U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science

1. U.S. Department of Energy’sOffice of Science CLOSEOUT PRESENTATION on the review of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) Daniel Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee August 17, 2007 http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. Charge Memorandum • Is the project’s bottoms-up-estimate credible? Based on the funding guidance provided by the FES Program, is the cost and schedule estimate realistic for the remaining work? Is there an adequately mature design available on complex activities, such as machine assembly, to support the estimate? • Is the contingency supported by an consistent with an appropriate project-wide risk analysis? Is there adequate cost and schedule contingency in the new proposed baseline to achieve a high level of confidence in completing the project successfully? • Has the Project adequately incorporated developmental and fabrication experiences in the bottoms-up estimate as to increase the success of machine assembly and improve reliability during research operations? • Is the project being properly managed and organized at this point, and are future staffing plans at both PPPL and ORNL adequate? What is the level of confidence that the NCSX project team can complete the project within the proposed baseline? Is there adequate support from PPPL and ORNL management? • What is the planning level cost and schedule estimate that will be required for the NCSX project to perform Phase III (which includes implementation of all scope that was removed after CD-2) research activities?

3. Review Committee Participants Department of Energy Daniel R. Lehman, DOE/SC, Chairperson Kin Chao, DOE/SC Jeff Hoy, DOE/SC Stephen Meador, DOE/SC Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC Consultants Dave Anderson, U. of Wisconsin Ralph Brown, BNL Patrick Hurh, Fermilab Thomas McManamy, ORNL Les Price, consultant Russell Wells, LBNL Observers Ray Fonck, DOE/SC Jeff Makiel, DOE/PAO Greg Pitonak, DOE/PAO

4. Report Outline/Writing Assignments

5. Summary Assessment of the NCSX- 3.1 MagnetsAug 15-17, 2007 T. McManamy B. Strauss

6. NCSX- 3.1 Magnets • General Scope • Modular Coils & Interface hardware • Conventional Coils • PF Coils • Central Solenoid • TF Coils • Trim Coils • Overall ACWP & Proposed Total EAC (M$) • Modular Coils 34.2/40.4 • Conventional Coils 3.2/6.7

7. NCSX- 3.1 Magnets EIR Lines of Inquiry • Resource Loaded Schedule • Satisfactory • Well developed for MC coils, TF coils. PF coils design, procurement and fab FY08-FY10 – overall schedule appears to have a good level of detail and reasonable durations • Key Project Cost and Schedule Assumptions • Satisfactory- Good basis for ETC for majority of work, adequate schedule contingency, some engineering delayed because of funding profile • Critical Path • Satisfactory with comment – MC interface hardware design on critical path- appear to be on schedule for a Sep 07 FDR • Funding profile • Satisfactory with comment – flat profile is required but not optimum • Basis of Design • Satisfactory with comment – PDR for some systems considered low risk not yet completed

8. NCSX- 3.1 Magnets • Findings • Modular Coils – 14 of 18 wound and 13 vacuum impregnated – good basis for ETC • TF Coil Procured under fixed price contract • PF Coil design and procurement plan underway- Mar 08 Level 2 milestone for PDR • Central Solenoid – spare NSTX coil to be used • Engineering challenge with Modular Coil interface hardware design and execution • Recent progress on welded approach encouraging • Trim coil design deferred – FDR Dec 08 • 2 trim coils proposed

9. NCSX- 3.1 Magnets • Comments • There appears enough engineering support now to eliminate or minimize concurrent engineering of the past • Cost estimates for the work to go appear to have a good basis • Adequate resources are being applied to solve the MC interface hardware design challenge • 6 Trim coils would optimize physics

10. NCSX- 3.1 Magnets • Recommendations • Accelerate specific engineering efforts such • PF coil design • Trim coil design • Perform cost/benefit analysis of installing additional trim coils

11. NCSX Project Review Section 3.2; Ancillary System WBS: 2,3,4,5, & 6 R. Brown and T. McManamy

12. WBS 2: Auxiliary Systems • Findings: • Fueling and Vacuum Pumping systems were reduced in scope $194k by using a lower capacity existing turbo molecular vacuum pumping system that may meet pressure requirements at half the pumping speed. • EAC: $589k • Status: • System design is planned for FY09 start. • Cost: • The cost for this system is understood. • Recommendation: • Move up PDR schedule.

