1. Page 1 Building Large Scale Facilities Lessons Learned from SNS and ITER In-kind Contributions: A Curse or a Blessing? Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

2. Page 2 born Nov. 23, 1961 Studied Physics in Berlin, Darmstadt und Stanford ('82-'88,'89-'91,'91); PhD at TU Darmstadt 1990 DESY '92-'98 –Linear Collider, S-Band Accelerator Development FERMI National Accelerator Lab, '98-'00 –Muon Collider / Neutrino Factory Oak Ridge National Lab, Jan '01- Aug ’06 –Spallation Neutron Source ITER, PDDG, April 2006 – Sept, 2010. –500 MW Tokamak Associate Lab Director for Accelerators, SLAC, November 15, 2010 ….. ? Married, two children (19, 22) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

3. Page 3 Projects based on “In-Kind” Contributions Classical projects are build under single organizations with sole authority for Scope, Schedule and Cost. Given the scale and the cost of large science projects, in the last 20 years, more and more projects are executed with distributed teams. Some internationally. Instead of providing cash to a central team, having the sole responsibility for design, integration, procurement, installation and operation, various of these elements are given “In-Kind”. Examples are: –Many High Energy Physics Detectors –HERA Model (80% versus 20%) –Upgrades/Diagnostics JET –Spallation Neutron Source –LHC Detectors –Atacama Large mm Array Projects under way or planned: –ITER –XFEL –ESS –FAIR ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

4. Page 4 The Three Phases of a Project 1.The Concept: Develop the idea. Do the initial layout. Convince the politicians. Leave out the details…. 2.The Implementation: Set up the organization, finish the design, get the money (-> Baseline) 3.Implement the baseline, improve the design details, manage the contracts, manage installation and initial operation OPERATION New team ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

5. Page 5 Scope – Schedule – Cost! In that order… Scope What do you want to built? Schedule How long will it take to built it? Cost How much does it cost do both? ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

6. Page 6 My Background: DESY 1989 -1998 The HERA model: >80% of the budget is single country and single lab. There were many (20% / 15 countries) small contributions. No single one could diminish ultimate performance if failing. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

7. Page 7 Linear Collider R&D Program at DESY S-Band Technology (normal conducting) was developed and built into full scale test facility.-> industrialized today! ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

8. Page 8 FERMI Lab and the Neutrino Factory Multi Lab Collaboration where a full scale project report was generated. DOE decided not to pursue for cost and “technical risk” reasons. Continued and initiated collaborations with several foreign institutes. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

9. Page 9 HEP: Even though there is a different approach – there is a history and process that the community is used to. HEP has been slowly growing from small project to large projects “in kind” ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

10. Page 10 International Technology Review Panel …in HEP at least there is process for decision making ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

11. Page 11 2000 The Spallation Neutron Source The SNS is a short- pulse neutron source with a single-purpose mission of neutron science, constructed at ORNL with contributions from 6 DOE laboratories SNS construction was funded through DOE-BES at 1.4 B$ At the beginning of construction SNS had ~30% contingency and 465 days of explicit float in the schedule (on a 7 year construction schedule. 11 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

12. Page 12 The Spallation Neutron Source Partnership ~177 M$ ~60 M$ ~113 M$ ~20 M$ ~63 M$ ~106 M$ SNS-ORNL Accelerator systems:~167 M$ At peak : ~500 People worked on the construction of the SNS accelerator– only ~200 required for Operation ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

13. Page 13 Original SNS CDR for CD-1 May 1997 1.0 MW 1.0 GeV copper CCL linac with no room for increased energy, only current HEBT and Ring magnets sized for 1.0 GeV H- Orginal Design has very little to do with what was built. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

14. Page 14 The Target building a “highly integrated” construction project… 14 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

15. Page 15 Feeders (31) (NbTi) Correction Coils (18) (NbTi) Poloidal Field Coils (6) (NbTi) Toroidal Field Coils (18) (Nb 3 Sn) Central Solenoid (6) (Nb 3 Sn) Divertor (54 cassettes) Blanket (440 modules) Cryostat (29 m high x 28 m dia.) Vacuum Vessel (9 sectors) Thermal Shield (4 sub-assemblies) In-Vessel Coils (2-VS & 27-ELM) ITER (highlights) Fusion gain Q = 10, Fusion Power: ~500MW, Ohmic burn 300 to 500 sec Goal Q=5 for 3000 sec Machine mass: 23350 t (cryostat + VV + magnets) - shielding, divertor and manifolds: 7945 t + 1060 port plugs - magnet systems: 10150 t; cryostat: 820 t 15 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

