From: Hutch Neilson [hneilson@pppl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:22 AM
To: Bradley E. Nelson; Hutch Neilson; Jim Lyon; Lawrence E. Dudek; Mike Williams; Michael C. Zarnstorff; Phil Heitzenroeder; Wayne T. Reiersen; Ronald L. Strykowsky
Subject: Summary of NCSX SIT Meeting of 3/13/06
Summary of NCSX System Integration Team (SIT) Meeting of Monday, March 13, 2006

1.   Management items

• February Cost Performance Report summary. (Ron)
  
  • Cost variances continue to increase, but schedule variances are stable.
  • VVSA, TF, and Mod Coil final design dominate the schedule variances.
  • Mod coil winding & testing, project management & integration, VV, TF, and power systems are cost variance drivers.
  • VV design is running up cost and schedule variances because deliverables are not being completed.  FDR of heating/cooling tubes and hold-down clamps is planned to occur in the next few weeks. This is a key step in bringing the work to closure. More below.
    
• Lehman Review preparation
  
  • May Lehman review will be used by DOE to assess whether project can be completed within the approved baseline.
  • ETC update will be done in preparation for the Lehman review.  Incorporate last 6 months of experience and planning into estimates. Identify offsetting work reductions in future work. Scrutinize plans for new work. Update risk assessment and mitigation plans.
  • ETC call was issued by Ron last Friday. Input due 3/24.  Management reviews will follow.
    

2.    Risks

• Completing VV design deliverables (Brad)
  
  • FDR of heating/cooling tubes and clamps planned for this week.
  • The heating/cooling tube hold-down clamps will be prototyped to be sure they can be economically installed while matching the contours of the vacuum vessel. Design changes could result, depending upon the outcome. It was agreed that this should be done, due to the large number of clamps and the cost and schedule risks if manufacturability is a problem. Brad send drawings to Larry. Larry will lead the prototyping.
  • VV drawings need to be issued: flexible tube specification drawings, saddles and clips, routing of the tubes(?), Port 12 heater tape arrangement (one or two?)
  • An integrated test of the port temperature control, boot design, and pourable insulation has been proposed as part of closing out the vacuum vessel design.  This is currently unbudgeted. The cost and schedule need to be estimated so they can be weighed against the benefits. What are the risks if we don’t do it?  Brad  to include this proposal in ETC update so we can decide one way or the other.
    
• Modular coil inter-coil shear handling (Brad)
  
  • Recent global analyses by Brooks and Fan have highlighted an issue: normal force on the modular coil joints is insufficient to provide enough friction to react the shear forces.  Independent checks are in progress and there is some possibility it will prove to be a non-issue, but Brad states that we should assume it is an issue.  Wayne has added it to the critical issues list.
  • One possible solution is to incorporate a key feature into the design of the intercoil shims.  Epoxy fillers could be used to avoid the need for precision machining. Other possibilities were described.
  • The current plan is to address this issue as part of the coil interface hardware design task (Job 1421) scheduled to start later this FY, after MC final design is completed.  Brad and Ron: Check schedule to confirm.
    
• Modular coil fabrication (Larry)
  
  • Type A cladding drawings have not been delivered. Risk that we will not have needed parts in time, or may have to use costly in-house fabrication. Brad
    
• VVSA Schedule & Dimensional Conformance
  
  • In-process VVSA dimensional data provided by supplier has raised concerns that the finished VVSA #1 will not conform to spec.  Data are preliminary and incomplete so it is difficult to know how (or whether) to react to it.
  • More measurements will delay schedule but may be necessary.
  • Follow-up meetings are planned.  Brad and Phil
    
• Title III design on VVSA and MCWF.
  
  • Sense is that costs have greatly exceeded expectations, although Title III costs are not captured separately.
  • One step is to be sure we minimize the number of attendees at meetings called to respond to supplier issues.
  • It was also suggested that the project should take a firmer stand in responding to supplier requests for deviations or acceptance of non-conformances.  Hutch follow up with Phil
    
• MC fabrication cost control.  (Mike W., Larry)
  
  • Data are reviewed in separate weekly meetings. Evidence of learning curve improvements are seen, but more time is needed to establish firm trends.
    

4.  Next SIT Meeting: March 27 at 11:00.

Summary by:
Hutch Neilson