewed and given
proper consideration at once. The camps faclntles into this difficult environment should be
looked at carefully and compared with the camps facUitles been provided presenUy In
Alberta and Quebec.
This exercise has to be further pursued and developed with the Team experts Involving the
Client, so that both Parties are aligned on how to best resolve these Issues.
Natcor and the EPCM team have to carefully review their roles. responslbDities and
contribution In this major project. sInce the challenges to be faced during the upcoming
execution phase will be major.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Ills recommended that the ExecuUve Management of SNC-Lavalln be Involved In order to

discuss directly with the High Level management of Nalcor Energy In light of this new risk
assessment report. which has evaluated an EXPOSURE OF 2.4 billion CAD. We baye a
po~ntlal cost overrun of 39% at 20% of project completion.

When published. thl~ report will be pubUc domain. Nalcor Energy and SNC-LavalIn have to
dlSCOss tlie"next step forward.

7. RISK WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY

The risk management approach used In this workshop Is based on ISO 31000 gutdellnes
that promote a culture where risk can be openly discussed and effectively managed. The
participants In the risk s8ss'on each had an opportunity to express their concerns or
perceived risks within the sections ouUlned In the scope above. The following outDnes
the methodology undertaken In the risk workshop.

Risk Management Process

 <Q))
RISK MANAGEMENT SNCLAVAUN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

~ys"i!f"~-"
,~""--'- ....... ,;. .. _ ol

The first step In this process was to Identify risks based on the components of the project
j.g., th~ fY.IukraJ f<!lls .l:jy.dr9~e.c.bic Jle.ILelppment, .the High y.oltagEt .dir.em J;urr.ent
. transmls.slon .system spe.ciaJtles Find the High voltage.ovllrhead transmisslo(llin~ .(ac and
de). Risk tllles and concise descriptions were developed and agreed upon by the
panel. The risk was determined to be either Component 1, 3 or 4 or concerning all the
project. The team has not identified any risk owners, but this should come at a later date.

The next phase was to provide a qualilatlve analysis that served to provide an order of
magnitude basis of comparison for each risk. The objective of providing an order of
magnitude was to be able to Identify the most critical risks (+ or - 50%).

The panel was asl<ed to select a consequence level (from VERY LOW to VERY HIGH),
which is determined by a percentage scale based on the project's CAPEX or OPEX. In this
case, the CAPEX was concluded to be $6100M CAD, representing the dollar value of the
Lower Churchill project. The table below demonstrates the Consequence Level breakdown:
 ~)
RISK MANAGEMENT SNC'!,AVAUN
Risl( Review for Lower Churchill Project 605573 DAlE April 2013

CAPEX Consequence Leve l

$305

0.75% $ 45.75 1.00% $ 61

0.50% $ 30.50 0.75% $ 45.75
Low 0.25% $ 15.25 0.50% $30.50

$ 0.0 0.25% $15.25

The follov~ng step included selectin g the probability of the risk occurring and the
manageability level. Similar tables are iIIuslrated below:

Probability of Occurrence

~ 1

70 % to 80%
I Will probabl)I oCClIr If'\ most circumstances

50% to 70%
I MIght occur under most circumstances

30% to 50%
I. Might occur at some tim e

10% to 30%
I Could occur at some tim e

< 10%
I May occur In exceptional circumstances

I ''r. 1
 RISI( MAN AGEM ENT SNC ' LAVAU N
Ris k Rev iew for Lower Church ill Proj ect 505573 DATE Apri l 201 3

M anagea bility

Can easily be managed

~" High ' 60% In most circumstances can be managed

" '
__ ___ 1 40% Can be managed
Low 20% '- In most circumslances difficult to be manag~. 1
0% I Virtually impossible to manage I

The risk software then computed the Probable Consequence and classified the average
risk exposure based on the following calculati on and table below:
Pr obable Consequence 0; Consequence x Probability x (1- Manageability)
- , -
CAPEX Probable Consequence
-.- - - -- ---
I

.,
0,65% and up
I. $39.65
I I
0,35% to 0,65%
I $21 ,35
I $39,65
1
I, 0.17% 10 0,35%
I $10,37
1
$21,35 j
L O~, 0,03% to 0.17%
I 51,83
I $10,37
J
0% to 0.03%
I $ 0,0
I $1.83
1

Once the overall risl{ levels (probable consequences) had been identified, the panel was
able to compare and prioritize the risks. The followi ng step in the process was to create
very detailed mitigations plans for each risl{, Including actions to be taken to miligate these
risks , These items were developed in the acti on log tab of the software. Due dates and

12 I
!-'
 RISK MANAGEMENT
.
SNCLAVAUN
Risk Review for Lower Churchill Project 606673 DATE April 2013

action owners wiD be developed at later date. This portion of the risk workshop was the
most labour Intensive In terms of time and overall discussion amongst the panel members.
The team was also able to provide several comments and revisions to all aspects of the
elements In the software (risk tfUe. description. mlUgaUon plans. actions. consequence,
probabnHy & manageability). In addition, several risks were retired due to the faot that they
were Included In other risks or they were perceived as double dipping risks by the panel.

8. RISK REGISTER SUMMARY TABLE 1

Risk Register Exposure; 2.4 billion CON

Action Comment

E~tD~pO~**1I:I~~~"
10 red:a Cea\o.

'"'"
Rbkl1~ Rbk OnCr'pUfll Adlon Conwnr:nt

"

1"~::'QI 1 1
10
.b,
S.... Attlo"

......

-.. ,
I
I
 ,-
~tQ\..n:-JI

'~r.sosm

1'D!te. DllI
RlskOt\l:cnpti on Action
"'"

16.1 . AJu"b~C1>Io'!'l!!t
sino: "",

lt l:Pll

. ..., """'"

"-;e St Ill
c.--r Ch:.~":1
...=
"'urMH; !eJUl

".,tS,'"
Rhll: Totie Rkll: CHc:np l/on

_e.


Ris k Duc,",tion j\"." COmfM nl

""'" '

, OO~ d CClY\mll/llc.'l:ion
C1, C4,

I""'"

""'" I
lI>wfrC"t:nIIlI
;>-ejfct:

N;.orr.:m:50SSn

Ao''''

N3Icor 10 ncl!tl CPlo) 01 pouble ml~g:llicn

!:!)11M ' t1l1 OIC01\~L'\IClion

.Q.1~ Prrnwma;oer.er.ll
I N:iYt;:tl1#"
 .-

Action

h., beeflllootuntrO !':If h InC

rartl1c...m1c dInIion ct' 1I'Ie

'.

,, .
I,
""
,. ',,,,,,
c;l6.T.I:..
,"..~~s.

... ,....
Category

P~l1Ull

.,