16. Page 16 ITER Site : Construction- 6M€/day Tokamak Hall Power Supply Permanent Office Buildings Parkings 39 Buildings, 180 hectares 10 years of construction 20 years of operation Present HQ Building To Aix

17. Page 17 The Way to Fusion Power – The ITER (Hi-)story The idea for ITER originated from the Geneva Superpower Summit in 1985 where Gorbachev and Reagan proposed international effort to develop fusion energy… …“as an inexhaustible source of energy for the benefit of mankind”. “ For the benefit of mankind ” November 21, 2006: China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Russian Federation and the United States of America sign the ITER Agreement

18. Page 18 ITER – Key Facts Mega-Science Project among 7 Members: China, EU, India, Japan, Korea, Russia & US Designed to produce 500 MW of fusion power for an extended period of time 10 years construction, 20 years operation Cost: ~5.4 billion Euros approved for construction, and ~5.5 billion for operation and decommissioning EU 5/11, other six parties 1/11 each. Overall reserve of 10% of total. European Union CN IN RF KO JP US

19. Page 19 ATLAS Cavern 19 ASP Forum Day, 21-8-2010 Peter Jenni (CERN) Road Map for Discoveries ATLAS Collaboration (Status August 2010) 38 Countries 174 Institutions 3000 Scientific participants total (1000 Students) Albany, Alberta, NIKHEF Amsterdam, Ankara, LAPP Annecy, Argonne NL, Arizona, UT Arlington, Athens, NTU Athens, Baku, IFAE Barcelona, Belgrade, Bergen, Berkeley LBL and UC, HU Berlin, Bern, Birmingham, UAN Bogota, Bologna, Bonn, Boston, Brandeis, Brasil Cluster, Bratislava/SAS Kosice, Brookhaven NL, Buenos Aires, Bucharest, Cambridge, Carleton, CERN, Chinese Cluster, Chicago, Chile, Clermont-Ferrand, Columbia, NBI Copenhagen, Cosenza, AGH UST Cracow, IFJ PAN Cracow, SMU Dallas, UT Dallas, DESY, Dortmund, TU Dresden, JINR Dubna, Duke, Edinburgh, Frascati, Freiburg, Geneva, Genoa, Giessen, Glasgow, Göttingen, LPSC Grenoble, Technion Haifa, Hampton, Harvard, Heidelberg, Hiroshima IT, Indiana, Innsbruck, Iowa SU, Iowa, UC Irvine, Istanbul Bogazici, KEK, Kobe, Kyoto, Kyoto UE, Lancaster, UN La Plata, Lecce, Lisbon LIP, Liverpool, Ljubljana, QMW London, RHBNC London, UC London, Lund, UA Madrid, Mainz, Manchester, CPPM Marseille, Massachusetts, MIT, Melbourne, Michigan, Michigan SU, Milano, Minsk NAS, Minsk NCPHEP, Montreal, McGill Montreal, RUPHE Morocco, FIAN Moscow, ITEP Moscow, MEPhI Moscow, MSU Moscow, LMU Munich, MPI Munich, Nagasaki IAS, Nagoya, Naples, New Mexico, New York, Nijmegen, Northern Illinois, BINP Novosibirsk, Ohio SU, Okayama, Oklahoma, Oklahoma SU, Olomouc, Oregon, LAL Orsay, Osaka, Oslo, Oxford, Paris VI and VII, Pavia, Pennsylvania, NPI Petersburg, Pisa, Pittsburgh, CAS Prague, CU Prague, TU Prague, IHEP Protvino, Regina, Rome I, Rome II, Rome III, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, DAPNIA Saclay, Santa Cruz UC, Sheffield, Shinshu, Siegen, Simon Fraser Burnaby, SLAC, South Africa, Stockholm, KTH Stockholm, Stony Brook, Sydney, Sussex, AS Taipei, Tbilisi, Tel Aviv, Thessaloniki, Tokyo ICEPP, Tokyo MU, Tokyo Tech, Toronto, TRIUMF, Tsukuba, Tufts, Udine/ICTP, Uppsala, UI Urbana, Valencia, UBC Vancouver, Victoria, Waseda, Washington, Weizmann Rehovot, FH Wiener Neustadt, Wisconsin, Wuppertal, Würzburg, Yale, Yerevan In July 2010 South Africa was unanimously admitted as Collaboration member, with the Institutes of the University of Johannesburg and the University of the Witwatersrand (and open to others in the future) 19 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

