1. Produced by: Building Strong Foundations Dan Sawyer Outage Manager – Ontario Power Generation

2. 881 Mw (Net) 2650 Mw(th) 15% of Ontario’s Supply 2700 Full-time Staff Common Structure 3 Year Outage Cycles 55-60 Day Duration $80 M Budget 1% FLR >10 M Man-hrs since last LTA D1 1992 D2 1990 D3 1993 D4 1993 D1 1992 D3 1993 D4 1993 D2 1990 D1 1992 D3 1993 D4 1993

3. 3

4. The Bigger Picture Creating the Roadmap Ownership; Accountability; Distribution; Recovery The Foundational Three Key points to Take Home Questions AGENDA

5. 5 Standard Nuclear Performance Model (SNPM)

6. 6 The Bigger Picture- Strategic Planning

7. Slide 7

8. 8

9. 9 TargetWhiteRedActual SAFETY  Environmental Reportable Spills (Category A/B/C)0n/a> 00  Conventional Safety High MRPH events0n/a> 00 Lost Time Accidents0n/a> 00 Medical Treated Injuries< 2342 Fire Events0n/a> 00  Radiation Protection Unplanned Exposures01> 10 Total WB Dose (rem)< 157 rem157 - 173> 181.5 rem130 rem Internal Dose (rem)< 9.49.4 - 10.4> 10.94.6 rem  Work Protection Work Protection Performance Index95%929087 Work Protection Level 1 Events (0 Barriers left)0n/a> 02 Work Protection Level 2 Events (1 Barrier left)< 23> 30 Work Protection Level 3 Events (2 Barriers left)< 56> 63  Nuclear Safety OP & P License Violations0n/a> 00 S99 Reportable Events (missed SRSTs)0n/a> 00 Unplanned increase in shutdown risk threshold0n/a> 00 Unplanned Reactor Trips or Transients0n/a> 00 SCOPE Shutdown Backlog EM Total at brkr close< 100> 150> 275n/a Shutdown Backlog CM Total at brkr close< 3> 3> 5n/a Plant Reliability List Completions76n/a< 7673 Scope Completion (breaker open to close)> 97%96< 95%98.2 COST Budget< $80M$84M> $87M81.1-83.6 DURATION Outage Duration57 days60.5> 62.8 days56 Work-Off Rate in Maintenance Window275256< 245275 Unit Reliability After Start-Up> 100 daysn/a<100 daysTBD Primavera-Passport Mismatch8090100100-165 Recent Campaign Results

10. Project Building Blocks Materials Resources PermitryProcedures Schedule Contingency

11. Creating the Roadmap Slide 11 a scheduled event signifying the completion of a major deliverable or a set of related deliverables used as a project checkpoint to validate how the project is progressing and revalidate work. used as high-level snapshots for management to validate the progress of the project Traditional meaning: You’re on the right path - Milestones

12. Activities are completed in accordance with milestone definitions Sub-owners understand their deliverables Recovery plans (if necessary) are approved and executed Approval obtained for milestone close-out Milestone completion is formally documented 12 Milestone Owner Ensures;

13. 13 Milestone Accountability Model

14. Driving Accountability Slide 14

15. Missing a Milestone Traumatic Accountability

16. The Best Laid Plans…. 16 Milestone Recovery Plans Performance >5% above projected work down (burn) curve (yellow status) for >2 weeks At Outage Manager or Milestone Owner’s discretion Failure to achieve milestone completion date Formal Approved at a high level Identifies ; Cause Course of action to recover Effect on downstream milestones Due dates

17. Covering All the Bases (46) Materials Resources PermitryProcedures Schedule Contingency 5 7 4 3 6 1 4 521 1 1 Controlling8

18. Slide 18

19. 19

20. 20 Wouldn’t It Be Nice ….. Remaining Work What you’d like What they’d like Typical

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. The Foundational Three

27. #MilestoneAccountable Manager Due Date (months) 2Major Scope FreezeDirector - Engineering+24 4Scope Loaded into OMS PotentialManager - Outage+20 5Scope Ranked & Approved in OMSManager - Outage+18 12Scope/Cost/Duration Reconciliation & ApprovalDirector – Work Management+12.5 13Scope FreezeManager – Outage+12 27 Scoping Milestones

28. Slide 28 Typical Approved Scope Composition Business Plan Assumption PM1085 CM/ EM228 OM438 Business Plan Assumption PM1085 CM/ EM228 OM438

29. 29

30. Scope Risk Ranking Slide 30 Probability Grading 5510152025 448121620 33691215 2246810 112345 12345 Consequence Grading

31. Probability Grading Slide 31 GradeInterpretationDefinition 1 Low. Probability of this event occurring is highly unlikely (<10%) Event is not known to have occurred under similar circumstances using the planned approach 2 Minor. Probability of this event occurring is unlikely (<40%) Event is known to have occasionally occurred under similar circumstances. Current plan does not have identified shortcomings that increase the likelihood of the undesired event occurring. 3 Moderate. Probability of this event occurring is likely (40% to 75%) Current plan has identifiable shortcomings that often result in this undesirable event occurring. 4 Significant. Probability of his event is highly likely (>75%) Current plan has usually led to this event occurring under similar circumstances 5 High. Probability of this event is nearly certain (>90%). Past experience indicates that this event almost always occurs under similar circumstances using the current plan.

32. Consequence Grading Slide 32 GradeInterpretationTechnical Consequence 1Low A successful outcome is not dependent on this issue; the technical performance shall be met. There would be minimal or no impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Component fails or degrades but no action required) 2Minor The resulting technical performance would be below the goal but within acceptable limits. There would be no need to change the basic design, process, or approach. There would be no impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Component fails or degrades; maintenance or other actions can restore functionality) 3Moderate The resulting technical performance would be below the goal. The basic design, process, or approach could be retained with only minor changes, and the overall system performance would still be acceptable as a result of workarounds such as the reallocation of functions or performance goals. There would be only a limited impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Failure results in a significant workaround for operations) 4Significant The resulting technical performance would be unacceptable below the goal. The design, process, or approach would require a significant change to achieve an acceptable performance level. Additional workarounds such as the reallocation of functions or performance goals could also be required. The success of the breaker to breaker ops could be jeopardized. (Component failure requires shutdown for repair, maintenance activity to repair equipment results in High Risk work activity) 5High The resulting technical performance would be unacceptably below the goal. There are no known alternatives or solutions. The success of the breaker to breaker ops would be in doubt. (Failure results in unit trip or significant transient requiring operator response)

33. Level 1 Schedule

34. 34 Scope / Cost / Duration Summary SCOPE (1750 WO’s) DURATION (60 Days) COST ($69M) $4.9M

35. 35

36. Slide 36

37. Slide 37 SD#Report Date Original Scope on SFD Original Scope Still In Current Scope Scope Additions Deferred Scope Cancelled Scope SU+RP WO's in Scope Potential Scope Scope Variance D111116-May-1119531650203238218411953835.07% GREENRED Scope Variance (SV) = # Deferred + # Cancelled + # Added #Original Scope WO's TARGETS: Green 20% D1111 Work Order Scope Variance

38. o Develop a strategy If you do not know where you are going, then any road will do -Lewis Caroll …aka; the path of least resistance leads to the land of nothing done. - Bill Purdin o Milestones point the way  Strike a balance  Cover all the bases  Establish ownership  Demand accountability  Measure and control o Learn your lessons Key Points to Take Home

39. Slide 39 Questions ? dan.sawyer@opg.com