Project Overview

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 May 2 - 3, 2012

2. Agenda

3. Topics • Progress • Performance metrics • Risks • Cost and Schedule • Budget plans • Charge Questions

4. Excellent progress to date • NSTX-U Final Design Review - June 2011 • NSTX TF Bundle Fault - July 2011 • Successful independent forensic review of TF Fault - September 2011 • DOE-OFES approval to commence outage - September 2011 • Lehman review – October 2011 • EVMS Certification – December 2011 • DOE CD-3 approval received - December 2011

5. NSTX Test Cell field work proceeding well • Vacuum vent • Center Stack removed • Pump duct removed • LLD Removed • Old neutral beam armor removed • Coil Support modifications started • Diagnostics, racks, platforms removed • New platforms installed • Space cleared for Neutral Beam Relocation! • Outer board divertor installation underway • Cabling changes underway. • Coil support hardware deliveries ramping up. • Lower passive plates removed for modification

6. NSTXU Test Cell - October 2011

7. NSTXU Test Cell - October 2011

8. NSTXU Test Cell - Current Work underway inside the vessel (passive plates, NB armor) Permanent platforms installed. Relocation of racks started. Vessel to be plasma cut with new NB port installed (June) Coil support modifications underway Photogrammetry targets for re-alignment installed (“sparkles” ) Neutral Beam area now cleared

9. Work proceeding well inside the vessel 2nd neutral beam armor mounting hardware and new armor tiles Lower passive plates removed for mounting hardware upgrades

10. Diagnostics carefully stored bay-by-bay

11. Neutral Beam refurbishment proceeding well • Neutral beam refurbishment continuing • Major components on order (i.e. NB port cap, large VAT valves, power cables ) • Rectangular bellows fabricated! • Six ion sources (for 2 beamlines) ready to go! • Relocation into NSTX TC planned for October 2012 but on track for this summer!

12. Center Stack Fabrication off to a good start • Fabrication area cleared. • Cooling tube soldering R&D complete. • Sandblasting unit and winding station setup underway. • Clean rooms installation incl power and HVAC complete. • VPI Bakeout oven installed and tested. • VPI platform installed • Inner TF conductor extrusions delivered. • Inner TF conductor machining and friction stir welding underway. First bars delivered! • Cooling tube soldering process underway • Winding material procurements underway. • CS Casing, PFC tiles, OH conductor, TF mold, winding machine ordered.

13. Inner TF machining proceeding well Friction stir weld joint

14. NSTX Center Stack Fabrication is the critical path Fabrication & assembly area Step 1c - Clean room for priming & bakeout VPI platform Step 1f - Clean room for quadrant VPI & oven cure Step 1b-TF Conductor sandblast station Step 1a-TF Conductor received and cooling tube installed (RESA bldg). Step 1e - TF quadrant assembly station Step 1d - Station for TF fiberglass wrap

15. Performance metrics good • Cost • CPI = 1.01 CV = + $307K • Schedule • SPI = 1.09 (against baseline plan) Total float = 18 months to CD-4 • Completion • Forecast = April 2014 • CD-4 Baseline Early Finish = September 2014 • CD-4 DOE Milestone (PEP) = September 2015 • BAC =$78.9M EAC= $79.7M TPC = $94.3M • Cost to date = $31.4M 40% complete ETC= $48.3M • Risk: $2,000K retired since CD-2 Currently $4,657K remain • Free balance contingency range 33%(BCWR) – 30%(EAC) (27% at CD-2) ($15.7M - $14.6M) • 29 ECP’s processed 12 of which resulted in contingency draw. $1.75M contingency applied to date

