Collaboration Business Martin Cooper, Los Alamos Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project for presentation to The EDM Collaboration Los Alamos, NM January 22, 2006

Outline a) Election of new collaborating institutions b) Excerpts from the critical decision(CD)-0 document c) Project organization d) DOE order 413.3 R&D funding for FY’06 Work breakdown structure Undertaking work package responsibilities The next collaboration meeting

EDM Executive Committee Doug Beck – University of Illinois Brad Filippone – Caltech Bob Golub – North Carolina State University Haiyan Gao – Duke University

Excerpts from the CD-0 Document The CD-0 document has not been released Excerpts come from a document provided by Jehanne Simon-Gillo, DOE Office of Nuclear Physics

Election of New Collaborators Petitioners approved by the EDM Executive Committee University of Tennessee Arizona State University Recruits MIT Boston University Argonne National Laboratory

CD Schedule Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date): Funding Profile CD-0 Approve Mission Need Q1 2006 CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range Q4 2006 CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline Range Q4 2007 CD-3 Approve Start of Construction Q1 2008 CD-4 Approve Start of Operations Q4 2013

Funding Profile These are actual year dollars. This is the upper part of the DOE TPC range with no slop allowed. TPC range includes CDR, R&D, design (PED), fabrication, preops (commissioning). Dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars. Schedules imply that you can baseline the project in two years after $1.3M of design and R&D efforts. Starting in FY08, EDM would complete final design and start fabrication. You may decide that the schedule is too aggressive and that CD2 would happen in FY08 instead.

Funding Profile

Funding Profile Fiscal Year Coolaboration Funding Profile DOE Funding FY07 2,400 1,300 FY08 6,800 3,500 5,500 FY09 5,000 4,450 6,850 FY10 2,200 4,650 FY11 800 3,000 FY12 1,050 Estimated total project costs: 17,200 18,300

Allowable Project Costs NP general guidance on how to cost labor to a project in the context of existing research core bases at universities and laboratories: - University scientific labor should be identified, but wages zeroed out, unless the scientist is acting as a project manager. University engineers, designers and technicians contributing to the fabrication of the project should be costed. Graduate students hired specifically to perform technician activities on the project should be costed at the appropriate hourly rate. - Laboratory scientific labor (research physicist or accelerator physicist) should also be identified and zeroed out unless the individual is performing well-defined engineer, design or technical tasks that are typically only assigned to engineers, technicians and designers, or project management. If a scientist is performing a task that is best performed by a scientist instead of an engineer, technician or designer, then they are generally not part of the project costs.

Next Steps Identify CPM and FPD by the end of the month. Provide feedback on CD schedule, cost profile (but be prepared to live with as is) – January-ish Define what funds you need for CDR – if you want funds in January, DOE needs your input by December 12th, otherwise you are looking at February. Submit updated R&D request- increments of $50K up to $300K DOE dollars and additional for NSF. Present big picture. Identify which ones could be covered with NSF funding – end of December would be good. Get your WBS in order- before CD-1 review

Next Steps Start on drafts of management plan, CDR and acquisition strategy that will all be needed for CD1 review- we need to start iterating on management plan about 6 weeks prior to review and the acquisition strategy 8-10 weeks prior to review. Do ping David Arakawa (FNPB FPD) for advice on what to generate for CD1.

Contract Project Manager (CPM) The individual responsible to the funding agencies to document the scientific quality, the fiscal responsibility, and the adherence to schedule of the project The individual responsible to track the project and to urge the collaborating institutions to meet their commitments The individual responsible to prepare the collaboration for the CD reviews MDC has petitioned the EDM executive committee for a recommendation to the collaboration to become the CPM

Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar Acquisition Executive Jehanne Simon-Gillo Program Manager Los Alamos Site Office Eugene Colton Federal Project Director NSF Nuclear Physics Brad Keister Program Director DOE/NSF LANL/EDM LANL Physics Division Jack Shlachter Division Leader LANL EDM Martin Cooper Contract Project Manager EDM Spokespersons Martin Cooper, LANL Steve Lamoreaux, LANL Institutional Principal Investigators EDM Executive Committee Spokespersons Four PIs EDM Interface to the NSF NSF Funded PIs Integrated Project Team Subsystem Managers Work Package Leaders