13. WBS 3: Diagnostics • Findings: • Magnetic diagnostic loop increase in cost of $590k. Initial baseline design was inadequate and found to be more difficult than originally expected due to requirements for insulation and component protection. Increase in instrumentation scope. • Imaging and e-beam mapping decreased $62k due to equipment loans and collaboration arrangements. • EAC: $1,671k • Status: • Magnetic Diagnostic System is 60% complete with many of the loops installed on vacuum vessels. • Cost: • Well understood for these estimates. • Recommendation: • Press on to meet schedule.

14. WBS 4: Electrical Power Systems • Findings: • AC, DC Power Systems, Controls and Protection Systems, Systems Design and Integration was reduced in scope by $156k to meet minimum CD-4 requirements. • EAC: $3,145k • Status: • Systems design is planned for an FY09 start. • Cost: • The costs are well understood based on similar installation systems at PPPL. • Recommendation: • Move up PDR schedule.

15. WBS 5: I & C Systems • Findings: • Networking Infrastructure, Central Interface and Control Systems, DAQ and Facility Computing, Facility Timing and Synchronization Systems, Power Supply Control Systems, Safety Interlocks and System Integration has been reduced in scope by $881k to meet minimum requirement to satisfy CD-4 objectives. • EAC: $1,169K • Status: • Systems design is planned for FY09 start. • Cost: • Well understood from previous designs work. • Recommendation: • Conduct safety systems design interface with ES&H.

16. WBS 6: Facility Systems • Findings: • Cryogenic Systems increased by $192k due to design experience on modular coil test facility system. • Vacuum Bake-out Systems has increased by $573k; original induction heating system design was scrapped and a 150 C gas bake-out system will be installed to achieve adequate CD-4 vacuum requirements. • EAC: $$1,403k • Status: • Systems design planned for an FY09 start. • Cost: • System cost well understood from similar designs. • Recommendation: • Study cryogenic system design regulation for multiple parallel paths.

17. EIR Lines of Inquiry • Resource loaded schedule: • Satisfactory; complete and up to date. • Cost & Schedule: • Costs understood (done before) • Design starts in FY09 (consider earlier) • Critical Path: • Off critical path.

18. 3.3 WBS 18 Field Period Assembly & WBS 7 Machine Assembly Patrick Hurh (FNAL) Russell Wells (LBNL) NCSX Office of Science Review Close-out (8-17-07)

19. EIR Elements • Resource Loaded Schedule • We agree with the project response for the FPA and Machine Assembly portions of the project. • Key Project Cost and Schedule Assumptions • We agree that the schedule estimates are reasonable. The cost and schedule contingency are adequate given design maturity. • Critical Path • We agree that the critical path is rational and consistent with the RLS.

20. Findings (1) • Together these make up roughly 42% of the full Project ETC contingency and are the 2 highest contingency values as well as the 2 highest individual ETC values. • Work extends until 1/10 (WBS 18) and until 7/10 (WBS 7).

21. Findings (2) • 3.3.1.4--Increases in WBS 18 are attributed to underestimation of engineering and labor costs associated with assembly of complex, high tolerance, massive components including cost of extensive metrology and field engineering required to custom fit modular coils together. • 3.3.1.10-- ….. Design Reviewers consist of PPPL and ORNL personnel, not necessarily external to NCSX project. • 3.3.1.18 --Engineering resources at ORNL and PPPL were shown to be currently adequate for the re-baselined tasks. In addition, we found emphatic support at the Directorate level to add any necessary engineering effort.

22. Comments (1) • 3.3.2.1--The project staff should be congratulated on the significant engineering, design, and technical effort over the past months to overcome technical problems and develop detailed assembly plans and equipment. The engineering staff has developed engineering solutions for recent problems in FPA that have a high probability of success. We have not identified any other technical “show-stoppers” that threaten the completion of FPA or Final Assy. • 3.3.2.4--…. overall we found the cost estimates and schedule estimates credible, including enough money to ensure success in a realistic environment. Contingency/risk assignment is consistent with the levels of design and status of assembly tasks. The work to develop the assembly plans is commendable and translating those into detailed procedures should be achievable.

23. Comments (2) • 3.3.2.3--Integration of design activities across WBS tasks is not ideal. (…) In addition, recent PDR’s and FDR’s do not seem to successfully integrate these designs and interface features. Management of engineering resources, integration of engineering design activities across WBS tasks, and design review scope and scheduling is considered to be crucial to the assembly tasks. Proper resources should be focused upon this task. • 3.3.2.4--Vacuum vessel welding (in Station 6) seems to be underestimated in terms of technical risk. Distortion during these difficult welds needs to be assessed and mitigation efforts should be identified.

