1 / 20

Project Overview

NSTX-U. Supported by. Project Overview. Coll of Wm & Mary Columbia U CompX General Atomics FIU INL Johns Hopkins U LANL LLNL Lodestar MIT Lehigh U Nova Photonics Old Dominion ORNL PPPL Princeton U Purdue U SNL Think Tank, Inc. UC Davis UC Irvine UCLA UCSD U Colorado

fisseha
Download Presentation

Project Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSTX-U Supported by Project Overview Coll of Wm & Mary Columbia U CompX General Atomics FIU INL Johns Hopkins U LANL LLNL Lodestar MIT Lehigh U Nova Photonics Old Dominion ORNL PPPL Princeton U Purdue U SNL Think Tank, Inc. UC Davis UC Irvine UCLA UCSD U Colorado U Illinois U Maryland U Rochester U Tennessee U Tulsa U Washington U Wisconsin X Science LLC Culham Sci Ctr York U Chubu U Fukui U Hiroshima U Hyogo U Kyoto U Kyushu U Kyushu Tokai U NIFS Niigata U U Tokyo JAEA Inst for Nucl Res, Kiev Ioffe Inst TRINITI Chonbuk Natl U NFRI KAIST POSTECH Seoul Natl U ASIPP CIEMAT FOM Inst DIFFER ENEA, Frascati CEA, Cadarache IPP, Jülich IPP, Garching ASCR, Czech Rep Ron Strykowsky Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory NSTX Upgrade Project Office of Science Review LSB B318 February 4th, 2014

  2. Agenda

  3. Contents • Progress; • Continued good Technical progress to date • Performance metrics, Cost, Schedule, Budget, Risks; • On cost and schedule • Charge Questions; • Responsive and complete.

  4. Good progress on NB, Construction and DCPS since the last review • Neutral Beam DI piping contract completed and tested. • Neutral Beam cabling contract completed. • Neutral Beam Armor being installed • VV feet installation complete. • PF 4/5 support installation complete (exc bay B & L) • Torquing of the upper outer TF support weldments to their final torque levels has been completed • The installation of the MPTS vacuum interfaces has been completed and they have passed leak check • Casing relocated to NSTX high bay for completion of stud installation. • Diagnostics incl racks and cabling re-installation underway • New milling machine purchased and installed at D-site to facilitate fit-ups and installation of hardware. • DCPS; Autotester software ready, MSDplus server funtional, realtime logging tested. On target for May 2014 completion and support of FCPC testing.

  5. Good progress on the centerstack since the last review • Aqua pour process underway COMPLETE • OH Winding station and taping systems commissioned • OH winding to begin in UNDERWAY. 1st of 4 layers wound. • Final assembly and delivery to the NSTX Test Cell in JUNE 2014 • PFC Tiles machined. • PFC Magnetic diagnostics being installed. • CS pedestal delivered and ready for installation. • Inner TF lead extension awarded. • PF1b coil delivered. • Bus bar design completed with fabrication underway

  6. Good Performance Maintained • Cost • CPI = 0.98 (n/c) • Schedule • SPI = 0.94 (0.97 last review) (as measured against Sept 2014 early finish) • Total float = 10 1/2 months to late finish CD-4 (n/c) • Completion • Forecast = November, 2014(n/c) • CD-4 DOE Milestone (Late Finish) = September 2015 • BAC =$86.8 EAC= $89.3 TPC =94.3M • Last Review; BAC =$85.0 EAC= $87.6 • Cost to date = $71.2 M 80% complete (through December) • Last Review ; Cost to date = $63.4 M 72% complete (through August) • Free balance contingency 33%-28% • Last Review; Free balance contingency 30%-28% Free balance = $5.7M - $5.1M • Outstanding Risk (rev 24 ) = $3.3M • Last Review = $3.8M (rev 22)

  7. Schedule on track for early finish • Critical path continues to be the centerstack fabrication and installation • Keys to meeting schedule • Vendor vetting and oversight • Timely receipt inspection • Overtime • Multiple shifts • Scheduling workshops • Improve efficiency through anticipation • Collaborations with NML (report available) • 10 1/2 months float remain CD-3 Dec 2011 Deliver CS to Test Cell JUNE 2014 Forecast November 2014 CD-4 SEPT 30 2015

  8. NSTX Upgrade – Milestones on track

  9. Detail Schedule Analysis - Startup of OH winding Commissioning of winding station took 14 weeks longer than planned. While it was not on the critical path it soon became critical and delayed the start of winding by approx 26 work days (approx 5.2 weeks) Since the start of winding, tasks have progressed as planned. (22 days planned vs 21 days actual )

