MIE project priorities for the next few weeks:

1. Awarding the VVSA & MCWF procurements by Aug. 30.  SIT lead: Phil and Brad
2. Addressing cost and schedule risks in the MC winding activities.  SIT lead: Wayne
3. Lehman review and CD-3. SIT lead: Hutch and Ron
   

• Dave Johnson’s memo of May 14 (e-mail to Neilson et al.) proposes extending the large vertical ports (Port 12) outward by  ~10cm and re-orienting Port 10 to view the midplane.
• A preliminary design study reported by Tom Brown (May 24 e-mail to Mike Cole et al.) indicated that some elongation of Port 12 might be possible without loss of modular coil structure bolts.
• Program Benefits:  As documented in Johnson’s May 14 memo: Better diagnostic viewing of the outer edge of a number of plasma configurations in the flexibility space. Improved performance for charge-exchange recombination spectroscopy (CHERS) diagnostics.
• Costs and Risks:  As discussed by the SIT.
  
  • Jeopardizes VVSA & MCWF procurement schedule and costs, in contradiction to Priority #1.  If we try to make a change now, it will delay release of the final design data to the suppliers (scheduled for June 1).  If we change it later,  the suppliers would need extra time to react to the change in their proposals and the costs would go up.  The magnitude of these schedule delays is uncertain, but recent port changes are known to have taken weeks to months.
  • Design costs.  It would increase the costs in the VVSA and MCWF design jobs, which are already in an overspend condition, in part due to the extensive port re-design efforts during final design.  How much of an increase is uncertain, but structural performance and clearances could be affected and recent experience indicates that issues arising in these areas could be costly to resolve.
  • Design schedules.  The proposed modification would tie up WBS 1 design and analysis personnel who are needed for other design tasks, such as vacuum vessel attachments and field period assembly tooling. It would delay those tasks, risking the overall project schedule. It is not possible to avoid these impacts by adding extra personnel, since the budgets do not support it. Again, a further problem is that it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the delay.
    
• In view of the risks and the project’s current priorities, the project manager decided that the proposed changes will not be made and directed that there should be no further expenditure of project resources on it.
  

• Wayne raised the concern that the 1.5-inch clearance requirement between ports and modular coil components is violated by significant amounts on several ports.  It was argued that this is excessively risky, given concerns about port deflections and achievability of tolerances.  Wayne proposed that the port diameters should be reduced to gain adequate clearance.
• It was later reported by Brad that this solution could reduce 4-in. diameter ports to 2-in. to avoid odd-diameter ports and the associated cost of non-standard conflat flanges.
• Brad received guidance to allow 3-in. diameter ports, since the cost is outweighed by the program benefits of having a reasonable-size port. The issue of which ports are affected and by how much is still under study.
  

• Wayne proposed a course of action that was endorsed by the SIT:
  
  • Allow soldered connections that would permit segmenting the chill plates as needed for fabrication feasibility.
  • Substitute spot welds or grommets for the rivets. Eliminates the risk of tiny parts that can go astray.
  • Eliminate turn-by-turn measurements and concentrate on positioning the coil center.  Adopt relaxed absolute tolerances and tighter repeatibility tolerances.  Action: Mike discuss with Art Brooks: what can be considered?
  • Focus development efforts entirely on the baseline design.
  • Take credit for overtime and parallel winding or chill plate fabrication stations to recover schedule.
    
• In later discussions with Jim Chrzanowski, there was general agreement on this course of action and possibility of schedule recovery. However, significant cost growth is still projected.  Action: Wayne continue to work with Jim Chrzanowski to identify options for cost reductions.
  

• We need to develop our responses to the FDR recommendations and take immediate action on those that are deemed urgent to meet the procurement schedule. Actions:  Phil to be responsible for the disposition plan through the Lehman review.  Wayne to be sure that FDR chits are reflected on the tracking log.
• We need a meeting on materials issues to decide how to respond to materials-related FDR recommendations. Action: Phil. (Arranged for 5/25 at 2:00)
• We need a meeting with procurement to decide how to respond to procurement strategy-related FDR recommendations.  Action: Phil. (Arranged for 5/26 at 10:00)
• We need to expedite checking and release of the final design data for the RFP.  Responsibility: Brad.
  

• CD-3 documentation has been compiled by John and will be released this week. Action: Hutch
• A standard cost and schedule reporting format is being developed for use by all speakers. Action: Ron.
• Planning meetings with each speaker are in progress. Dry runs are planned for the week of June 1.