1. Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory EVMS Certification Review NSTX Project Overview Ron Strykowsky October 4-6, 2011

2. 2 Topics Project Overview (Mission, Scope, Plans, Organization, Budget) Performance Reporting & Management Processes

3. 3 NSTX Upgrade Project Mission Technical Mission; 1)Double magnetic field and plasma current o Toroidal magnetic field of up to 1 Tesla (presently 0.55 Tesla) o Plasma current up to 2 Mega-amp (presently 1 Mega-amp) o Upgrade centerstack 2) Double neutral beam power & more tangential injection o Beams tangent to radii 130cm, 120cm and 109.4cm o Configure NB1 and NB2 so they can operate together or separately o Increase NB heating from 5-7MW to 10-14MW o Install a second neutral beam line Major ($94M and 5 year) upgrade to an existing Operating Fusion Reactor. Classified as an MIE (Major Item of Equipment) Project. Most Project funding being carved out of a $50M/year operating program. Technical scope not new technology or first-of-a-kind.

4. 4 National Spherical Torus Experiment – NSTX Neutral Beam #1 operating since Sept 2000 NSTX Device operating since February 1999 Center- stack Assy Vacuum Vessel Umbrella Structure CS Pedestal Plasma TF Coil PF Coil

5. 5 Centerstack Upgrade Scope TF Bundle contains 36 identical conductors with one-layer joint design vs. two conductors types and two layers in the present design. Bolted joints located at further radius hence lower joint current density and lower magnetic field at joint

6. 6 Second Neutral Beam Scope Present NBI Pump Duct NSTX 2 nd NBI NSTX test cell TFTR test cell An existing TFTR Neutral Beamline will be Moved to the NSTX Test Cell

7. 7 NSTX CD-2 Baseline Base cost = $77.3M (27% complete $20.3M spent $57M to go.) Contingency (on etc)= 27% ($17 contingency) TPC =$94.3M Outage = April 2012 – September 2014 (30 months) Schedule Contingency = 12 months CD-2 Approval December 2010 (Approval of baseline) CD-3 Approval January 2012 (Start of construction) CD-4 September 2015 (Project completion)

8. 8 NSTX - Progress to Date  CD-0 Approved - February 2009  Conceptual Design & CD-1 Readiness Review - October 2009  EVMS Implemented - January 2010  CD-1 Approved - April 2010  Preliminary Design Review & CD-2 Readiness Review - June 2010  CD-2 Lehman Review – August 2010  DOE approval of Critical procurements & limited fabr. – August 2010 -Inner TF conductor -TF Conductor machining, lead extension,& friction stir welding -Other Critical Procurements -Refurbishment of 2 nd neutral beam  CD-2 Approved - December 2010  PARS-II reporting initiated - January 2011  Initiated EVMS Certification preparations – February 2011  Final Design and CD-3 readiness review – June 2011  TF Fault review and validation of upgrade TF design – September 2011  DOE Authorize start of outage machine removals – September 2011  EVMS Certification Review- October 4-6  SC-OPA (Lehman review) - October 26 & 27  Request CD-3 Approval - November  CD-3 Approval - January Since CD-0 the design and project management have been vetted by 23 individual reviews composed of 57 external people from 19 institutions.

9. We plan to complete the Project at least six months earlier than our CD-2 baseline plan 9 Recent Machine Operational failure has placed the project on a fast track ! Our CA plans have not changed but we’re working ahead of schedule.

10. 10 NSTX Upgrade Project Team Excellent, experienced and talented team assembled. Most important part of the management process.

11. 11 NSTX Upgrade Project Responsibility Assignment Matrix ( excerpt shown ) CAM’s chosen for their technical expertise and specialty. (many CAM’s but this works for us) CAM’s have ownership

12. 12 NSTX Budget cross-cut >75% of the Project is PPPL labor. Many small procurements (parts, off the shelf hardware, materials) may be augmented with in house fabrication. All procurements fixed priced contracts.

13. Project Performance metrics Cost – CPI=1.02 CV=+ $427K Schedule – SPI= 0.96, Total float = 6 months PLUS 12 months schedule contingency BAC =$77.3 EAC= $80.7 TPC =94.3M Summary status; – Design = 93% complete – Procurement = 2% complete – Fabrication & Assy = 7% complete Free balance contingency 31% on remaining work (27% at CD-2) Risk: $2,000k retired since CD-2 Currently $3,744 remain 13

14. Performance to date is good 14 Performance is good to date Transitioning from design in FY09-11 to fabrication/assembly in FY11 -14 Accelerated schedule being iterated but will call for significant ramp-up in spending, re-assignment of labor and increased procurement work load.

15. Milestones on Track for early finish 15

16. Excellent people getting the work done 16 Resource loaded schedules, CPR’s, meetings don’t actually accomplish work, people do! Must track needs and get (negotiate) assignments with other projects.

17. FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Contingency remains above target and available to mitigate uncertainties and risk 17 30.8% (through end August)

18. Risk monitored at monthly status meeting 18 Risk registry populated from WAF’s prepared by CAM’s Changes discussed monthly

19. Cost Performance, Variance analysis & Estimate to Complete 19 Bottoms-up performed every 6 months. Last one performed in June for the PDR. CAM’s marked –up their WAF’s and input to a scratch P3 file. DOES NOT CHANGE BAC. To date no cost ECP’s processed but the ETC provides advanced warning of what issues need to be mitigated. Monthly less formal ETC input from CAM’s discussed at the monthly status meetings.

20. Project Summary report 20 Communicate overall project performance at director’s meeting, internal and DOE meetings

21. Project Management – Analysis & reporting 21 Monthly status meeting ‒ Associate Director, Project Management, Project Controls, CAM’s ‒ Schedule progress, Earned value, Risk registry review, ETC assessment ‒ Variances, issues, impacts, resolutions, direction provided Monthly reporting including ‒ (see CAM notebook and Management Instrument panel) ‒ Updated risk register, VAR’s, PARS-II, Schedules, CPR’s, Special Reports Weekly Technical meetings (Design/analysis, value engineering and 4 week look-ahead) Weekly DOE video meeting (PPPL, PU & PSO Management with OFES) IPT meetings coordinated by DOE with all stakeholders Weekly (Daily) Meeting with PSO Federal Project Director Weekly Director’s meeting Work control center daily meetings for outage tasks Data collection, disciplined processes, and good communication fosters quick problem resolution and no surprises

22. Summary PPPL is a small lab which facilitates good communications and quick problem resolution. External project oversight, both technical and management, have provided valuable input and improved our operations and product. Astute planning by DOE and PPPL have positioned the project to take advantage of recent adversity. Excellent communication amongst stake holders. Management systems in place. Continuously enhanced in recent years. CAM’s have ownership of their CA plans. The project is >75% PPPL labor with relatively small procurements. The largest and most critical procurement contract has been placed. The project is 27% complete Risks assessed and being retired. Contingency free balance tracking to plan. All Project Execution Plan (PEP) milestones ahead of plan. The project is on schedule, below budget, and forecasting early completion.