24. Recommendations (1) • 3.3.3.1--Scrub the RLS, WAF’s, and BOE’s for accuracy traceability and completeness. • 3.3.3.2--Consider accelerating schedule of PDR’s and FDR’s to encourage early design activity and solidify estimates. • 3.3.3.3--Include objective experts external to the project on design review teams. • 3.3.3.4--Include all integration issues associated with related assembly tasks in design reviews.

25. Recommendations (2) • 3.3.3.4--Add vacuum vessel welding (in Station 6, Final Assy) to the Risk Registry and develop appropriate mitigation activities. • 3.3.3.5--Continue to include dry-run fit-ups of the Final Assembly of Modular Coils in the RLS, and plan to perform these tasks even if metrology results appear to “close” properly. • 3.3.3.6--Continue to look for opportunities to validate assembly design concepts early in the design process. • 3.3.3.7--Ensure that engineering integration across WBS tasks occurs at a high level including interface design consistency, definition and scheduling of design reviews, and engineering resource management. This will require the focus of the responsible engineer as his/her primary activity.

26. 3.4--Phase 3 &Phase 4 ScopeDave Anderson & Les Price

27. 3.4--Phase 3 &Phase 4 Scope • Findings: • The project presented a prioritized list of experimental activities to be accomplished in the Phase III campaign for FY-13. These activities have been endorsed by their PAC. • The goals represent important scientific achievements in understanding the potential of quasisymmetry on global confinement in hot-ion plasmas, initial investigations into the role of stellarator fields in disruption prevention, and obtaining knowledge of scrape-off layer characteristics necessary for upgrades required for Phase IV activities. • The facility and diagnostic upgrades presented covered all necessary scope to accomplish these goals. • The planning budget of $34.4M appears adequate to cover the needed costs. • The schedule appears reasonable providing the needed facilities at the appropriate time for Phase III activities, with a funding profile which takes into account longer lead time articles such as neutral beam refurbishment and Thomson scattering.

28. 3.4--Phase 3 &Phase 4 Scope • Comments: • The cost and schedule estimate have been developed taking into account resource loading and a funding profile consistent with rolloff of the MIE, and which keeps total NCSX program costs level until FY13. • The upgrade plans include capabilities in some elements which are required for progressing to Phase IV of the research (such as power systems), and $4.5M in FY13 for long lead items for the FY15 campaign, such as neutral beam units #3 and #4. • A significant portion of the upgrades are refurbishments of existing equipment, duplication of previously produced systems, or routine in nature resulting in estimates which are on a very sound basis for a planning level. The development of a resource loaded schedule with detailed cost breakouts and a 30% overall contingency provide confidence in these estimates and schedules. • Funds are planned to start becoming available in FY-10 for these activities. The project should reinvestigate the need, priorities, cost and schedule for the various planned upgrades as this period approaches, commensurate with research forums which will be occurring. Roughly 1/3 of the research is planned to be conducted through collaborations and this needs to be factored into the planning process.

29. 3.4--Phase 3 &Phase 4 Scope • Recommendations: • Investigate the cost and benefit of inclusion of four additional trim coils into the upgrade plans. Present plans will augment the two coils in the MIE with two additional coils, so that n=1 and n=2 fields can be applied. The addition of two more would provide for control over natural (n=3) islands. • Coordinate cost and schedule planning between NCSX and NSTX. In FY13, a $25M increase in the NCSX program total occurs as NCSX goes into Phase III operation and the two devices go to alternate year operations. The total available funds must be commensurate with NCSX operations and NSTX station-keeping and upgrade costs and the reverse in the alternate years and with OFES funding.

30. 4.0 Cost Estimate5.0 Schedule and Funding Steve Meador, DOE/SC Kin Chao, DOE/SC

31. 1. Resource Loaded Schedule Committee Response: The project has a detailed Resource Loaded Schedule using input (resources, activity durations, risk and uncertainty, etc.) from Job Managers and and the bottoms-up cost and schedule estimates.

32. 2. Key Project Cost & Schedule Assumptions Committee Response: The project’s cost and schedule assumptions appear to be reasonable. Cost and schedule contingency have been developed that is supported by detailed analyses. Additional work needed to more clearly define and document the bases of estimates prior to the EIR.

33. 3. Critical Path Committee Response: The project schedule is integrated and identifies activities that are on the critical path and near the critical path. The Critical Path is reasonably defined with reasonable schedule durations.

34. 4. Funding Profile Committee Response: The funding profile is consistent with the Resource Loaded Schedule.

