1 / 23

Stephen W. Meador , Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science

Closeout Report for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) Upgrade Project Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory October 2-3, 2013. Stephen W. Meador , Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

idalee
Download Presentation

Stephen W. Meador , Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science

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. Closeout Report for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) Upgrade Project Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory October 2-3, 2013 Stephen W. Meador, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. Stephen Meador, DOE/SC, Chairperson Review Committee Review Committee SC 1–Technical Approach *Arnie Kellman, General Atomics Will Oren, TJNAF SC 2–Cost and Schedule *Kin Chao, DOE/SC Tim Maier, DOE/BHSO SC 3–Management and ES&H *Frank Crescenzo, DOE/BHSO Mike Epps, DOE/TJSO Robin Noyes, DOE/APM *Lead Observers Joe May, DOE/SC Barry Sullivan, DOE/SC Tony Indelicato, DOE/PSO

  3. Charge Questions Construction Efforts: Are construction efforts being executed safely? Does the project have adequate resources and the appropriate skills mix to execute the project per the plan? 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? 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? Transition to Operations: Is the Project appropriately aligned for completion of construction efforts and transitioning to NSTX-U for CD-4 approval?

  4. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF Construction Efforts: Are construction efforts being executed safely? Does the project have adequate resources and the appropriate skills mix to execute the project per the plan? Yes. The project is being executed safely. In most areas, adequate resources and the appropriate skills mix are available to complete the tasks per plan. Additional resources were added to the project to address some tasks that were falling behind, such as the Digital Coil Protection System (DCPS). Additional personnel on the CS fabrication has helped, but this task continues to use contingency and additional time and resources may be required for timely completion of this effort. Transition to Operations: Is the Project appropriately aligned for completion of construction efforts and transitioning to NSTX-U for CD-4 approval? Yes, the project is beginning the process of transitioning from construction to operations by preparing for a two step Operational Readiness Assessment based on established NSTX startup procedures.

  5. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Findings • The safety record of the project continues to be outstanding with only one recordable incident and no DART cases since the December 2012 review. • Excellent progress has been made on the CS fabrication since the last review. Major tasks with considerable technical risk have been completed successfully including the fabrication and VPI of all four TF quadrants and the full TF bundle, two new TF coils, delivery of major tooling for the OH solenoid, and the preparation of the OH winding facility, including the pivot beam and CS tilt fixture. • Fabrication of the inner PF coils (1A, B, C) was delayed by several months due to a subcontractor problem with the prime vendor, but the delivery will not affect critical path.

  6. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Findings • Overall, the NB project is progressing on task, under cost (SPI=1.06) and on time (CPI=1.0). • Beamline #2 (BL2) internal component relocation is complete, the J-K port welding is complete, the NB duct and Torus Vacuum Pumping System duct fabrications are complete, leak checked and ready for installation. • Cryogenic and water piping installation are complete. Relocation of three High Voltage Enclosures (HVE) for BL2 is complete. • Installation schedules in machine hall are based on 5 day work week with options for increasing the number of shifts as necessary.

  7. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Findings • Additional manpower (5.5 FTE) has been provided to the DCPS system in response to a recommendation from the December 2012 review. Good progress has been made and full system commissioning is scheduled to begin in June 2014 to be ready to support Integrated System Testing in Fall 2014. The DCPS system must be in place before operations can begin. • Secondary passive plates in Bay A/L were found to be weaker than acceptable for the higher NSTX-U parameters. A new design using e-beam welding has been developed to address the problem. Installation is anticipated for July ‘14. CD-4 can be completed even if this installation slips. • A Facility Startup plan was presented in response to a recommendation from the December 2012 review. The startup plan presented utilizes the system developed and used successfully over the past 13 years of NSTX operation.

  8. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Comments • Installation planning and scheduling of activities in the test cell are well thought out. Schedules are realistic with built-in contingency anticipating possible fit-up problems. • CS fabrication continues to be critical path. Work to date has been of high quality but the task continues to use schedule contingency. Care must be exercised not to risk technical success of the overall project in order to improve schedule margin. However, management should identify lower risk tasks (non-winding) that might be more amenable to being performed by additional personnel to gain schedule contingency. • A comprehensive electrical test plan for the TF bundle to Ohmic Heating (OH) coil and for the OH coil alone needs to be finalized soon to assure readiness of the test equipment and setup when needed.

  9. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Comments • The project identified three areas with poor quality welds from the same vendor after delivery to PPPL. All welds were ground out and re-welded in house. This emphasizes the importance of evaluating vendor quality performance in process and before deliver to PPPL. In this regard, we support the planned weekly visits to Everson-Telsa during the fabrication of the inner PF coils and commend the project for continuing to support additional QA oversight for vendors. • Because the new DCPS is required for NSTX-U operations to begin, a reduced scope or simplified version of the DCPS should be considered that has a very high probability of completion well before the planned start of operations and testing.

  10. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Comments • Components in NSTX-U will experience higher forces, torques, power and energy fluxes due to the installation of new or upgraded systems and most will not be fully realized for 2-3 years. It is suggested that NSTX-U management begin the process of how to confirm that all new systems are performing as expected before parameters are raised. This would include (1) evaluations of measurement techniques, (2) simulations with which to compare the measurements, and (3) when during the multi-year system commissioning period key evaluations should be performed.

  11. 2. Technical StatusA. Kellman, GA*/W. Oren, TJNAF • Recommendations • Identify lower risk CS tasks that can be performed by additional personnel or off-shift to gain schedule contingency. • Generate an interim milestone for DCPS for earlier commissioning of a reduced scope system able to support all system testing and initial machine operation.

  12. 3. Cost and ScheduleK. Chao, DOE/SC and T. Maier DOE/SC 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? Yes, the projections by the project is consistent with the approved cost and schedule baseline. The contingency remaining is probably adequate for the risks that remain, however, the continuing trend in contingency usage is a concern. Is the Project appropriately aligned for completion of construction efforts and transitioning to NSTX-U for CD-4 approval. Yes

  13. 3. Cost and ScheduleK. Chao, DOE/SC*/ SC-2 • Findings • The critical path for the project remains the TF coils, the CS, digital coil protection, and vessel closure and pump down activities. • The standing army cost is approximately $250K per month. However, it is expected to be reduced to ~$150K to $100K for the remainder of the project as activities are completed and personnel no longer charge to the project. • Since the last review in December 2012, the project has utilized additional 3.5 months of schedule contingency for magnet activities. • The project EAC estimate in July 2013 is $87.6M with November 2014 forecast CD-4 date. • The project analysis indicate that the project may consume bulk of the contingency by May 2015, which is 6 months beyond the November 2014 forecast CD-4 early finish date.

  14. 3. Cost and ScheduleK. Chao, DOE/SC*/ SC-2 • Findings • The project provided to the review committee the risk registry, Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) log, the latest resource loaded schedule, etc. • Of the ~$17M of contingency, the risk register identified ~$6.1M. • The remaining risks in the risk registry is ~$3.7M

  15. 3. Cost and ScheduleK. Chao, DOE/SC*/ SC-2 • Comments • The EAC estimate appears optimistic. There appears to be events that has high probability of occurrence and thus should be included in the EAC estimates (i.e., January 2015 CD-4 date instead of November 2014, overhead rate credit, PF quality issues, OH winding takes longer). • The ECP log contains cost impact of the proposed changes, but not the schedule impact in durations. As a result, it is difficult to determine what the actual delays in the activities are. • The risk identification, analysis, and tracking should be more rigorous. For example, most of the risks in the risk registry have not been updated recently. Any new risk that has been identified is not captured in the registry. Instead, the cost impacts are directly included in the EAC. Most of the contingency usage were from activities not identified in the registry.

  16. 3. Cost and ScheduleK. Chao, DOE/SC*/ SC-2 • Recommendations • Include schedule contingency impacts in the ECP forms for the future ECPs. • The EAC calculation should include items and activities that are likely to occur. • Ensure risk register is updated and maintained

  17. 4. Management and ES&H Crescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes DOE/APM • Construction Efforts: Are construction efforts being executed safely? Does the project have adequate resources and the appropriate skills mix to execute the project per the plan? YES • 2. 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? YES but see comments in cost and schedule above. • Transition to Operations: Is the Project appropriately aligned for completion of construction efforts and transitioning to NSTX-U for CD-4 approval? YES

  18. 4. Management and ES&HCrescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes DOE/APM • Findings • Fabrication of major technical components (center stack, neutral beam, ancillary systems) is making good progress. • The critical path runs through fabrication and installation of the center stack (CS). • There remains some low likelihood, high risk associated with fabrication and assembly of the CS (e.g. electrical failures). This will be mostly retired upon delivery of the CS to the test cell now scheduled for May 2014. • Installation and construction reports excellent progress. Re-assembly is well underway. • There was one recordable injury and no radiological incidents since the last review.

  19. 4. Management and ES&HCrescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes, DOE/APM • Findings • The project sought external expert advice (National Magnet Lab) on plans for the CS. • Planning for startup and transition to operations is well underway with external independent oversight planned.

  20. 4. Management and ES&HCrescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes DOE/APM • Comments • The project has performed well since CD-3 as measured by EVMS data. • Installation and construction appear very well planned and executed so far. Safety performance is excellent. • High quality assembly of the CS is critical for risk mitigation. • Planning for facility readiness for operation appears good. • Earlier project challenges related to funding and critical skills were resolved satisfactorily.

  21. 4. Management and ES&HCrescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes DOE/APM • Comments • The project appears on a track to successful completion based on performance to date, remaining cost and schedule contingencies, and risk analysis. • The May 2014 milestone for delivery of the CS to the test cell and November 2014 early finish appear overly optimistic. • Performance of the CS to date has shown a steady draw on cost and schedule contingencies. • As noted by the Cost and Schedule committee, there are credible analyses to show there may be less than 28% cost contingency available to the project. • The facility should consider whether there are elements of the DOE Accelerator Safety Order that are absent from NSTX that could add quality to startup and operations.

  22. 4. Management and ES&HCrescenzo, DOE/BHSO; Epps, DOE/TJSO, Noyes DOE/APM • Recommendations • 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. • 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. • Action Item • Site Office to schedule a status review in mid-January 2014.

More Related