1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Stephen W. Meador, Chairperson DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ Review Committee for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) Upgrade Project Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory December 11-12, 2012

2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2 DOE Review of NSTX DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, December 11, 2012—LSB, Room #B318 8:00 a.m.Introduction and OverviewS. Meador 8:15 a.m.FES PerspectiveB. Sullivan 8:30 a.m. Federal Project Director PerspectiveT. Indelicato 8:45 a.m. Questions Project and review information is available at: http://evms.pppl.gov/Lehman_121112/index.html

3. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee Participants 3

4. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4 DOE Organization Chart

5. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5 SC Organization Chart Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Barbara Helland (A) Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer (A) Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting 7/2012 Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Daniel Division Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) Vasilios Kountouris SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) Dolline Hatchett Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO Michael Weis Brookhaven SO F. Crescenzo (A) Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO Joanna Livengood SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) J. LaBarge (A) Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Oak Ridge Office Larry C. Kelly Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker

6. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 6 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? 4.Response to Prior Reviews: Has the Integrated Project team implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan that was developed following the Project Status review from April 2012?

7. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 7 Agenda

8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 8 Report Outline/Writing Assignments Executive SummaryMeador 1.IntroductionSullivan 2.Technical Status (Charge Questions 1, 4) Kellman*/Oren/Strauss 2.1Findings 2.2Comments 2.3Recommendations 3.Cost and Schedule (Charge Question 2, 4) Chao*/Blaisdell/Maier 4.Management and ES&H (Charge Questions 1, 3, 4) Crescenzo*/Ackerman *Lead

9. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures

10. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 10 Format: Closeout Presentation (No Smaller than 18 pt Font) 2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. List Review Subcommittee Members List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers 2.1.1Findings In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. 2.1.2Comments In bullet form, list descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2.

11. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 11 Format: Final Report FINAL REPORT WRITE-UP/UPDATE TO BE UPLOADED TO THE SC PORTAL SITE When you have prepared your Report Write-Up and/or updates, please upload the document directly to the SC portal (by December 17): https://portal.science.doe.gov/sites/sc28/Lehman%20Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx (Use MS Word / 12pt Font) 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. 2.1.2Comments Descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. 3.

12. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 12 Expectations  Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.  FINAL REPORT WRITE-UP AND UPDATES TO BE UPLOADED TO THE SC PORTAL SITE (by December 17): –https://portal.science.doe.gov/sites/sc28/Lehman%20Reviews/Forms/AllIt ems.aspxhttps://portal.science.doe.gov/sites/sc28/Lehman%20Reviews/Forms/AllIt ems.aspx –To upload your file to the portal, click on “NSTX Upgrade Project Review” folder, then on “Committee Report Sections” folder. On the light blue bar (just at the top of the files), click on “Upload Files”.

13. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Report on the Review Committee for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) Upgrade Project Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory December 12, 2012 Stephen W. Meador Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

14. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 14 2. Technical Status Kellman, GA*/Oren, TJNAF/Strauss, DOE/SC 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? 4.Response to Prior Reviews: Has the Integrated Project team implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan that was developed following the Project Status review from April 2012? Findings Comments Recommendations

15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 15 3. Cost and Schedule Chao, DOE/SC/Blaisdell, DOE/APM, Maier, DOE/BHSO 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? 4.Response to Prior Reviews: Has the Integrated Project team implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan that was developed following the Project Status review from April 2012? Findings Comments Recommendations

16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 16 Project Status Chao, DOE/SC/Blaisdell, DOE/APM, Maier, DOE/BHSO PROJECT STATUS Project TypeMIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement CD-1Planned:Actual: CD-2Planned:Actual: CD-3Planned:Actual: CD-4Planned:Actual: TPC Percent CompletePlanned: _____%Actual: _____% TPC Cost to Date TPC Committed to Date TPC TEC Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve)$_____% to go Contingency Schedule on CD-4b______months_____% CPI Cumulative SPI Cumulative

17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 17 4. Management and ES&H Crescenzo, DOE/BHSO/Ackerman, DOE/SC 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? 3.Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the scope within budget and schedule. Are risks being actively managed? 4.Response to Prior Reviews: Has the Integrated Project team implemented all required actions in the Corrective Action Plan that was developed following the Project Status review from April 2012? Findings Comments Recommendations