NSTX

1. NSTX Supported by Cost and Schedule & CD-3 Readiness College W&M Colorado Sch Mines Columbia U CompX General Atomics INEL Johns Hopkins U LANL LLNL Lodestar MIT Nova Photonics New York U Old Dominion U ORNL PPPL PSI Princeton U Purdue U SNL Think Tank, Inc. UC Davis UC Irvine UCLA UCSD U Colorado U Illinois U Maryland U Rochester U Washington U Wisconsin Ron Strykowsky Culham Sci Ctr U St. Andrews York U Chubu U Fukui U Hiroshima U Hyogo U Kyoto U Kyushu U Kyushu Tokai U NIFS Niigata U U Tokyo JAEA Hebrew U Ioffe Inst RRC Kurchatov Inst TRINITI KBSI KAIST POSTECH ASIPP ENEA, Frascati CEA, Cadarache IPP, Jülich IPP, Garching ASCR, Czech Rep U Quebec Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory NSTX Upgrade Project Final Design Review LSB, B318 June 22-24, 2011 1

2. Topics • Scope, Responsibilites, and Estimate-at-completion • Schedule • Risk • Staffing • Management • CD-3 Documentation • Summary 2

3. Scope(RAM) • Scope and Responsibilities • Baseline budgets 3

4. Estimate at Completion-Initial input 4

5. Estimate at Completion (continued) Second step; • Optimize the entire outage schedule consistent with the outage coordination plan • Optimize field crew assignments and standing army support • Review plans for removals vs “peel backs” • Review plans for rack installation to facilitate “relocations” instead of removal & re-installation 5

6. Cost profile 6

7. Schedule 7

8. Risk & Opportunities • # Risks$k Retired pre CD-2 20 -$170 Passive Plates -$1,000 PFC Tiles ATJ instead of 2-d -$436 TF copper extrusions -$100 Other -$155 Total Retired 30 -$1691 Pending (Diag re-instl, EVMS,sensors etc) 10 + $844 Remaining Open 35 + $3,405 • Inner TF bundle fab + $1,155 FY13 • OH Fab + $1,000 FY13 • PF Fab + $ 100 FY13 • Other + $316 FY13 • I&C add’l capacity + $350 FY14 • Flex & misc HW fit up issues + $484 FY14 Total open 45 $4,249 Opportunities 2-3 month schedule acceleration - $750 Outage schedule optimization (~10%) - $950 DCPS tbd Net Risk $2,549 8

9. Staffing Available Technicians FY11 | FY12 | FY13 | FY14 9

10. Management Process Performance to date CPI = 1.06 cumulative CPI = 1.26 for FY2011 Cost Variance = $1.1M (good ) SPI = .96 cumulative SPI = .87 FY2011 (late finishing design and analysis) • Earned Value Management System (EVMS) • Monthly progress review meetings • Risk registry review • ETC assessment • Status barcharts • Cost performance reports (CPR’s) including EAC’s • Staffing performance (actual vs. need) • Variance analysis reports • Change control (ECP’s) • PARS-II • IPT meetings with DOE-PSO and SC • Daily DOE-PSO communications – excellent support from DOE! • Weekly Director’s meeting • Weekly team meetings • Monthly project Management Status Review Board • Preparation for EVMS Validation by OFES-OPA planned for FY2011 DOE has approved beginning CD-3 tasks • NBI Refurbishment • Inner copper extrusions (delivered) • Inner conductor fabriction • A comprehensive 6 month lookahead request has been submitted to DOE to permit acceleration of scope. 10

11. CD-3 Readiness- Documentation Summary • Documentation being updated and prepared in compliance with DOE 413.3B and DOE guidance. • Documentation will be finalized this summer in support of; • October Lehman review • Start of fabrication and field work

12. CD-3 Preparations Checklist • Final Design Review • Conducted June 22-24, 2011 • Chits and follow-up • Project Execution Plan (PEP) • Changes drafted (i.e. EVMS variance thresholds, org chart updates, • Includes Performance baseline objective scope definition as well as exclusions • Risk Registry • Implemented and updated as needed • Davis Bacon Determination • Approved by DOE • Construction Health and Safety Plan • Drafted

13. CD-3 Preparations Checklist continued Environmental Documents NEPA Planning form 1443 Preliminary Hazard Analysis Plan – no changes! Environmental Evaluation Notification Form approved by DOE PSO March 2009 Security Vulnerability Assessment Report Assessment provided to DOE PSO June 2009. No changes. Quality Assurance Program PPPL QA/QC program will be followed PPPL QA policies 2,4&5; QA Procedures 01-15

