1. ILC Status Report Mike Harrison AWLC14 1 AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

2. 2 AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison When we left Tokyo after LCWS13 we had a preferred site and thus the next step was the site specific design where we map the (site independent) TDR baseline onto this preferred site. A Japan-hosted scenario also determines the appropriate ES&H regulations. It became apparent that we required a several year pre-construction phase of conventional facilities activity that would to a large extent define the Accelerator Design and Integration effort in the short-to-medium term. In addition, energy staging below 500 GeV became a serious possibility. We had a AD&I – CFS joint meeting in April to pull together the post LCWS13 activities Design Update

3. Can we agree on the optimal energy phasing implementation scheme Can we agree on the preferred IP concept Are the tunnel X-section & penetrations OK How do the lab/campus facilities interact with the project – equipment testing, engineering support, equipment staging and storage, offices, power & water infrastructure, etc… Any significant site-specific impact to the TDR design Cost vulnerability – can we identify any potential significant cost risk hidden in the post-TDR environment ? Can we back-end load the pre-project CFS activities to reduce funding needs pre-2016 without impacting the schedule ? Can we determine the ADI requirements for the next 2-to-3 years which at a minimum provides the necessary information for the CFS work? 12 months ? 3 CFS-AD&I Tokyo Meeting: Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

4. Can we agree on the optimal energy phasing implementation scheme Can we agree on the preferred IP concept Are the tunnel X-section & penetrations OK How do the lab/campus facilities interact with the project – equipment testing, engineering support, equipment staging and storage, offices, power & water infrastructure, etc… Any significant site-specific impact to the TDR design Cost vulnerability – can we identify any potential significant cost risk hidden in the post-TDR environment ? Can we back-end load the pre-project CFS activities to reduce funding needs pre-2016 without impacting the schedule ? Can we determine the ADI requirements for the next 2-to-3 years which at a minimum provides the necessary information for the CFS work? 12 months ? 4 CFS-AD&I Tokyo Meeting: Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

5. Can we agree on the optimal energy phasing implementation scheme Can we agree on the preferred IP concept Are the tunnel X-section & penetrations OK How do the lab/campus facilities interact with the project – equipment testing, engineering support, equipment staging and storage, offices, power & water infrastructure, etc… Any significant site-specific impact to the TDR design Cost vulnerability – can we identify any potential significant cost risk hidden in the post-TDR environment ? Can we back-end load the pre-project CFS activities to reduce funding needs pre-2016 without impacting the schedule ? Can we determine the ADI requirements for the next 2-to-3 years which at a minimum provides the necessary information for the CFS work? 12 months ? 5 CFS-AD&I Tokyo Meeting: Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

6. Can we agree on the optimal energy phasing implementation scheme Can we agree on the preferred IP concept Are the tunnel X-section & penetrations OK How do the lab/campus facilities interact with the project – equipment testing, engineering support, equipment staging and storage, offices, power & water infrastructure, etc… Any significant site-specific impact to the TDR design Cost vulnerability – can we identify any potential significant cost risk hidden in the post-TDR environment ? Can we back-end load the pre-project CFS activities to reduce funding needs pre-2016 without impacting the schedule ? Can we determine the ADI requirements for the next 2-to-3 years which at a minimum provides the necessary information for the CFS work? 12 months ? 6 CFS-AD&I Tokyo Meeting: Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

7. Can we agree on the optimal energy phasing implementation scheme ? 7 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

8. Can we agree on the preferred IP concept ? Here the situation gets a little more interesting. Anything beyond the baseline involves a vertical shaft of some kind. There seems to be a concensus for scenario A as the preferred option. We need a better cost estimate but superficially the cost is similar to the baseline. Hybrid A has a shorter schedule (12 months) How would both detectors use this layout ? We will select Hybrid A as the concept to move forward with, as well as the baseline. 8 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

9. Are the tunnel X-section & penetrations OK ? Wall thickness looks too big – we need to determine what constitutes a maximum credible accident. An 18 MW fault condition is quite conservative. – Safety review Cryogenics system also needs a (safety) review – start at CERN Tunnel stable from installation and infrastructure perspective 9 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

10. How do the lab/campus facilities interact with the project – equipment testing, engineering support, equipment staging and storage, offices, power & water infrastructure, etc… Other than some generic estimates we have little precise information here. We need to decide on the perceived role of the ILC laboratory and start with some form of functional analysis. Principally, but not completely, a domestic issue 10 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

11. Any significant site-specific impact to the TDR design Nothing apparent to date that affects the basic concept. We need to set the IP location and of course much detailed design work remains to be done. Cost vulnerability – can we identify any potential significant cost risk hidden in the post-TDR environment ? No. The Interaction Region is still more fluid than we would like, but the potentially largest issue appears to be the ILC laboratory 11 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

12. Can we determine the ADI requirements for the next 2-to-3 years which at a minimum provides the necessary information for the CFS work? 12 months ? I think we need to digest the CFS input first but my impression is that the essential framework is all there to reverse engineer the AD&I requirements. 12 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

13. Can we back-end load the pre-project CFS activities to reduce funding needs pre-2016 without impacting the schedule ? It appears to me that our ability to make significant changes to the 5-year plan schedule is limited. We can identify however the minimal number of long lead time items from the initial basic planning phase. 13 Goals & Questions AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison

14. ? 14 SRF Technology – see Hitoshi Hayano later today AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison Global Cryomodule development timeline 2014201520162017201820192020 Construction start Production line/Test infra. Preparation and construction Production/Test infra. planning JP EU US LCLS-II Construction XFEL Construction STF-2 Construction/beam operation COI Construction COI Operation ILC -Japan

15. From Olivier Napoly 15 SRF Technology - XFEL Cryomodule Production AWLC14 Fermilab May 2014 Mike Harrison 6 modules delivered & 3 tested 7 modules in the production line Rate up to 1/two weeks XM-3 test results

16. LCC-ILC Director: M. Harrison, Deputies: N. Walker and H. Hayano *KEK LC Project Office Head: A. Yamamoto Sub-Group Global Leader Deputy/Contact p. KEK-Leader* Deputy Sub-Group Global Leader Deputy/Contact P. KEK-Leader* Deputy Acc. Design Integr. N. Walker (DESY) K. Yokoya(KEK) K. Yokoya SRF H. Hayano (KEK) C. Ginsburg (Fermi), E. Montesinos (CERN) H. Hayano Y. Yamamoto Sources (e-, e+) W. Gai (ANL) M. Kuriki (Hiroshima U.) J. Urakawa T. Omori RF Power & Cntl S. Michizono (KEK) TBD (AMs, EU) Michizono T. Matsumoto Damping Ring D. Rubin (Cornell) N. Terunuma(KEK) N. Terunuma Cryogenics (incl. HP gas issues) H. Nakai: KEK T. Peterson (Fermi), D. Delikaris (CERN) H. Nakai Cryog. Center RTML S. Kuroda (KEK) A. Latina (CERN) S. Kuroda CFS A. Enomoto (KEK) V. Kuchler (Fermi), J. Osborne (CERN), A. Enomoto M. Miyahara Main Linac ( incl. B. Compr. & B. Dynamics) N. Solyak (Fermi) K. Kubo (KEK) K. Kubo Radiation Safety T. Sanami (KEK) TBD (AMs, EU) T. Sanami T. Sanuki BDS G. White (SLAC), R. Tomas (Cern) T. Okugi(KEK) T. Okugi Electrical Support (Power Supply etc.) TBD MDI K. Buesser (DESY) T. Tauchi (KEK) T. Tauchi Mechanical S. (Vac. & others) TBD Domestic Program, Hub Lab. Facilities TBDH. Hayano T. Saeki LCC-ILC Accelerator Organization