Anthony Indelicato DOE-Princeton Site Office May 2012 Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project Construction Progress Review for the NSTX.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OFFICE OF SCIENCE Stephen W. Meador, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Closeout.
Advertisements

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Stephen W. Meador, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Review.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE Kin Chao, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Review Committee.
Cost, Schedule & Funding Closeout Jan Joint DOE/NSF CD2/3a Review 1 DOE/NSF Review of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Project SC 6/7 Cost, Schedule.
DOE Stanford Site Office Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science OECM Limited-External Independent.
Mark Reichanadter LCLS FAC April 20-21, 2006 Meeting of the LCLS Facilities Advisory Committee LCLS Project Management M.
NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich May 26, 2009.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review of Critical Decision 2 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 9, 2011.
State of Kansas Statewide Financial Management System Pre-Implementation Project Steering Committee Meeting January 11, 2008.
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory EVMS Certification Review EVMS Implementation on NSTX-U Steve Langish October 4 - 6, 2011.
U.S. Department of Energy Project Management: Communicating Progress – Celebrating Success Paul Bosco, PE, PMP, CFM, LEED-AP Director, Office of Procurement.
NCSX Management Overview Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager NCSX Conceptual Design Review Princeton, NJ May 23, 2002.
BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES National Synchrotron Light Source II Project Management Jim Yeck Deputy Director (Project Management)
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory EVMS Certification Review NSTX Project Overview Ron Strykowsky October 4-6, 2011.
NSTX-U FWP 2015 Budget Planning Meeting-NSTX Upgrade Status- Ron Strykowsky – 4/10/ NSTX Upgrade Progress Overview Ron Strykowsky Erik Perry, Tim.
BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES National Synchrotron Light Source II Project Management Jim Yeck NLSL II Deputy Director (Project Management)
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Development
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS-II Project Baseline Jim Yeck NSLS-II Deputy Project Director NSLS-II PAC Meeting November 20, 2007.
Executive Session Director’s CD-3b Review of the MicroBooNE Project January 18, 2012 Dean Hoffer.
Market Implementation Board Presentation July – v1.1F 1 Texas Nodal Market Implementation ERCOT Board of Directors Meeting Program.
DOE Annual Review of SLAC HEP Research Program June 14-16, 2005 SLAC Charge to Committee Issues Procedures.
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
NCSX PROJECT OVERVIEW AND MANAGEMENT James L Anderson NCSX Project Manager August 15, 2007.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE Stephen W. Meador, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Closeout.
AP-1 5. Project Management. AP-2 Software Failure Software fails at a significant rate What is failure? Not delivering it on time is an estimation failure.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Sims, Edwards 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS-II Update Steve Dierker Associate Laboratory Director for Light Sources NSLS-II Project Director Conventional Facilities.
1 NSTX Upgrade Progress Report May 7 th, 2013 Ron Strykowsky, Erik Perry, Tim Stevenson, Larry Dudek, Steve Langish, Tom Egebo, Mike Williams and the NSTXU.
Progress to Date PPPL Advisory Board Meeting May 20101NSTX Upgrade – R. L. Strykowsky CD-0 Approved February 2009 The NSTX Upgrade Project organization.
BNL Tier 1 Service Planning & Monitoring Bruce G. Gibbard GDB 5-6 August 2006.
3.1.1 Optics, Optical Corrector, Mechanical Systems M. Johns, C. Claver.
PU-PPPL Earned Value Management System Overview Thomas Egebo October 4-6, 2011 Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory EVMS Certification Review.