Interactions with the NSF CPM is the principal contact by DOE mandate With a CPM from a DOE funded national laboratory, the CPM can make no impact on the NSF without the direct involvement of the NSF funded PIs We must work out a cooperative arrangement between the project and the NSF

Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar Acquisition Executive Jehanne Simon-Gillo Program Manager Los Alamos Site Office Eugene Colton Federal Project Director NSF Nuclear Physics Brad Keister Program Director DOE/NSF LANL/EDM LANL Physics Division Jack Shlachter Division Leader LANL EDM Martin Cooper Contract Project Manager EDM Spokespersons Martin Cooper, LANL Steve Lamoreaux, LANL Integrated Project Team Subsystem Managers Work Package Leaders EDM Safety Officer

Integrated Project Team DOE Federal Project Director (Chair) Eugene Colton DOE Site Contracting Officer TBD DOE Program Manager for EDM Jehanne Simon-Gillo DOE Science Program Manager Gene Henry NSF Program Manager Brad Keister LANL Contract Project Manager Martin Cooper LANL Deputy Contract Project Manager John Tapia LANL Procurement Operations Manager LANL Chief Engineer Jan Boissevain LANL ESSH Lead ORNL Operations Manager C-AD Assistant Chair for Administration

DOE Order 413.3 A roughly 50 page document that sets the rules for DOE procurement of capital equipment For projects between $5-20M, 413.3 defines how the project must be executed

CD Schedule Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date): Funding Profile CD-0 Approve Mission Need Q1 2006 CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range Q4 2006 CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline Range Q4 2007 CD-3 Approve Start of Construction Q1 2008 CD-4 Approve Start of Operations Q4 2013

Work for CD-1 by June/August 2006 Strengthen the collaboration Fill out the organizational chart MOUs with Subsystem Managers’ Organizations in draft form Complete conceptual engineering Values Engineering Assessment Complete most of the R&D Conceptual Design Report (CDR) Risk Analysis Alternatives Analysis WBS (Resource Loaded) and WBS Dictionary Hazard and Safety Analysis Preliminary Project Execution Plan Acquisition Strategy

CD-1 Priorities Funding Profile Federal Project Director Gantt Chart for CD-1

Work for CD-2 by August 2007 Complete preliminary engineering? Complete all of the R&D Get NSF funding in place Technical Design Report (TDR) Risk Analysis WBS and WBS Dictionary Project Execution Plan Acquisition Strategy

Project Safety DOE Order 413.3 will be revised to expressly require the highest safety standards EDM will be done at a national laboratory - ORNL Two stories

Teleconferences with DOE One hour at 11 AM MST on the third Thursday of every month On occasion, MDC may call on collaboration members to participate Regular participants: DOE Jehanne Simon-Gillo Wlodek Guryn Gene Henry Eugene Colton? EDM Martin Cooper John Tapia Bill Louis – LANL NP Program Manager

Coffee Break Enjoy!

R&D Priorities Highest Priority 3He relaxation time from T = 0.5-4.0 K at the proper concentration, including a SQUID NMR signal Neutron storage time at ~4 K in a cell coated with deuterated polystyrene Light collection design with the expectation of ~40 photoelectrons Reliable valves Understanding the geometric phase systematic error 4He dielectric strength at low pressures or for a presurized superfluid Moderate priority Surface HV breakdown of acrylic and the Kerr effect 3He evaporator 3He injector volume test Beamline and measurement cell neutronics Monte Carlo Quite Useful Magnet development Atomic magnetometers Laser induced flourescence

The Request - $300k The following is a prioritized list for a funding request to your office for the EDM project FY'06: $87k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development $87k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally $25k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies $50k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies $25k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development $25k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect. We are postponing neutron guide and fluorescence studies as a cost savings for this year.

