Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Review Committee Closeoutof Critical Decision 1 for the

Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL)

at

Brookhaven National LaboratoryJanuary 20-21, 2010

Daniel R. LehmanReview Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

Review Committee Participants

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

*Lead

Department of Energy: Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson

Committee Members

TechnicalPaolo Ferracin, LBNL*Leigh Harwood, TJNAF

Cost and ScheduleDiane Hatton, BNL*Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC

Management and ES&HMarty Breidenbach, SLAC*Dan Green, FNALRon Lutha, DOE/CH

Observers

Mike Procario, DOE/SCL.K. Len, DOE/SCBruce Strauss, DOE/SCRobert Caradonna, DOE/BHSO

APULCharge Questions

1. Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements?

2. Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

3. Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline?

4. Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project’s current stage of development?

5. Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN?

6. Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement?

7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?

3

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

APULReport Outline/

Writing Assignments

Executive Summary……...…………………………………………………………...Fisher

1. Introduction............………………………………………………………...…Caradonna

2. Technical Status (Charge Questions 1,6,7)…………….….............Ferracin*/Harwood

2.1.1 Findings

2.1.2 Comments

2.1.3 Recommendations

3. Cost Estimate (Charge Questions 2,6,7)…………………………..........Hatton*/Fisher

4. Schedule and Funding (Charge Questions 2,6,7)………………….........Hatton*/Fisher

5. Management and ES&H (Charge Questions 3,4,5,6,7)........Breidenbach*/Green/Lutha

4

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

*Lead

We would like to thank the APUL Team for their detailed presentations. It was clear that significant effort went into them.

We also thank the team for the prompt responses to our questions.

5

APUL2. Technical Status

Paolo Ferracin, Leigh Harwood

1. Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements?

Yes, it meets the requirements as defined in the CERN documents

6. Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement?

Yes, the proposed early procurements are well defined and they will be beneficial to the project schedule

7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?

The technical aspects of the CDR meet the requirements of DOE O 413.3A

6

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Findings

The scope of the project is to construct and deliver 5 each of the following: dipole combined cold-masses, feed boxes, current leads, and superconducting links. The scope does not include installation or commissioning.

A conceptual design report was provided for review. Functional requirements are defined in CERN documents: the document for the dipole has gone through the approval process, while the one for cold powering is still in review.

The prototype magnet will be completed in April 2011; the production starts immediately after. Delivery of the final production units precedes the string test, which will occur at CERN in January of 2013.

Top-down cost analysis of the dipole based on experience building LHC magnets was provided. Costs for the feed boxes (DFBX) are based on recent experience at FNAL.

7

Findings

The dipole design is an evolution of the RHIC DX dipole.

Two options for dipole coil end design are under evaluation.

Field quality of the present design needs some improvement to meet the specification: features to ensure that the specification are met are included in the new design.

3D CAD models of routings for the superconducting links were presented.

Design margins for the cold powering components were presented.

ASME piping codes have been complied with.

8

Comments

Since the full system test (string test) occurs after the delivery of the final production units, there is a risk of unexpected design problems, like unanticipated forces and field quality errors. This could result in APLU deliverables not immediately usable by CERN.

The approach to select the coil end design was not clear, in particular thresholds for acceptability of the various parameters.

Based on the risk registry table, no technical risk is assigned to anything other than magnet testing: this deserves re-evaluation.

Corrective strategies were identified that were not part of the baseline schedule or cost. We believe that the addition of some of these operations to the baseline schedule will be appropriate.

Furthering the conceptual design with additional 3D finite element modeling would be beneficial.

We commend the team on developing a very effective process for joining cables.

The team is clearly knowledgeable on issues related to the superconducting material. They are clearly ready to execute the procurement.

9

Recommendations

CERN specification document for the cold powering should be approved by May 1.

Explore avenues prior to CD-2 for reducing the risk associated with string test occurring so late in the project.

Develop a clear strategy to select coil end options by May 1.

Prior to CD-2, ensure that there is adequate planning for magnet re-work and optimization. At least one cycle of re-work should be included in the baseline schedule.

10

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEAPUL

3. Cost Estimate / 4. Schedule & FundingDiane Hatton, Kurt Fisher

Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

– From a cost and schedule perspective we believe the basis of estimate justifies the project duration, however, we believe that an increase in the cost range should be considered.

Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement?

– Yes, the committee believes $2M of long lead procurement authority would allow the D1 Magnet subproject to have sufficient funds to place orders for critical, long-lead materials

Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?

– Yes, provided the Project ensures consistency between the documents.