20. Page 20 Atacama Large mm Array 20 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

21. Page 21 ITER: - Running before learning to walk Little technical risk if compared to Manhatten project or “man to the moon” Substantial organizational risk: this is the largest science project on earth today, 80% In Kind with a procurement sharing that dramatically increases risk in a community that is not used yet to execution in large collaborations. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

22. Page 22 Procurement Sharing: Example ITER The driver for “In kind” is: 1.“Fair return” 2.Technology transfer/development 3.Exponential Growth of nr of interfaces 4.Of course that’s not cheap…. Where duplication of infrastructure is only one factor. Multiple teams. Multiple decision points. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

23. Page 23 Coping with the large number of interfaces: Much more thorough documentation is needed- many more interface control docs are required

24. Page 24 Concept Design & Engineering Studies Concept Control Documents Concept Design Review Preliminary Design & Engineering Studies Preliminary Control Documents Preliminary Design Review Final Design & Engineering Studies Final Control Documents Final Design Review Manufacturing Drawings Manufacturing Readiness Review PA Issue for Functional Specification PA Issue for Detailed Design PA Issue for Build-to-Print Distributed Procurement The more distribted the procurement, the larger the number of interfaces The more interfaces, the stricter the configuration control necessary Basic Sequence of Design Development and Timing to procurement ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

25. Page 25 Duplication of Infrastructure is one result: TF and CS Jacketing in JA TF & CS Jacketing Lines (Jun. 09) 950 m ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

26. Page 26 TF and PF Jacketing in CN TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

27. Page 27 TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

28. Page 28 Multi cultural – Multi lab – Multi country Programs and Projects are common today-- Deutsch: Turmbau zu Babel Português: Torre de Babel English: Tower of Babel Français : La Tour de Babel Español: Torre de Babel 中文 : 巴別塔 日本語 : バベルの塔 Русский: Вавилонская башня हिंदु : टॉवर का कोलाहल 한국어 : 바벨탑 1)How to create a team that marches into one direction? 2)How to organize the work? 3)How to distribute authority (not only responsibility)? ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

29. Page 29 Neutrino Factory Study SNS – Oak Ridge ALMA ATLAS ITER Organization Linear Collider Universities and Laboratories Six DOE laboratories EU, JA, DOE/NSF Participating Universities/Laboratories Seven Members DA Participating Countries –Planning / Design –Building construction (Integration) –Integration / QA / Safety / Licensing / Schedule –Installation –Testing + Commissioning –Operation –Funding –Allocation of Scope –Detailing / Designing* –Procuring / Manufacturing –Delivering –Supporting installation –Conformance –Funding Integration between the Central- and the off site teams - Basic Roles and Responsibilities - 29 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

30. Page 30 A good team can compensate for many mistakes… To be effective: –Intelligence –Motivation –Good co-workers The greatest asset is always the team –From all over the world –From all kinds of laboratories and industries ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

31. Page 31 Budget Driving the Schedule DOE supported SNS immensely by making sure that we got the budget to execute the plan that was laid out. Each year had about 20% contingency included in the then year plan. One can do a lot with trust between project and the governance ESS Seminar, Nov 2011 Baseline approval Going to SC linac

32. Page 32 The SNS Schedule At the beginning we had 18 month of float on a 7 years construction 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 DTL Tanks 1-3 Front-End DTL Tank 1 DTL/CCL SCL Ring Target The End FY 460 days 60 days 2001 plan 2006 actual 32 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

33. Page 33 For real Performance: “It is the first published schedule that counts, not the last one” …. G.A.Voss 20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 First Plasma ITER Construction TF Coils (EU) Tokamak Assembly Tokamak Basic Machine Assembly Ex Vessel Assembly In Vessel Assembly Start Install CS Start Cryostat Closure Pump Down & Integrated Commissioning Start Machine Assembly 20212022 ITER Operations Assembly Phase 2 Assembly Phase 3 Plasma Operations 2023 Buildings & Site Central Solenoid (US) Case Winding Mockups Complete TF10 TF15 VV Fabrication Contract Award VV 05 VV09 VV07 Vacuum Vessel (EU) CS Final Design Approved CS3L CS3U CS Ready for Machine Assembly Construction Contract Award Tokamak Bldg 11 RFE Integrated Commissioning ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

