• Comment in Ch. 2 (no number), WBS 14: concern about the short time between MCWF prototype delivery and release of production contracts. Preliminary assessment: agree. Add about a month to the schedule.

• Recommendation 3-3, 350 C bakeout of the VV, WBS 12:  Simplifying the PFC design is a benefit.  We considered this approach a long time ago and rejected it for diagnostic reasons.  In a follow-up discussion with Dave Johnson (10/27), he is concerned about windows, fibers, and temperature control of re-entrant diagnostics if everything goes to 350C. The magnetic diagnostics are not a concern.  At this time, we do not yet know what impact this change would have on the design process. Paul Goranson is developing the complete list of issues that would have to be addressed. We will review Paul’s list later in the week. Preliminary assessment:  First find out (via Paul’s analysis) if this is a major setback to the design schedule, in which case we don’t want to do it. If not, then we have to do more analysis of costs and benefits to decide.

• Recommendation 4-2, pre-assembly of each type of modular coil shell joint, WBS 18.  Concern (per follow-up telecon with Ray Johnson) is that there is non-negligible risk of errors entering and surviving through design, fabrication, and inspection.  A fit-up test before making a large investment in coil windings is seen as a prudent step. We agree, except we would not hold up winding the coil, so we would check, for example, the first wound Type C coil with the second bare type C winding form. Ray is not concerned about reproducibility, but we are not so sure.  Phil Heitzenroeder argued (afterward) that the whole fit-up exercise is unnecessary if our QA and metrology are adequate. Preliminary assessment (prior to Phil’s input):  accept as described above, so as not to delay the winding process.
  
• Recommendation 4-3, full-size mockup to demonstrate assembly of modular coil triplets around the VV, WBS 18 (and 12):   We agree that this would be valuable to develop the process because the clearances are tight and controlling the trajectory might be difficult. It was  argued that the the VV mockup should be a rigid part and could be used to prototype other VV-related concerns, such as welding the field joint and dimensional stability, so we talked about getting a 60-degree sector from one of the suppliers.  Preliminary assessment:  a full-size mockup is already in our plans, but not clear if  it goes far enough, so we may need to add more budget.  Regarding a real 60-degree VV prototype, we will find out the cost from the suppliers and weigh against the benefits.
  
• Recommendation 3-5, expedite prototype VV sector to assess tolerance build-up and dimensional stability; and provide for staged delivery, WBS 12. Those on the call favor staged delivery of the three sectors as it would offer more schedule flexibility.  (As an aside, we also favor letting the suppliers attach the cooling tubes instead of us doing it, which requires nailing down the magnetic diagnostics interfaces in advance.)  We don’t want to pay for a 4th segment, but we also don’t want to make any design or process changes after the first segment. The question is, is our 20-degree prototype adequate to resolve the concerns about tolerance build-up and dimensional stability? If not, would a single 60-degree prototype shell with a minimum of ports be justified?  Preliminary assessment:  we agree on staged delivery but are not yet convinced that our existing prototyping plans are inadequate to address the issues raised here.  Further investigation is needed.
  
• “Little-ticket” recommendations, such as: 2-1, modular coil composite R&D; Ch. 2 comment on controlling the cable-compacting process & use of lubricants; 3-2, automated welding of field joint; 3-4, aerogel insulation; 3-7, cryostat penetrations;  5-1, external vaporizer and humidity sensors; 7-1, ground-fault monitor; and so on.  There are of order 10 of these, costing of order $20-$50k, plus contingency, so these items are expected to come to ~$500k or so.   Wayne is following up with the WBS mangers to improve estimates. Under a fixed funding profile (and resource limitations), more cost can mean schedule stretchout.
  
• Comment that “schedule is tight”  can be read as an implicit recommendation for more schedule contingency, say 2 months.
  
• Recommendation 12-2, Allowing time in the schedule for bottoms-up cost estimating.  Recognizing this could add, say, 1/2 month per year for the next four years, or 2 months.

• Wayne, mark up disposition plan with rough cost and schedule impacts as input to Ron (by Tuesday early afternoon).
• Ron, perform a what-if schedule analysis to determine C&S impact based on Wayne’s markup (by Weds. p.m.)
• Hutch arrange conference call Weds. p.m. or Thurs. a.m. to update Rob and Rich on PDR assessment.*
• Brad, update R&D and analysis plans, taking into account PDR recommendations, new conductor design, latest understanding. Coordinate with conductor procurement.
• Brad, work with Paul to clarify issues with 350C VV bakeout.
• Brad, work with Paul on risks/benefits of staged delivery of VV segments.
• Wayne, develop PDR recommendations disposition plan, to be available in time for DOE review. Also respond to committee “comments” as appropriate.  Note that final report wording differs from closeout briefing in some places.

*Agenda for telecon with Rob, Rich, et al. later this week.

1. Cost & Schedule impact assessment of PDR report.- Hutch, Ron, Wayne
2. Plan for developing PDR issues disposition plan, dealing with it at the DOE review, and incorporating it into the baseline.– Hutch
3. Updated R&D and analysis plan (depending on interest)- Brad
4. Details of disposition plan (depending on interest)- Wayne
   

2.  Updating the Baseline.

Conclusions of the discussion that took place mostly after I left (please correct):

1. The GRD was approved and placed under configuration control several months ago. An ECP is in preparation to formally update to the revision that was issued at the PDR.  It should not need to be approved by DOE, I don’t think, since we do not yet have a DOE-approved baseline.
2. At the PDR, we presented the “PDR baseline”.   Since we have a comprehensive and self-consistent package of documentation for the PDR baseline, the appropriate documents should presumably now be placed under configuration control, in accordance with the configuration management plan.
3. Between the upcoming DOE reviews and CD-2, the baseline is expected to be updated to capture the results of the PDR and the November DOE reviews.  An ECP should be executed to go from the PDR baseline to the CD-2 baseline. The PDR documentation plus this ECP equals the CD-2 baseline, which DOE will approve.

3.  FY-04 Work Planning and Authorization (Ron)

• Master schedule will be used as a placeholder for WBS 4 WAF until Raki returns from vacation.
• WBS 15 (coil structures) needs input from Phil, now returned to the lab.

ACTION:

• Ron schedule October job status meetings for Thurs., Nov. 6. Work around QPS IPT meeting at 10 am.
  

• Draft agenda was issued for comment. Comments so far: Assembly & Metrology Overview talk will be presented by Mike Cole.  Vacuum vessel and modular coil talks will need to be shortened. Talks should be sure to adequately cover basis of estimate and contingency for all systems.
• WBS managers can expect to be contacted by Lehman review committee members. Copies of all correspondence should be sent to Reiersen, Nelson, Strykowsky, and Neilson.
• Document preparation responsibilities were updated. Issues are Start-up Test Plan (Gentile, Simmons) and drawings (Brown).   ACTION: Wayne follow up.
  

Nov. 6,  October job status meetings.
Nov. 7,  All-hands kickoff meeting. (1:30 ok?)
Nov.  10-14,  Dry runs (afternoons.  mornings if needed)
Nov.  14, COB. Final presentations to Pamela for copying and posting..