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
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Cost and Schedule
Colorado Sch Mines
Johns Hopkins U
New York U
Old Dominion U
Think Tank, Inc.
Culham Sci Ctr
U St. Andrews
Kyushu Tokai U
RRC Kurchatov Inst
ASCR, Czech Rep
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
NSTX Upgrade Project
Final Design Review
June 22-24, 2011
Retired pre CD-2 20 -$170
Passive Plates -$1,000
PFC Tiles ATJ instead of 2-d -$436
TF copper extrusions -$100
Total Retired 30 -$1691
Pending (Diag re-instl, EVMS,sensors etc) 10 + $844
Remaining Open 35 + $3,405
Total open 45 $4,249
2-3 month schedule acceleration - $750
Outage schedule optimization (~10%) - $950
Net Risk $2,549
FY11 | FY12 | FY13 | FY14
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)
– excellent support from DOE!
DOE has approved beginning CD-3 tasks
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
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
4. Have previous recommendations from previous reviews been adequately addressed?
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?
6. Have the cost and schedule estimates been updated? Do they reasonably reflect the cost, schedule, and resource efforts required to complete the project?
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?
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?
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.)?
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"