Fermilab Presentation Greg Bock, Pepin Carolan, Mike Lindgren, Elaine McCluskey 2014 SC PM Workshop July 2014.
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
Status Report on ILC Project in Japan Seiichi SHIMASAKI Director, Office for Particle and Nuclear Research Promotion June 19, 2015.
Project Overview Ron Strykowsky Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory NSTX Upgrade Project Office of Science Review LSB B318 October 2-3rd, 2013 NSTX-U Supported.
Information System Project Management Lecture Five
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures.
National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-U) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) Joseph V. Minervini October 29, 2009 Review Committee On.
DOE Stanford Site Office Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science Office of Science Review of the LCLS.
DUSEL Beamline Working Group Meeting March 09, :00 AM – Snake Pit (WH2NE) By Dean Hoffer - OPMO.
Mark Reichanadter LCLS October 9-11, 2007 LCLS BCR Overview and EIR LOIs Project Progress / Status Revised Project Baseline.
O AK R IDGE N ATIONAL L ABORATORY U. S. D EPARTMENT OF E NERGY The Spallation Neutron Source Project: Update T. E. Mason Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 Closeout Report on the DOE/SC CD-3b Review of the Utilities Upgrade Project (UUP) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 11-12,
Management February 20, Annual Review of the Muon Accelerator Program (MAP) Subcommittee members: Ron Prwivo, Ron Lutha, and Jim Kerby.
PPPL is Committed to the Success of NCSX Rob Goldston, Director Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory August 15, 2007.
Strykowsky 1Project Review November 2, 2005 NCSX Project Review November 2, 2005 Cost and Schedule Ron Strykowsky.
Tom Egebo PPPL Review of the NSTX TF Coil Repair Effort September 3 - 4, 2003 Cost & Schedule to Completion Supported by Columbia U Comp-X General Atomics.
Anthony Indelicato DOE-Princeton Site Office February 2014 Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project Construction Progress Review for the.
Anthony Indelicato DOE-Princeton Site Office October 2013 Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project Construction Progress Review for the.
NCSX Strykowsky 1Cost and Schedule Rebaseline April 25, 2005 NCSX Project Re-baseline Review April 25, 2005 Cost and Schedule Ron Strykowsky.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS-II Project Status Steve Dierker Associate Laboratory Director for Light Sources NSLS-II Project Director Accelerator.
Project Overview Ron Strykowsky Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory NSTX Upgrade Project Office of Science Review LSB B318 December 11-12th, 2012 NSTX-U.
Assembly 12/14/06 #1 Assembly and Commissioning Paul Huffman.
Office of Baseline Change Proposal (BCP) Approval or Brief Presented by: Draft version Jun 16, 2015.
DOE Review of LARP – Feb 17-18, 2014 DOE Critical Decision Process Ruben Carcagno February 17,
NCSX Strykowsky 1Independent Project Review (IPR) June 8-9, 2004 NCSX Project Review June 8-9, 2004 Cost, Schedule, and Project Controls Ron Strykowsky.
Project Delivery Working Group FY2016 EFCOG Annual Meeting Robert P. Miklos Idaho National Laboratory Battelle Energy Alliance Working Group Chair June.
TF Fabrication Progress is being made on TF bundle fabrication activities but the schedule remains tight. All 24 outer conductors have been machined but.
Anthony Indelicato DOE-Princeton Site Office December 2012 Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project Construction Progress Review for the.
SC Project Review of NCSX, April 8-10, 2008 C. A. Gentile NCSX Startup (WBS 85) C.A.Gentile NCSX CD-4 Startup.
Cost and Schedule Paul Weinman Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Reported by Ron Prwivo for Ian Robson. Overview Response to Recommendations from the RLSR of November 2014 – very good, RF staffing remains an issue Very.
Details supporting the increase
Preliminary Project Execution Plan
Conventional Facilities
SNS-PPU upgrades the existing accelerator structure
Presentation transcript:

Anthony Indelicato DOE-Princeton Site Office May 2012 Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project Construction Progress Review for the NSTX Upgrade Project U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Increase toroidal field: 0.5T > 1.0T Increase plasma current:1 MA > 2 MA Increase pulse length:1.0 s > 5 sIncrease NB heating: 5-7MW > 10-14MW New Center Stack Inner TF bundle, TF joint, OH & inner PF coils Upgraded TF coil support structure Existing outer TF coils w/ reinstated water cooling Exst’g outer PF coils – 6 total New PF coil support structure Reinforce umbrella structure Also…modify coil power system, protection system & ancillary support systems What’s the proposed workscope? 2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Add 2 nd Beamline Decon, recondition and install Install 3 HVEs Relocate from TC basement New NB port New NB armor Modify Vacuum Vessel New Vacuum Pump Duct (below) Also…modify existing power system and ancillary support systems Workscope… continued 3

TPC=$94.3M Contingency: $15.1M (or 32% of ‘to go’) Today CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4 Feb 09 Sep 15 Dec 11 Dec 10 Apr 10 FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15 $5.1$8.3$9.7$21.6$25.3$24.3$0.0 stdadv CD-3 Overdrive Budget odometer U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office How’s spending? $47.8M to go EF 1/4 1/2 3/4 12 months of schedule contingency (or 41% of ‘to go’) 4 $31.4 spent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office How’s the performance so far? SPI = 1.09 & CPI = % complete Contingency = 32% of ‘to go’ costs Budget at completion = $78.9 Estimate at completion = $79.7 Level 2 milestones:  Past = completed on or ahead of schedule  Ahead = early completion anticipated 5  All scope remains as planned.  TPC remains ‘on-target’.  CD-4 date remains ‘on-target’ with promise of early finish.  Concern: FY13+ Presidential Budget How’s the baseline?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Risks and Concerns NSTX-U future funding profile: FY 13 President’s budget provides reduced funding to PPPL...  Institutional impacts are high (possible 18% cut in lab-wide staff)  NSTX-U would be adversely impacted : -Reduction in Lab-wide human resource support... Added risk. -Slow down of schedule (due to a constrained budget profile) will add cost. Actions:  PPPL continues to work closely with PSO and FES to understand impacts of the budget cuts.  The Project developed actionable plans based on differing funding scenarios to determine the impacts on the project.  Early delivery date of the project will be significantly reduced, but project can still meet CD-4 baseline date.  Worst case: $5M of contingency will be released to cover “standing army” costs & indirect rate changes. Cost contingency will be reduced from 32% to 17% of ‘to-go’ work at about the 40% construction point. 6

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Thoughts  The Budget cycle is still young and unclear for FY13 and beyond.  Too early to react ( i.e., re-baseline ).. but precautionary institutional planning must be done.  The NSTX-U Project’s performance is still the #1 priority as stated by PPPL Directorship and agreed upon by FES.  The Project has built a nice buffer in cost and schedule contingency to date... this will come in handy.  Yes... there will be added risk to the project... but, it appears that the current worst case scenario is manageable. 7

Construction Progress? U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office 8 Overall Progress is good... Advanced procurements allowed for a good “jump start” All construction efforts are well underway Vendor performance is good Critical Path... Remains through the construction of new Center Stack assembly Center Stack Fabrication facility ready to start TF Cooling tube soldering process has been developed Management... EVMS system in place and fully functioning (CAP validation with this review). Construction proceeding well on the accelerated schedule. All CD-3 Recommendations addressed. Project is getting the resources it needs.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Post CD-3 efforts are proceeding well…  Good performance to date.  Good communication between PPPL and Site Office.  Estimates are updated and remain well within plan.  Funding and human resources are in place.  Elements of DOE Order 413.3B are met. 9 Conclusion PSO, PPPL and FES must work together as the FY13 budget evolves and assess the impact to NSTX-U and PPPL.

Back-up Slides 10

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Charge Questions 1.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? 2.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? 3.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 SC project review? 4.Earned Value Management (EVM): Has Princeton University/PPPL implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that was developed following the EVM system certification review from October 2011? 11

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Princeton Site Office Confidence of Success Work is proceeding ahead of schedule Excellent construction progress in test cell NB work on cost and schedule Critical path work (CS upgrade) ahead of schedule Experienced staffing... Senior knowledgeable staff Strong management team PrUn and Director’s Office support the effort... Sponsor independent reviews Hiring of staff Director of Engineering & Infrastructure fully engaged Has made NSTX-U a PPPL priority Conclusion : FPD has high confidence level that PPPL will make this project a success. 12