16. Cost and schedule performance trends good

17. People on-board to accelerate the schedule.

18. Procurements keeping pace with accelerated plan.

19. Costing ramping-up per the accelerated schedule FY09 | FY10 | FY11 | FY12 | FY13 | FY14 | FY15

20. Risk & Opportunities Risk • Inner TF bundle fab + $725 FY12&13 • Outer TF + 100 FY12&13 • OH Fab + $1,000 FY13 • PF Fab + $ 100 FY13 • Other + $377 FY14 • I&C add’l capacity + $375 FY14 • Diagnostic re-installation + 294 FY13 • Flex & misc HW fit up issues + $407 FY14 • Mgmt allocations + 216 FY14 **change** • Project controls support +500 FY13&14 **NEW** • Injury related stand-down + 188 **NEW** • Critical skill lost + 375 **NEW** • Total open $4,657 • Opportunities • Schedule acceleration by applying 2 shifts to critical path - $250k/month 20

21. On track for early completion

22. Transition into operations NSTX-U ISTP, Commissioning, and Startup will follow the same process as NSTX initial commissioning and startup from February 1999. Pre-operational test of subsystems (PTP’S) Activity Certification Committee (ACC) review DOE Operational readiness assessment (ORA) Integrated system test procedure (ISTP) (per OP-NSTX-02 rev 14) CD-4 Demonstrated Performance Commence Operations and run XP’s NSTX Program develop initial operation scenarios

23. However there are uncertainties and risk

24. NSTX Upgrade – Risks to Baseline CD-2 Plan • On track for completing within the CD-2 budget and schedule even within OFES guidance (President’s budget). • however; • OFES guidance would; • Increase EAC from $79.7M to $84.8M (stretch-out cost plus likely indirect rate increases). TPC = $94.3M • Delay start of ops into mid FY15 • Reduces schedule contingency to 6 months relative to CD-4. • Deleterious effect of loss of core personnel capabilities as well as increased indirect costs due to likely reduction-in-force.

25. NSTX Upgrade Planning scenarios Early Finish with 12 mo. float EAC = $81.2m CD-2 Baseline CD-4 CD-4 CD-4 Outage (30 mos.) OPS OPS Guidance Early Finish With 6 months float EAC = $84.8M (FY13 Administration budget guidance. One year delay from the accelerated plan.) (Operations in FY2015 uncertain. Limited by availability of funds and key personnel) Outage (42 mos.) OPS Early Finish With 18 months float EAC= $79.7M Guidance plus incremental ( Restores funding to support an accelerated schedule.) OPS Outage (30 mos.)

26. "Construction Efforts: Are construction efforts being executed safely? Charge question #1 • NSTX Upgrade project has an excellent safety record • Trained, experienced and engaged workers and supervisors using well-developed work planning & control processes, combined with support and oversight of ES&H professionals are ensuring that NSTX-U construction is being executed safely.

27. However, to continue this trend we must! • Reflect on recent events. What needs to be changed. What needs to be reinforced. • Guard against complacency and overconfidence • Use of check lists, don’t deviate from procedures, if not sure then ask, make sure you know where each of your fingers are at all times, etc • Maintain an open mindset • Ask why are we doing this, is there a safer way • Risk perception • If it can happen, it will , it’s just a matter of where, when and who. Charge question #1 (continued)

28. 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 ahead of schedule, on cost, with ample contingencies to finish ahead of schedule. • Weekly detail schedule progress and monthly EVMS updates • Monthly re-evaluation of EAC’s and risks • BAC revisions per approved ECP • Bottoms-up EAC performed in January • However, funding deviations from the approved baseline cost profile proposed by OFES would add risk to completion by CD-4. Charge question #2

29. Management: • Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the scope within budget and schedule. • The existing project management team supported by PPPL senior management has effectively transitioned from design into fabrication and construction. • Challenges of the accelerated of the schedule are being met to ensure timely receipt of parts and hardware, prioritization of field tasks, and re-assignment of people. • Communication amongst the project team, senior PPPL management and DOE has provided transparency into all aspects of the project. • Independent project management reviews performed every 6 months by the Princeton University advisory panel. Charge question #3