14. CD-3 Preparations Checklist continued EVMS Certification Gap analysis prepared PMSD revised and in approval process Web site including CAM notebooks established Initial CAM training conducted Ongoing dialogue with DOE-OPA PPPL Participated in Surveillance of ORNL System being exercised Monthly statusing, variance analysis reports, change control etc. Internal training modules prepared. CAM training in July On site visit by DOE-OPA (Kurt Fisher) - August CAM mock interview training - August On Site Certification Review - October CD-3 Lehman review - October

15. Charge Questions • Are ES&H issues being properly addressed for the fabrication, assembly and testing? • The NSTX Upgrade Project has, and will continue to incorporate ES&H into its activities, including fabrication, assembly and testing, and will draw on the well-established ISM culture and infrastructure at PPPL. • A Construction Health and Safety Plan and has been drafted . • Does the final design meet the requirements for the NSTX Upgrade Project as delineated in the General Requirements Documents (attached)? • The project designs are consistent with the PEP and GRD deliverables. 4. Have previous recommendations from previous reviews been adequately addressed? • Previous review chits and recommendation have been incorporated or reconciled. Results are being independently verified by QA. 15

16. Charge Questions (continued) 5. Have risks been appropriately identified? Are project plans adequate to address/retire the identified risks? Are there any "show stoppers" to starting fabrication and assembly? • Risks are being retired consistent with the more mature design. • The project continues to identify and track risks and their impact on fabrication and assembly. • There are no show stoppers, outstanding jugular design issues, or holds points on proceeding with procurement, fabrication and assembly as planned. 6. Have the cost and schedule estimates been updated? Do they reasonably reflect the cost, schedule, and resource efforts required to complete the project? • The project has performed a bottoms-up estimate-at-completion which reflects the more mature design. The updated cost profile is consistent with available funding. Opportunities for future savings are being pursued. • The overall project schedule is on track. The critical path is being supported with advanced procurements. Currently in the process of leveraging recent cost underruns by accelerating schedule tasks. • Staffing needs have been identified and are achievable to support the outage. 16

17. Charge Questions(continued) 7. Given the current stage of the project, is the project's management structure and team appropriate, and are the plans to support the next phase of the project sufficient? • The project has implemented sound management processes and has effective communication with all stakeholders. • DOE has demonstrated their support and confidence in the project by authorizing advanced procurements and field tasks (pre- CD-3 scope). 8. Is the project proceeding along a plan to be CD-3 ready by this summer? Has the required documentation been identified and currently being prepared as required by DOE 413.3B? • CD-3 checkpoint documentation per DOE 413.3B is currently being updated and will be completed this summer. 9. Outage planning and coordination - Has a construction plan been developed that adequately ensures the proper sequencing of field tasks? Have key positions and responsibilities been defined? Has worker coordination been addressed (ie daily job briefings, hazards analysis, procedures etc.)? • Staffing needs have been identified and are achievable to support the outage. • A Machine Installation and Outage Coordination Plan has been drafted and is currently being iterated. Will be instrumental to ensure that field work is conducted efficiently AND safely. 17

18. Charge Questions (last) 3. Does the Final Design Review satisfy the objectives of PPPL Procedure ENG‐033, "Design Verification", Attachments 4 and 6, "Design Review Objectives and Input Documentation" and "Human Performance Improvement/Factors Considerations in Design Reviews" • The final design satisfies the requirements and is ready for implementation. The designs and analyses have been iterated with project physics and meets the design requirements as defined in the GRD and deliverables in the Project Execution Plan. • Detailed analyses, calculations, and tests to validate the design are 90%(per DOE) complete and documented. All R&D, mockup and developmental trials have been completed. • The final product, both the new center stack and second beamline can be manufactured, inspected, assembled, and installed reliably, safely, and cost effectively. Objective evidence includes the first beamline installation, decades of experimental magnet fabrication as well as experience removing, rebuilding and replacing the existing centerstack on NSTX. • Human performance and human factors considerations are appropriately addressed in the design. A CS manufacturing plan has been developed, a construction safety and health plan has been drafted, and job hazards analysis will be prepared for all fabrication and assembly work. • Procurement issues have been identified and resolved. Vendor contacts have been made for manufacturability and cost estimating where appropriate. List of procurements have been tabulated in the work authorization forms (WAF’s). Long lead and critical procurements have been identified and approved for procurement by DOE. • Appropriate documentation is available for producing the final product detailed part drawing will be produced from completed models. Installation procedures have been identified and will be prepared prior to installations. • Appropriate test plans for the final product have been identified and they will be prepared prior to component testing and ISTP tests. • Previous review chits and recommendation have been incorporated or reconciled. Results are being independently verified. • Manufacturability of the critical hardware and assemblies has been verified. 18

19. Summary • The Project has a design that meets it’s mandate as shown in the GRD and PEP • The project is ready to begin procurement, fabrication and installation. • The project is on track for requesting CD-3 approval this fall.

20. Backup supplemental slides 20