35. 5. Work Breakdown Structure Committee Response: The WBS is reasonable and captures all project work. The Resource Loaded Schedule is consistent with the project WBS.

36. 4.0 Cost Estimate - Findings Completion of MIE Project Completion of Project Upgrades to achieve Phase 3 Capability “To Go” Project costs to achieve Phase 3 Capability ETC + Contingency + Project Upgrades = Total Cost $50.9M + $14.4M + $34.4M = $99.7M

37. 4.0 Cost Estimate - Findings • A new, bottoms-up estimate to complete was developed over the past several months • Contingency was estimated using a new probabilistic methodology • A new Resource Loaded Schedule was developed

38. 4.0 Cost Estimate - Comments • The project’s new bottoms-up Estimate to Complete, based on a well defined methodology involving all Job Managers and building on experience to date, adds credibility to the proposed baseline. • The project’s new probabilistic risk and uncertainty analyses is based on the new bottoms-up cost and schedule estimates. The resultant 28% cost contingency and 11 month schedule contingency appear reasonable. • Common estimate formats will aid external reviews, but documentation and traceability will need additional work prior to EIR.

39. 4.0 Cost Estimate - Comments • Overall basis of estimate appears reasonable, but key assumptions need better definition - more detail or be more clearly associated with estimates at various levels within the WBS. • The Committee believes the project can be completed within the cost presented.

40. 4.0 Cost Estimate - Recommendations • Institutionalize the new cost and schedule methods and tools (ongoing) • Improve the basis of estimate - improved quality bases of estimates (well before the EIR) • Ensure the machine capabilities in the FY 2005 baseline and the new proposed baseline are consistent.

41. 5.0 Schedule and Funding - Findings • The project has developed a Resource Loaded Schedule based on detailed input (resources, duration, risks, uncertainties, etc.) from job managers • The schedule is developed at the WBS levels 4 or lower • A significant number of new Level 2 and 3 milestones have been identified to enhance identification of deliverables and management tracking

42. 5.0 Schedule and Funding - Findings • The current funding profile is shown below:

43. 5.0 Schedule and Funding - Comments • The project has a good process for developing and updating the resource loaded schedule. However, documentation on some of the WBS elements (i.e., basis of estimates, assumptions, etc.) needs to be improved. • The Committee believes the project can be completed within the schedule presented.

44. 5.0 Schedule and Funding - Recommendations • Improve the basis of estimate - improved quality of bases of estimates (well before the EIR)

45. 6.0 Management Les Price and Jeff Hoy

46. Management – EIR LOI 6. Risk Management – Risks have been identified, classified, and reflected in contingency analysis 7. Basis of Design – Adequate for most of project. Some areas still lacking definitive designs 16. Integrated Project Team – In general, adequate staffing is available. Sufficient depth exists at PPPL and ORNL to handle additional needs.

47. 6.1 Management - Findings • Strong support from University, PPPL, ORNL, and PSO • New, interim Project Manager on board; recruitment of permanent underway • Previously identified high risk items (VV, MCWFs) complete; FPA/MA are remaining highest risk items • Engineering resources needed are well below total available • ORNL funding is provided directly from HQ • Proposed baseline is constrained by flat funding ground rule – results in higher cost, delayed schedule, and back-end loaded contingency • Management relationship has been established with W-7X • Considerable attention being paid to minimizing risks from FPA/MA hoisting and rigging

48. 6.2 Management - Comments • Relationships among all project participants seem healthy • New management already having positive impact – stronger project management and physics integration; new processes being instituted • PEP should be revised to reflect new management processes, e.g. requirement for 6 month bottoms-up ETC • Need to ensure additional University and PPPL oversight adds value and doesn't hamper project decision-making • Engineering resources generally appear adequate; however systems engineering and integration needs strengthening • Would be desirable to expedite design in high risk areas • Risk mitigation steps to provide backup staff in key areas is commendable • Optimized funding profile would minimize cost and schedule impacts • For management flexibility, should consider consolidating funding through PPPL in FY2008 • Consider unofficial management tracking against provisional baseline, pending results of planned additional DOE reviews

49. Management -Recommendations • Develop an alternate cost/schedule baseline based on an “optimum” funding profile. • Provide strong leadership in the systems engineering and integration area.

50. Management – Charge Questions 4. Is the project being properly managed and organized at this point, and are future staffing plans at both PPPL and ORNL adequate? YES What is the level of confidence that the NCSX project team can complete the project within the proposed baseline? HIGH Is there adequate support from PPPL and ORNL management? YES