  10. Detail Schedule Analysis – VPI & post VPI tasks Utilized more 2 shift ops reducing schedule by 10 work days

  11. Detail Schedule Analysis – Installation and CD-4 Utilized 2 shift ops reducing schedule by 14 work days

  12. Labor on track • Some leveling of field construction task required • On site electrical subcontractors to augment PPPL staff

  13. Risks • Retirement Date • OH/TF VPI $1,400k April 2014 (cost of rebuilding twice) • Inner TF bundle fab $325k Oct 2013 • Serious injury stand-down $188k CD-4 • Late vendor delivery on critical path $250k April 2014 • I&C add’l capacity $300k June 2014 • Diagnostic re-installation $294k April 2014 • Hardware fit up issues $347 $477k Sept 2014 • Mgmt direct allocations $216k April 2014 • Critical skill lost $188k  Sept 2014 • Other $105k $155k June 2014 • Total open $3,288k $3,793 k Risk Events • ~$505K net risk retired since last review 13

  14. “What-if scenarios” bound the cost & schedule risk 14

  15. Critical Path Construction Efforts: • Does the Project team have a realistic, executable schedule for Center Stack (CS) remaining construction efforts? • Does the project have adequate resources and the appropriate skills mix to execute the remainder of the project per the plan? Charge question #1 • After initial startup issues with the OH winder, tasks have been progressing on schedule. • Utilization of additional 2 shift operations have prevented schedule slip. • Use of Saturdays still available to advance schedule and/or buffer against future delays. • Overall the current staff levels on-board are adequate to execute the project schedule. Additional electrical labor will be augmented by our on-site BOA. Critical skills (i.e. welders, crane operators, machinists) work priorities managed via the Work Control Center (daily morning meetings.

  16. 2. Baseline Cost and Schedule: • Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? • Is the contingency remaining adequate for the risks that remain? • The project is 10 1/2 months ahead of our CD-4 milestone. • Reasonable contingency remains to complete the project. This conclusion is based monthly updates of our EAC’s as well as several schedule/cost “what-if” exercises. • $505K net reduction in risks identified. • Project schedule contingency is 10 1/2 months, cost contingency range is 33%-28% (ref 26.6% baselined at CD-2 ) • The project is 80% complete compared to 72% at the last review. Charge question #2

  17. 3. Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the scope within budget and schedule. • Are risks being actively managed? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous project reviews? • The key management personnel required to deliver the baseline are still in place within the project organization. This includes DOE Federal Project Director and senior laboratory leadership. • The project has reacted effectively to resolve technical issues that have arisen. • Communication amongst the project team, senior PPPL management and DOE has provided transparency into all aspects of the project. • Project risk identified in our updated risk registry. Mitigation plans being implemented (e.g. coordination meetings, procedures, training, mockups, R&D, trials). • Previous review recommendations reconciled - see next slide Charge question #3

  18. 3-b. Previous review recommendations: • Identify lower risk CS tasks that can be performed by additional personnel or off-shift to gain schedule contingency.   • Continually being evaluated i.e., Casing moved to D-site to facilitate field crews support. • Generate an interim milestone for DCPS for earlier commissioning of a reduced scope system able to support all system testing and initial machine operation. • Simple over-current calculations developed. • Interim milestones being tracked toward a May 2014 completion date. • Include schedule contingency impacts in the ECP forms for the future ECPs. • Implemented in the ECP log for impacts to the critical path. • The EAC calculation should include items and activities that are likely to occur. • Concur and included Charge question #3 continued

  19. 3-b. Previous review recommendations: • 5. Ensure risk register is updated and maintained  • Concur and updated twice since the last review. Changes are color coded. • 6. Evaluate a broader range of likely project outcomes to better understand and communicate with DOE the limits of cost and schedule contingencies to ensure project success by November 1, 2013. • Completed and transmitted to DOE October 2013. Updated January 2014. (ref slide 14) • 7. Work with the Site Office and program develop a focused “end game plan” to monitor and communicate critical project activities to better ensure project success by November 1, 2013. • Detail critical path schedule updated, track, and posted weekly (ref slides 9-11) • Weekly “rollover” meetings review all tasks for CD-4 and start-up. • 8. Action Item; Site Office to schedule a status review in mid-January 2014. • Completed February 4th, 2014 Charge question #3 continued

  20. Summary • Project personnel have maintained a safe working environment. • The project continues to make good technical progress. • The project is on schedule and cost with adequate contingency to finish. • The project is sufficiently staffed to meet schedule. • The project is on track for meeting CD-2 baseline within OFES budgetary guidance.

More Related