The Request - $300k The bigger funding picture for EDM funding includes: $100-200k to the universities for R&D, primarily for Caltech and Illinois, from the NSF. An NSF grant could reduce the DOE load above but would come much later in the FY. $115k for Paul Huffman and Bob Golub at NCSU as a capital equipment request to Gene Henry. There is complete overlap with the request above and this request to Gene. The LANL commitment to NCSU may inhibit LANL finishing its R&D program. $50-75k for CDR/project management from Don Rej, head of LANL's Office of Science $200k for 3He diffusion studies and equipment from LANL LDRD $300k for technicians and engineers from LANL LDRD for R&D (The balance of LDRD funding pays physicists' salaries.) The Duke and NCSU people wanted me to ask if any granted funds to them could go directly to TUNL instead of going through LANL.

The Grant - $150k less $5k $00.0k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development $60.0k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally $17.0k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies $34.0k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies $17.0k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development $17.0k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect.

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Needs to be reviewed to see that it makes sense Needs to be brought into conformance with DOE standards Some complaints from Simon-Gillo Some complaints from the LANL review committee

WBS Subsystem Managers Neutron Beam Line and Shielding Cryogenics, 3He Systems, Atomic Beam Source and Interface Magnets and Magnetic Shielding High Voltage, Measuring Cells, Light System, SQUIDs Electronics, Computers, Simulations, Data Analysis Conventional Construction Integration and Commissioning

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Neutron Beam Line and Shielding Beam Splitter 467 1476 Splitter Magnets 459 242 Spin Precession Magnets 317 132 Beam Line Shielding 44 15 Experimental Hall Shielding 106 105

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Cryogenics, 3He Systems, Atomic Beam Source and Interface Upper Cryostat and Radiation Shield 973 994 4He Purifier 450 261 Polarized 3He Storage Region 345 150 Lower Cryostat and Radiation Shield 745 1041 He Tubes & Holding Coils 281 102 He Refrigerator 524 1240 2nd Dilution Refrigerators 820 803 Cryogenic Support Equipment 290 374 Polarized 3He Transport 379 33

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Magnets and Magnetic Shielding 5 Layer Conventional Shield 502 1001 Superconducting Shield 1016 143 Ferromagnetic Shield 589 79 Magnetic Penetrations 884 49 Constant Field Coil 1022 173 Gradient Coil Pi/2 Coil 868 30 Dressed Spin Coil 202 3He Polarization Holding Coil 379 Field Monitors 913 121

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader High Voltage, Measuring Cells, Light System, SQUIDs Gain Capacitor 462 73 Electrodes and Corona Dome 402 41 Connecting HV Line 280 20 Kerr Rotation HV Monitor 225 43 Measurement Cells 184 153 Valves 768 812 SQUID System 913 77 Light Guides 248 88 Cryogenic Feed Through 259 39 Photomultiplier Tubes 60 22

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Electronics, Computers, Simulations, Data Analysis Electronics & Cables 126 291 Computers 224 87 Data Acquisition Data Analysis Neutron Transport Simulation Neutron Induced Background Simulation Signal Simulation

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Conventional Construction Platforms 180 160 Electrical Plant 305 299 Plumbing 297 340 Mechanical Supports 583 457 Counting House 42 20

WBS Work Package Leaders Subsystem Work Package Days Cost ($k) Leader Integration and Commissioning Mechanical Assembly of Parts 315 338 Vacuum Checking 42 24 Trial Cool Down and Operation 158 169 Commissioning 118 85

Undertaking Resonsibilities At the next collaboration meeting, as many names as possible need to filled into the list of subsystem managers and work package leaders as possible The blanks will tell us tell us where we need to recruit new institutions Homework: Between now and the next collaboration meeting, think through what your institution can commit to doing Be prepared to state what responsibility you will undertake Negotiate affiliations to team on larger projects Do not over commit

The Next Collaboration Meeting Week of March 6-10, 2006 At NCSU