11

APUL3. Cost EstimateDiane Hatton, Kurt Fisher

Findings– Project TPC range is $27M – $29.4M; Current estimate at $29.4M– Basis of Estimates packages have been developed to support cost estimate range

Comments– Assumptions Document and Value Engineering Processes are recognized as good

practices– The Basis of Estimate packages were generated separately by each subproject and

include backup based on expert knowledge– Project will shortly begin to implement EVMS

12

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

APUL3. Cost EstimateDiane Hatton, Kurt Fisher

Recommendations– Improve Documentation

• PPEP and/or PMP need to be modified to show change control thresholds accurately and to correct other inconsistencies. This should be done prior to CD-1 approval.

• Basis of Estimate documentation needs to be improved in preparation for CD-2– To facilitate transparency, direct costs should be used in the backup

documentation– Traceability should flow down to lowest level– Basis of estimate documentation needs to be consistent across the

subprojects– Vendor quotes should be current

– Tailor EVMS by keeping control accounts at a higher level, consistent with the project TPC and complexity

13

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

APUL4. Schedule and Funding

Diane Hatton, Kurt Fisher

Findings– Completion of D1 Magnet Subproject is June 2013; 10 months ahead of CD-4B– Completion of the Cold Powering Subproject is October, 2013; 7 months ahead of CD-4B– Project has 939 Schedule Activities with 1,390 Relationship Ties– There is currently one Critical Path for each subproject– Current funding profile includes $9.8M in OPC and $12.8M in MIE with $6.8M

contingency– Contingency is identified at ~30% of project cost– CD-4A is defined as delivery of equipment, CD-4B is defined as delivery of

documentation.

14

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

APUL4. Schedule and Funding

Diane Hatton, Kurt Fisher

Comments– Funding profile differentiating OPC and MIE may not be necessary.– Contingency amount and contingency profile appear adequate at this stage of the project– Project needs to evaluate an efficient method to provide funding to the Project – CD4A is identified in some APUL documents as being dependent on CERN acceptance

Recommendations– Simplify funding process – MIE/OPC– CD-4A needs to be more clearly defined – Delivery or acceptance?– Increase funding range to a ceiling of $32M

15

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

5. Managementand ES&H

M. Breidenbach, D. Green, R. Lutha

Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? Yes, the project team has prior relevant experience on RHIC, Tevatron, and LHC projects

and should have all required skills. BNL and FNAL appear ready to support this project. However, we note that FNAL is involved in several other major projects, and there is concern that there may be competition for the needed people. DOE OHEP seems quite engaged.

Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project’s current stage of development?Yes, this is a relatively simple project and both labs basic procedures are adequate.

16

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN?It is difficult to tell. There is no complete LHC upgrade plan for Phase I and II, and

particularly no understanding of CERN’s long range plans and schedule. There is no CERN document clearly stating that the APUL Project designs and schedule match CERN planning.

An MOU or Implementing Arrangement among CERN, FNAL, and BNL supporting the Mission Need for this project as articulated in the Mission Need Statement of CD0 seems overdue.

Is the need, technical justification and schedule sufficient to approve early materials procurement?Yes, assuming the CERN 2014 installation date holds, the rest of the schedule seems

logical. Thus the long-lead procurements are justified.



. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?

– Acquisition Strategy: APUL has developed this plan and has the concurrence of Project Management and the Site Offices.

– Conceptual Design Report: Appears satisfactory. – Risk Management Plan and Risk Analysis: Appears satisfactory and is being used by the

project team.– Preliminary Project Execution Plan: A draft exists but will need updating prior to CD1.– Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report: The respective laboratories have developed this

analysis for the expected efforts.– Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment Report: The PPEP has addressed this

satisfactorily.– QA Program Documentation: The respective laboratories are utilizing their QA programs

for the execution of the APUL programs. This is adequate.



Findings:– APUL appears to have a customer-vendor relationship with CERN.– The complete string test at CERN happens after the end of APUL as a project.– A PPEP exists, but needs further concurrence of the line.– The CDR has a rather obsolete luminosity profile.– APUL management reported that all plausible scope contingency has already been used

because of budget constraints.



Comments:– Under a customer-vendor relationship, a well defined scope is needed. At this time it

appears to be lacking.– Because of the scientific responsibility of the US for the performance of the APUL

systems, an agreement with LARP for participation in the installation and commissioning seems appropriate.

– The PPEP does not have the laboratory line authority and responsibility specified for this project. In particular, both lab directors are missing.

– The lack of any further scope contingency will limit flexibility in the event of further budget problems and increases risk.

– CERN management participation in these reviews explaining their view of the role of APUL in the LHC upgrade plans would be helpful.



Recommendations:– Establish an MOU or equivalent with CERN that clearly associates APUL with the

Mission Need and better defines the scope of the project by May 1.– Integrate CERN LHC milestones into the APUL schedule prior to CD2.– Update the PPEP with the appropriate line management concurrence prior to CD1.



Documents

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy