1. July 9-11 2014 LEReC Review 9 - 11July 2014 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Alexei Fedotov Project Management

2. July 9-11 2014 Outline Safety LEReC AIP –the big picture –Project organization chart –Project Management Responsibilities –Cost/Funding/Scope –Contingency –Risk –Schedule and Milestones –KPPs/UPPs Communication and reporting plan Summary 2

3. July 9-11 2014 Safety The Lab makes safety a top priority; strong emphasis on working safely. Safety will not be compromised on this project. C-AD ESSHQ Group is very experienced and very helpful. They work along side us in the field in helping with work planning, process reviews, procedure writing, etc. We have all become sensitive to what is required to work safely, are accustomed to the processes, receive the appropriate training, etc. A separate ESSHQ talk is upcoming. We have a high confidence that this project will be done safely. 3

4. July 9-11 2014 LEReC – small part of a bigger picture 4

5. July 9-11 2014 LEReC Organization Chart 5

6. July 9-11 2014 Project Management Responsibilities Within DOE’s Office of Science (SC), the Office of Nuclear Physics (ONP) has overall responsibility for the LEReC Accelerator Improvement Project (AIP). Michelle Shinn serves as the LEReC Point of Contact for ONP, and reports to Jehanne Gillo (Director of Facilities and Project Management and acting Facilities Program Manager. Funding for this project will be directed through BNL’s Collider- Accelerator Department. Fiscal and management responsibility for the fabrication of LEReC will reside with the Deputy Chairman, Wolfram Fischer. The Chairman for the Collider-Accelerator Division, Thomas Roser, has appointed Alexei Fedotov as the LEReC Contractor Project Manager(CPM). 6

7. July 9-11 2014 WBS and Cost Estimate 7 ESSH/QA is an overhead charge.

8. July 9-11 2014 Manpower/Availability x% of all proposed labor is within the C-A department. Several C-AD projects and endeavors have either recently or will soon come to a close. This will increase the manpower available for LEReC. 8 Chart of FTEs will go here

9. July 9-11 2014 Funding 9 LEReC will be built using Accelerator Improvement Funds

10. July 9-11 2014 Scope- short technical description If Joe covers this in his talk we can remove this slide. 10

11. July 9-11 2014 Contingency Some words about how you arrived at contingency percentages go here 11

12. July 9-11 2014 Risk and Mitigation 12 The total potential cost impact ($2080k) is within the proposed contingency dollars ($2124k). The Risk list will be discussed at weekly meetings and updated as needed to include new risks and retire old ones.

13. July 9-11 2014 Risk and Mitigation 13

14. July 9-11 2014 Draft Reportable Milestones 14

15. July 9-11 2014 Schedule 15 The software requires a start date for calculation, so we chose Aug 15, 2014. There are 9 months of float from completion of the final task to a DOE Reporting milestone for Project complete.

16. July 9-11 2014 Critical Path 16 Free Slack: The amount of time a task can be delayed without delaying its successor tasks. Total Slack: The amount of time a task can be delayed without delaying the project

17. July 9-11 2014 KPPs LEReC Key Performance Parameters (KPPs): 1. Demonstration of 10 mA average electron beam current in stable CW (704 MHz repetition rate) operation from the SRF gun at voltage of 1.6 MV in Bldg. 912. 2. All LEReC hardware (from the SRF gun to the beam dump) installed in its final location in RHIC tunnel at IP2. 3. Demonstration of beam transport of 1 mA electron current at an energy 1.6 MV through the full LEReC beam transport line from the gun through the cooling sections to the beam dump. 17

18. July 9-11 2014 UPPs LEReC Ultimate Performance Parameters (UPPs), represent parameters required for cooling demonstration with configuration of electron accelerator in RHIC tunnel at IP2: 1. Demonstration of 30 mA average electron beam current in stable CW operation in full LEReC configuration in RHIC tunnel at gun voltage of 1.6 MV. 2. Achieving electron beam parameters in the cooling section required for cooling: rms energy spread of about 5×10 -4 and rms normalized emittance of about 2.5×10 -4 mm mrad for electron bunch charge of 100pC. 3. Demonstration of electron cooling process of ion bunch with bunched electron beam. 4. Luminosity increase of at least factor of two. 18

19. July 9-11 2014 Communication and Reporting Plan Alexei Fedotov, CPM, will lead weekly meetings with the LEReC team to discuss progress, risks and concerns. Cost/schedule/status are reviewed monthly and reported to ONP via email and discussed in detail during monthly telecons. The standard BNL accounting system will be the basis for collecting cost data. The CPM will lead quarterly overall cost, schedule and technical performance reviews and report the results to the ONP. ONP may, at their discretion, conduct progress reviews with a committee of experts. Technical performance will be monitored throughout the project to insure conformance to approved functional requirements. Design reviews and performance testing of the completed systems will be used to ensure that the equipment meets the functional requirements. Schedule performance will be monitored via milestones. 19

20. July 9-11 2014 Comments before concluding Developing/refining Microsoft Project schedule file – mainly inter- subsystem links/logic. Very experienced subsystem managers on the project. They are used to interacting daily over the course of many projects. Good communication. Agreements on “handoff” points are almost routine. Signature approvals = Subsystem manager to me to Thomas (standard procedure in C-AD) ???? Tech notes, design reports, design reviews are standard within C-AD Weekly group meetings are typical already – good communication ???? Procedure writing, work planning, ESSHQ, etc. all follow standard C- AD and lab procedures. Procurement processes would be standard except that we’ve requested a single point of contact for LEReC purchases, and he has been assigned. 20

21. July 9-11 2014 Summary The LEReC design is technically sound –A reason why –Another reason A reasonably advanced cost estimate exists (details in ensuing talks). More detailed engineering will refine the estimate and schedule. The project team is very experienced. They know how to build things (Booster, RHIC, NSRL, SNS, EBIS, eLens…) 21