Outsourcing Modifications To Contractors Tom White Entergy – Pilgrim Station June 29, 2009 EN MRM Standardization Model

Increased Use of Outsourced Engineers Many staffs have “downsized” Experienced engineers have retired Specific technical skill sets have been lost Large projects continue to emerge (e.g. power uprates, new plants, dry cask storage, security improvements) EN MRM Standardization Model

Outsourcing Options All work done remotely under contractor programs (QA/non-QA) – Owner Review Staff Augmentation – Contract engineers work at station under station’s programs Other? EN MRM Standardization Model

Issues/Considerations ESP training Procedures (station vs. contractor) Technical reviews by station Oversight of productivity Database access & update Information access Fixed cost vs. T&M Teamwork EN MRM Standardization Model

Work Remotely Using Contractor Programs (with Owner Review) Pros No ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing) No paperwork burdens if contractor uses station procedures under their programs Owner’s Review is only requirement Contracts more amenable to fixed pricing Cons Contractors not on-site so productivity must requires additional management (can be addressed by fixed price vs. T&M, periodic schedule reviews, etc.) Station database access & update more difficult from remote location/server Information access (walkdowns, drawings) more difficult Teamwork requires more effort (to assemble meetings, resolve difficult issues face-to-face, etc.)

Staff Augmentation Pros On-site contractors can be managed directly for productivity Station databases readily available for access & update. Contractor questions easily resolved Access to information/drawings via walkdowns and document control centers is simple Teamwork more easily promoted via timely face-to-face meetings All products developed per station procedures Cons Contractors have to be directly supervised by station Significant ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing) Substantial station technical reviews required until contractor qualifications are completed Contracts are typically T&M which can be more expensive

Implications for Configuration Management Do the contractors fully understand your document control systems, document indexes, and information management systems? Remote access availability and speed Quality of document cross references and links (identifying impacted documents & programs) Idiosyncrasies of legacy data in databases Centralization of design basis information Tribal knowledge of system engineers, Operations, etc.

Implications for Configuration Management Do the contractors thoroughly understand your document change procedures and electronic processes? Identification of applicable design criteria Methods for revising/creating each document type Roles & responsibilities for each part of overall modification process Quality training in the use of complicated workflow programs Data entry quality & verification (e.g. BOMs)

Summary/Recommendations Continued high modification workload will require continued use of contractors Build time & funding into contracts to address training in use of key databases and work management processes/procedures Use graded approach to oversight of technical and configuration management tasks Recognize limitations and pitfalls of your systems and assure contractors are aware Verify station personnel are cognizant of goals of Owner’s Review versus technical HU reviews Ensure regular communication between contractor and station POC Consider steady flow of work to same contract personnel EN MRM Standardization Model

Questions? EN MRM Standardization Model