1

Case Study

ITER-like Wall Project Risk Mitigation

Malcolm Kear

2

• Risk Categorisation Matrix• Risk Register - Project Management• Risk Register - Technical Performance• Risk Register - Cost• Risk Register - Schedule• Risk Register - JET Programme

Contents of Presentation

Case Study

ITER-like Wall Project Risk Mitigation

3

ITER-like Wall Project Risk Categorisation Matrix

IMPACT

VL L M H

VL Negligible(N)

Tolerable(T)

Tolerable(T)

Undesirable(U)

L Negligible(N)

Tolerable(T)

Undesirable(U)

Intolerable(I)

M Tolerable(T)

Undesirable(U)

Undesirable(U)

Intolerable(I)

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

H Tolerable(T)

Undesirable(U)

Intolerable(I)

Intolerable(I)

Key:

VL - Very Low; L - Low; M - Medium; H - High

4

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - Project Management

Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Risk Management Action Risk Owner/ Target

Description P S £ RO for action Date

1.1 Pressure to cutJOC costs leads todecisions withoutadequate planning

(7/3/06)

Impact ontechnicaloutcome, costand/or schedule

H L H H I Ensure that decisions are takenonly on the basis of welldeveloped plans.

PSp, PL March 2006

1.2 Article 7 budgetexceeded so ILWproject de-scoped.

(7/3/06)

Poor decisionsbased on toonarrow a viewwithout regardto other EP2projects

H L L U Establish an EP2 programmeboard to make decisions basedon overall priorities.

CSU July2006

Key to Impact:

P - Performance; S - Schedule; £ - Cost

5

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - Technical Performance

Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Rating Management Action Risk Owner/ Target

Description P S £ RO for action Date

In-situ tests of coated shinethroughtiles in the next campaign

PL / PSc Nov.2005

2.1 Coating lifetimeis too short for NBIshinethrough

Carboncontamination ofBe wall / Wdivertor

M H VL VL I

Ensure that coated tiles are at least1.5cm back from the Be limiters.

Apart from lost alpha mushrooms(5mm) and scintillator probe cap(5mm) this has been achieved.

ETL May2006

2.2 Not enoughspares toaccommodate mods.

Delay whilespares aremanufactured

M L M L T Spares strategy for each component tobe approved by PMM.

Develop complete validation strategy

PL/ETL Feb. 06

2.3 W-coatingprocess appears OKbut tiles fail in JET

Serious impacton JETprogramme

M H H M I Set up a task for 100% heat fluxtesting of divertor tiles using JUDITH2

PL/CSU May.06

2.4 Reject rate ofcoated tiles is highdue to processproblems

Not enoughspare CFC tilesfor coating

M L H M I Include coating removal as arequirement in the article 7 contractand include R&D on coating removalin a new Association Task

PL May 06

6

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - Cost

Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Rating Management Action Risk Owner/ Target

Description P S £ RO for action Date

Identify a sources of contingencyfunding.

J Pamela Aug 06

Adopt a value engineering approach tothe design

PL / ETL Feb 06

3.1 Cost of Bemachining isunderestimated

(Jul05)

Inability to placecontracts

M M H H I

Analyse/prioritise possibilities to de-scope the project

PSc/PL (PB) Feb 06

Develop contingency policy across allEP2 projects including priorities.

EFDA/JOC 2005

Develop menu of options for de-scopingproject

PL / PSc(PB)

Feb 06

3.2 No contingencyscheme – at thisOGC (office ofgovernmentcommerce) gatewaywe would expect30%. (Jul05)

Project exceedsarticle 7 and / orJOC budget.

H H M H I

Employ value engineering in the designprocess

PL/ ETL / IM Nov 05

If this problem occurs a more restrictedobjectives will have to be agreed for theITER-like Wall Physics Programme.

PB/CSU 20083.3 Cost of Tungstenrises to a high level /

Overall cost of bulkW modules too high(Oct05)

Bulk W divertortoo expensive tomanufacture orW not available

M M N H U

Require same tile profile as existing toallow single module to be installed orensure that new CFC profile can bemade compatible.

PL Sep. 05

7

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - Schedule (1)

Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Rating Management Action Risk Owner/ Target

Description P S £ RO for action Date

Ensure RH refurbishment /enhancement activities are treated ashighest priority

M Cox

Ensure that the RH equipment can meetall of the requirements includinghandling capacity and speed ofinstallation

IM / RH

4.1 RH up-gradecannot be completedin time

(Jul05)

Shutdown isdelayed

M L H M I

Optimise whole installation strategy IM

2008

4.2 Bulk W tileprocurement isslower than required(Jul05)

Bulk W LBSRPcannot beinstalled in 2008

M M M L U Ensure W-coated CFC LBSRP is readytogether with the rest of the divertor orinstall bulk W LBSRP during nextavailable shutdown

PL 2008

4.3 Delays tosystems required bythe ITER-like WallProject but outside it.

Increasedshutdown timeor delay inRestart of JET

M N M L U Ensure ILW and other shutdown andinstallation management activities areintegrated at the top level.

PS 2006-8

4.4Staff having towrite installationprocedures andperform installationre not ready (busywith operation)

Bottleneckpreventinginstallation ofthe wall even ifready.

M M H H I Put in place a plan for the preparation ofinstallation (work procedures,documentation acceptance…)

PL/JOC 2006

8

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - Schedule (2)

4.5 ICRH antennashutdown notcompleted by Jan. 07

Work on Oct. 1boom upgradestarts late thusdelaying start ofILW shutdown.

M L M L U Notify ILW Project Board and JETmanagement of this risk so that it canfactored into planning decisionsregarding the ICRH shutdown.

PL 13th

Oct.2005

4.6 Safety case notready on time

Impact on Bedelivery on site,possibledifficulties withthe supplier.

L N M L U Since this depends on regulatory bodies,the time scale is very often uncertain.Little control/pressure can be applied iscase of difficulty.

Start the procedure fairly in advance.

PL 2006

4.7 Shutdown takeslonger than objective

Start of ILWexperimentalprogrammedelayed.

M M M L U Current conservative estimates indicatea longer shutdown than the 46 weekobjective so seek ways to optimise it byincreased use of manual work etc.

Note that since the boom extension isnew a precise estimate of efficiency isdifficult to obtain in advance of the job.

InstallationTeam Leader

2006

4.8 Be Tilemachining too slow

Delay toshutdown

M M H L U Allow multiple parallel contracts andoptimise design for manufacture speed.

PL/ETL Aug.2006

9

ITER-like Wall Project OrganisationRisk Register - JET Programme

Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Rating Management Action Risk Owner / Target

Description P S £ RO for action Date

5.1 W source is toohigh for plasma dueto sputtering of NBIprotection at lowdensity (Jul05)

AT scenarioscannot be run.

M L VL VL U Raise NBI minimum density permittedby operation instruction

TFs /Operator

2009