34. Page 34 Spend $1.41 Billion dollars in 7 years with a peak of ~ 1 M$/day during peak construction. ~ $6.5 M contingency left at the end for scope additions Nov 2001 [$M] May 2006 [$M] Contingen cy 1.01 Research & Development 103.8 99.9 -3.8% 1.10 Operations 115.2 119.1 3.4% Total OPC (Burdened, Escalated Dollars) 219.0 0.0% 1.02 Project Support 72.3 72.1 -0.3% 1.03 Front End Systems 19.3 20.8 7.9% 1.04 Linac Systems 272.4 311.0 14.2% 1.05 Ring & Transfer System 146.2 146.6 0.3% 1.06 Target Systems 95.3 114.9 20.5% 1.07 Instrument Systems 62.3 63.9 2.6% 1.08 Conventional Facilities 310.7 398.5 28.3% 1.09 Integrated Control Systems 58.6 58.5 -0.1% Total1037.01186.314.4% Cost development ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

35. Page 35 Who Controls whom? Example: SNS Cash Flow ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

36. Page 36 ITER: IO and DA Governance and Decision Making AuthorityGovernment GovernmentAdministration DA Management FundingDecision IO Council IO Management Project Control Construction Authority Responsibility DesignDecision ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

37. Page 37 IC STACMAC IO DAs CN IN JA KO RF US F4E Governing Board Excecutive Committee European Commission Fusion RDT INJARFUS EU Euratom CN CCEFU ITER Decision Process ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

38. Page 38 What has SNS to do with ITER? Answer - A lot: –The scale of the project is larger but similar (<x10 bigger). –Distribution of work is (should be) similar (central team does integration and operation) off site teams do construction. –Management issues are similar – including the challenges it faces. –Technologies are very similar. So what’s different: –There is no single governing agency (like DOE) with ultimate control. –The physical distribution is wider and more complex, including the languages. –It’s a community has not grown up with “collaborations”` Shown to the ITER interim Council in April 2006… 38 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

39. Page 39 Multilab / Multipartner Organizations … is the glass half full or half empty? Focus on the strength not the weakness! Large organizations do add overhead functions. Multi Lab Organization like SNS, ITER, Linear Collider, ESS, X-FEL bring an enormous amount of expertise to the table (and healthy) competition. It makes it easier to transition the required workforce for design and construction in and out of the project and hire the right people for integration, installation, commissioning and operation. These type of models are considered as the only model for building large science projects in the future. Generates political support. THEY ARE NOT THE CHEAPEST OR FASTEST WAY TO BUILD PROJECTS! It only works if there is “equal distribution of pain” ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

40. Page 40 Failure is not an option – at least not in Europe! The 6 stages of any project: 1 Enthusiasm 2 Disillusionment 3 Panic 4 Search for the guilty 5 Punishment of the innocent 6Reward of the non-participants ESS Seminar, Nov 2011 In many countries time is the contingency to finish… in some countries that’s not true.

41. Page 41 Cost Performance of DOE projects in the 80’s-90’s 1986 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

42. Page 42 Comparing Across the Board Why do projects overrun?“In Kind” or not? Certainly not the only driver. Even industry/ industry-government is not performing as well as many people think. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

43. Page 43 Conclusion The answer is: It’s both. A Curse and a Blessing –Additional pain with little gain –No more big projects without it Central control is the key to success, but everybody needs to be a winner –Equal distribution of pain → art of management in an “in kind” situation. –Politics and micromanagement by the stakeholders can not successfully drive a project. The technically competent people must decide on the “who does what” The central team must be empowered to decide and to implement There has to be enough contingency in schedule and cost and both need to be centrally managed to fill the “cracks” in the interfaces. → then “In Kind” is not a problem in all its variants. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

44. Page 44 Experimental Test Facility - KEK Prototype Damping Ring for X-band Linear Collider Development of Beam Instrumentation and Control 44 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

45. Page 45 Final Focus Test Faclity - SLAC 45 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

46. Page 46 TESLA Test Facility Linac - DESY laser driven electron gun photon beam diagnostics undulator bunch compressor superconducting accelerator modules pre- accelerator e - beam diagnostics 240 MeV120 MeV16 MeV4 MeV 46 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011