30. Management: • Are risks being actively managed? • Risk identified and quantified in the risk registry -updated based on input from CAM’s and discussed at monthly status meetings. • Mitigation plans implemented most recently soldering trials and Aqua pour mockups. • Prevention - Work planning, procedures, JHA’s, pre-job briefs, post-job debriefs, fabrication travelers, training, lift procedures, activity certification committee (ACC) for major operations, QC inspections, work control center (WCC) daily meetings. Charge question #3 (continued)

31. Management: Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous SC project review? 10 Review recommendations; 4 - CD-3 documentation (HASP, and HAR) - CLOSED 2 - Technical (Halo diagnostics and spare induction unit) - CLOSED 1 – Proceed aggressively with the accelerated schedule – CLOSED 1 – Contingency usage “wish list”- Prepared and presented to OFES. Will update periodically. - ONGOING 2 – Quantify and manage risks to the accelerated schedule. Key staff, safety vigilance, funding, vendor deliveries, effective coordination and communication vital to achieving the accelerated schedule. Procurement tracking logs in place, coordination meetings daily, staff assignments managed.– ONGOING Charge question #3 (continued)

32. Earned Value Management (EVM): Has Princeton University/ PPPL implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan that was developed following the EVM System certification review from October 2011 ? • 4 CAR’s were generated • Corrective Action Plans prepared and being implemented for CAR’s and CIO’s. Charge question #4

33. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) • CAR-01: Acceleration of schedule and added scope without formal baseline change • The project should measure against a realistic baseline • Project is managing to an accelerated schedule not baseline • Follow formal change control processes and procedures • Document changes to performance baseline • CAR-02: Variance Analysis Reports (VARs) must be written at the Control Account Level as a minimum. • CAR-03: Schedule Integrity (Primavera database administration) • CAR-04: Inconsistent identification and application of LOE vs. Discrete across control accounts

34. Summary • The project continues to make good progress. • On track for meeting CD-2 baseline within OFES guidance. • Resumption of operations, however, delayed to mid FY2015 along with increased cost and schedule risk with OFES budget guidance. • Currently, on track for early completion by mid-late FY 2014 with incremental funding.

35. SUPPLEMENTAL

36. Integrated Systems Testing - Startup • NSTX-U ISTP, Commissioning, and Startup will follow the same process as NSTX initial commissioning and startup from February 1999. • Four components to post construction Startup • 1 - Activity Certification Committee (ACC) review, • 2 - ORA, • 3 - Completion of sub-system PTP’s, • 4 - Run startup procedure NSTX-02, with inclusion of new sub-systems • (1) Activity Certification Committee review of newly installed sub-systems and collateral devices; • including --> new center stack, NBI-2, (coil protection) controls / interlocks / set-points, new diagnostics. ACC membership includes; 1 from PPPL Physics, 3 from PPPL Engineering, 1 from PPPL Safety, 2 from PAO • The ACC will review applicable documentation (FDR chit resolution, completed PTP’s), perform physical walk-down of the newly installed sub-systems, which may include new diagnostics. An ACC findings report will be sent to the PPPL Deputy Director of Operations and the NSTX Operations Manager with recommendations regarding inclusion of new sub-systems into standard NSTX operations. ACC concerned with safety to the environment, personnel safety, machine safety 36

37. Integrated Systems Testing - Startup • Components of Job 7900 - Integrated System Test • TaskDeliverables • Prepare NBI2 and CS ISTP Test Procedures Completed PTP’s (by Cogs) for NBI-2 and CS. Revised NSTX-02 • Conduct ACC Review for upgrades Completed ACC review with sub- • system walk-down(s) and report with • recommendations. Interface with • ORA team as required. • New diagnostics may also be included • Perform ISTP Working with COE, run NSTX-02 • to bring CS and NBI-2 into standard • NSTX-U machine operations 37

38. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) • CAR-01: Acceleration of schedule and added scope without formal baseline change • The project should measure against a realistic baseline • Project is managing to an accelerated schedule not baseline • Follow formal change control processes and procedures • Document changes to performance baseline • An Engineering Change Proposal (ECP-004) was approved (10Nov11) to change the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB). The ECP documented OFES authorization to proceed with critical path/high value procurement and begin select outage removal tasks in advance of receiving CD-3 approval. • A mid-year reassessment of the PMB is in-progress with the entire budget climate being considered

39. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) (cont’d) • CAR-02: Variance Analysis Reports (VARs) must be written at the Control Account Level as a minimum • The PPPL Project Management System Description (PMSD) Section 2.3.2 indicates that “when a variance threshold is triggered the variance analysis report must be written at the control account level”. • All PPPL CAMs received training on performing Variance Analysis/Reporting. A significant portion of PPPL’s Training Program addresses VARs. See pages 17-30 at link: http://www-local.pppl.gov/EVMS/TRNG/PPPL_EVMS_TRAINING_02.pdf • The NSTX Upgrade Project Execution Plan (PEP) has been updated as follows: • Explanations of variance to plan will be submitted to the FPD and into PARS II on a monthly basis when any WBS level 2 cumulative to date variance exceeds the following thresholds: • SV +15% or -10% or >$50K and > 10% of BAC or any impact on any DOE Level 1 or 2 Milestone • CV +15% or -10% or > $50K. and > 10% of BAC

40. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) (cont’d) • CAR-03: Schedule Integrity • The Primavera schedule data base has been reviewed and updated to improve the schedule logic to minimize hanging ends and reduce the number of constraints to only those necessary relevant statistics Before After • Constraints 401 135* • Hanging ends 176 1 • No Predecessors 432 1 • *It should be stressed that the baseline schedule is funding constrained requiring that many task be delayed due to funding. The method employed to delay these tasks is to assign a “start no earlier than” constraint. Furthermore, all subsequent current schedule updates will be scrutinized to ensure schedule integrity.

41. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) (cont’d) • CAR-04: Inconsistent identification and application of LOE vs. Discrete across control accounts • No work scope was found where discrete work was being used in lieu of Level of Effort (LOE) work; however, some CAMs budgeted their oversight time to individual discrete tasks rather than specific LOE Work Packages and did not budget specific time for “CAM-type duties”. • As mentioned above, in some Control Accounts specific time was not budgeted for activities such as CAM duties or Training. It was determined that this time was very small and any resulting variances would be minor. • On future projects a specific budget will be allocated in each Control Account to cover these types of activities.

42. NSTX Upgrade – Risks to accelerated schedule • Currently on track for completing 18 months before CD-4 (mid FY2014) • however; • Cash Flow Challenge • NSTX-U Project has the highest priority and is funded mostly from the base program. • The NSTX Program, overall, is spending at a higher rate than planned for FY2012 • Skill mix inefficiencies (operations to upgrade. Identified as risk at last review.) • Upgrade procurements ( higher than planned. Identified as risk at last review.) • Upgrade design & analysis (greater hours than planned) • Requires the OFES guidance PLUS incremental funding for FY2013&14. • Hardware and materials in time to support field needs (field coordination via the WCC and daily meetings maintaining flexibility). • Critical skills not available when needed (BOA’s or temporary hires ) • Vendor deliveries for critical path hardware (solicit proposals and award asap to lessen chance of “surprises”) • Center stack fabrication (in risk registry. Procedures, pre-job briefs, walkdowns, travelers, etc) • Safety (e.g., inadvertent injuries leading to work stoppage. Pre-job brief’s, inspections, JHA’s, WCC daily meetings, and continued vigilance of all)

43. Funding and Budget profile

44. NSTX Upgrade – Milestones on track

45. NSTX FY 2014 FWP Budget Summary ($M) Base Budget is Highly Constrained • • NSTX-U Project has the highest priority and funded largely from the base program. However, budget reduction directly impacts the upgrade construction. • The base funding reduction in FY 2013 and FY 2014 delays NSTX-U by one year. • Incremental funding will restore the NSTX-U schedule and enable other high priority facility enhancements needed for an optimum NSTX-U operations.