Planning for NCSX Preliminary Design Review, June 24-27, 2003

NCSX Reviews Leading up to CD-2

It was decided in meetings with DOE on March 18 that the PPPL will be responsible for organizing the preliminary design review, i.e. issuing the charge, convening the review committee, and receiving the report. It will be planned in consultation with DOE. DOE will participate as observers (Greg Pitonak, Gene Nardella, perhaps Jim Yeck or Ron Lutha)

The DOE External Independent Review, planned for July, will be combined with a “Lehman” review led by Jim Carney. A typical EIR scope, provided by Greg Pitonak, is attached. The NCSX EIR scope has not been decided but is expected to be narrower than the attached.

Approval of CD-2, Establish Performance Baseline, is planned for August.

Purpose of the PDR

1. Establish that the entire project has a sound technical, cost, and schedule baseline and is ready to establish the performance baseline.

2. Satisfy PPPL preliminary design review criteria for the modular coils and vacuum vessel. Establish that design maturity of these components is sufficient to move to final design, i.e. preparation of fabrication specifications, drawings, and other documentation.

Desired Outcome: Report that concludes…

1. Pre-requisites for CD‑2, especially a sound technical, cost, and schedule baseline, are satisfied, and the entire project is ready to be baselined.

2. MC & VV design is sound, satisfies requirements. Plans are sound. Proceed with final design.

3. CDR issues have been resolved as appropriate.

Suggested Charge

1. For the modular coils and vacuum vessel:

a. Does the design satisfy system requirements?

b. Are interfaces with other systems adequately defined?

c. Are there sound plans to complete the design and fabrication of these components?

d. Have risks been identified and appropriate risk mitigation measures planned?

e. Have reliable cost and schedule estimates been developed including appropriate contingencies and risk mitigation plans?

f. Have CDR issues been appropriately resolved?

g. Are these components ready to move to final design?

h. Recommendations to improve the plans?

2. For the NCSX system as a whole:

a. Have cost and schedule estimates been developed with a sound technical basis including appropriate contingencies and risk mitigation plans?

b. Have CDR issues been appropriately resolved?

c. Is the proposed baseline suitable for adoption as the performance baseline?

d. Recommendations to improve the plans?

3. Is the technical status of CD-2 pre-requisites satisfactory?

a. Resource-loaded schedule (EIR #1)

b. Work Breakdown Structure (EIR #3)

c. Risk Management Plans (EIR #4)

d. System Requirements (EIR #6)

e. Preliminary commissioning and test plan. (CDR #MGMT-4)

f. Preliminary estimate of annual operating costs. (CDR #CS-1)

g. Testing status of critical legacy equipment. (CDR #CS-2)

Suggested Reviewers

Chair: PPPL (e.g., M. Williams or J. W. Anderson) or external?

Magnets (suggest a total of 4)

David Anderson, U. Wis.

Peter Titus or Joe Minervini, MIT

Charles Bushnell or George Sheffield, PPPL

Dick Thome, GA

John Miller (or designate), NHFML

Vacuum Vessel (suggest a total of 3)

Mike Ulrickson, SNL-A

Dan Driemeyer, Boeing (may have to pay his way)

Paul Anderson, GA

Fred Dylla, Jefferson

Don Knutson, PPPL

Bob Childs, MIT

Joe Rasson, LBNL (cryo components for U.S. LHC, Phil knows)

Other Subsystems, Overall Cost, Schedule, and Readiness for CD-2 (suggest a total of 4)

Jim Irby, MIT

Rich Callis, GA

Ray Johnson, ORNL

Tom Jernigan, ORNL

Charles Neumeyer, PPPL

Jim Strait, Fermilab (Project Mgr. for U.S. LHC collab., Phil knows)

Jim Krupnick, LBNL (Bob knows from SNS reviews)

Observers:

Gene Nardella, DOE-OFES

Greg Pitonak, DOE-PAO.

Jim Yeck (CH), Ron Lutha (FAO), or Harold Clark (ORO?), DOE

Typical Scope of External Independent Review

1.Resource Loaded Schedule. For selected WBS elements (including -----) review the technical basis for cost estimate and schedule duration. As part of this work, address adequacy of cost/schedule contingency. Also, assess whether funding profile is consistent with the resource loaded schedule.

2. Total Project Cost. Is the TPC reasonable for this type of project. Also, is the TEC and OPC consistent with DOE accounting practices.

3. WBS. Assess whether the WBS is a reasonable breakdown of the project work scope. Also assess whether the resource loaded schedule is consistent with WBS for the project work scope.

4. Risk Management Plan. Assess (1) completeness of risk identification,(2)have appropriate risk mitigation actions been incorporated into the baseline, and (3) as appropriate, has contingency been included in Total Project Costs and Schedule. Is the Risk assessment a deterministic approach generated from assessment of uncertainties in each of the WBS elements? If not, assess adequacy of how project risks are identified and accounted for in work scope, and contingency?

5. Site Preliminary Design Review. Review results of, and proposed responses, for the Site Preliminary Design (Title 1) review. Has necessary additional work identified in the design review been incorporated into the baseline.

6. System requirements. Assess whether "design to" requirements are reflected in the baseline, including external requirements such as permits, licenses, and regulatory approvals. Are system requirements derived from and consistent with Mission Need.

7. Hazards Analysis. Is the Hazard analysis complete, and is all scope,schedule, and cost necessary for safety incorporated into the baseline.

8… Value engineering. Has a VE analysis been performed, does it meet requirements, and are the results incorporated into the baseline.

9. Project Controls/ EVMS. Are all project control systems in place now or will be prior to CD-2. Describe the cost and schedule control and reporting system, and assess whether it will be ready as of CD-2.

10. Project Execution Plan. Is the PEP complete with appropriate approvals. Does the PEP establish a plan for successful execution of this project?

11. Acquisition Execution Plan. Is the AEP consistent with the Acquisition Strategy. If not, describe “material” differences.

12. Project Staffing. Is Federal staffing level appropriate, and are the appropriate disciplines on the Integrated Project Team.