AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 5 May 2005 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 5 May 2005 Useful Links: RSVP...

AGS RSVP Weekly MeetingP. Pile5 May 2005

AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting5 May 2005

Useful Links:

• RSVP Project: http://rsvp.bnl.gov

• C-AD AGS Project: Office http://www.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.htm

Agenda

– Costs and Baseline review close-out (pile)– RSVP Extinction Issues (brown)– Other

http://rsvp.bnl.gov/

http://www.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.htm


As of 3-25-05 (Baseline Review - direct costs)WBS Total Cost Cont Cost + cont

1.4 AGS Upgrades Project 31,274,831$ 7,683,228$ 38,958,058$

1.4.1 Booster/AGS Modifications 14,685,654$ 3,643,449$ 18,329,103$ 1.4.2 Switchyard 2,280,024$ 470,545$ 2,750,569$ 1.4.3 KOPIO 6,487,301$ 1,805,993$ 8,293,294$ 1.4.4 MECO 6,121,830$ 1,423,236$ 7,545,067$ 1.4.5 AGS Project Office 1,700,021$ 340,004$ 2,040,025$

As of 5-5-05 (today - direct costs)WBS Total Cost Cont Cost + cont Delta

1.4 AGS Upgrades Project 30,838,481$ 7,546,858$ 38,385,340$ (572,719)$

1.4.1 Booster/AGS Modifications 14,702,629$ 3,647,414$ 18,350,043$ 20,940$ 1.4.2 Switchyard 2,257,787$ 466,760$ 2,724,546$ (26,023)$ 1.4.3 KOPIO 6,449,325$ 1,798,398$ 8,247,723$ (45,571)$ 1.4.4 MECO 5,728,719$ 1,294,283$ 7,023,002$ (522,065)$ 1.4.5 AGS Project Office 1,700,021$ 340,004$ 2,040,025$ -$

As of 3-25-05 (Baseline Review - fully burdened)WBS Total Cost Cont Cost + cont

1.4 AGS Upgrades Project 39,374,241$ 9,588,331$ 48,962,571$ 1.4.1 Booster/AGS Modifications 18,198,752$ 4,525,773$ 22,724,525$ 1.4.2 Switchyard 2,914,156$ 596,473$ 3,510,629$ 1.4.3 KOPIO 8,046,519$ 2,186,495$ 10,233,014$ 1.4.4 MECO 7,855,559$ 1,807,738$ 9,663,298$ 1.4.5 AGS Project Office 2,359,255$ 471,851$ 2,831,105$

~$48,200,000


RSVP Baseline Review

Stan WojcickiIntroductory Remarks – a couple of excerpts

“….These are formidable challenges but they would be undoubtedly manageable in normal fiscal times. Unfortunately, the times we are in are not ordinary. The projected declining budgets, the uncertainties associated with the future support of our accelerator facilities, the steadily declining support level of the university groups, the eroded technical infrastructure at the universities, all require extraordinary measures in planning our future.”


RSVP Baseline Review

Stan Wojcicki

Introductory Remarks – a couple of excerpts (cont’)

….”We already stated our conviction as to the physics importance of this project; we are also aware of the high stakes associated with the success or the failure of this project. We hope that our work will contribute towards choosing the right path in planning for the future. “


RSVP Baseline Review – RSVP Management

Marx, Butler, Wojcickia few general remarks

1. “RSVP is embedded in an unusual management situation”

2. “The management structure is an “experiment” and should be given adequate time to see if it works. If not, changes should be made.”

3. “Scientific success is the overriding consideration, not just a successful project.”


4. Management costs: About $20M including 11% contingency support right

size staff at Columbia and BNL project offices Contingency too low, should be about 20%

5. Overall Contingency Management subcommittee fully supports 45% overall

contingency. Less is incommensurate with success.

a few general remarks (cont’)

RSVP Baseline Review – RSVP Management


Brookhaven Management

• BNL management seems engaged and committed to success of RSVP

• Director and AD for HENP working to find ways to enhance likelihood of success

• AGS management is actively engaged in providing for needs of RSVP

• BNL management must continue to be engaged and committed to success over life of RSVP

a few general remarks (cont’)


RSVP Management Recommendationsthere were 9 recommendations – those relevant to C-AD follow:

• NSF & DOE- put in place interagency agreement to facilitate funding flow to BNL

• NSF & RSVP- define performance goals for completion of AGS part of project as part of project plan

• NSF, BNL RSVP agree on AGS beam delivery goals vs. time during operations phase


Summary Conclusion, AGS/Booster Sub-groupR. Gerig, C. Moore, M. Tigner

Cost, Schedule and Management

Methodology: we examined four examples in detail; Beam switchyard rebuild, F6 septum rebuild, Cable suite upgrade, Extinction system. Each of these estimates were done in detail with substantial back-up from previous experience and could be based on purchase invoices, bids and engineering estimates and recorded labor hours for the same or similar work. Even for items such as the septum, which are essentially rebuilds of existing equipment, significant engineering time was included. With the addition of the “Lockheed Formula” contingency one can characterize this as a very conservative estimate.

RSVP Baseline Review – WBS 1.4 (AGS)


The schedule presented is based on an assumed maintenance schedule for RHIC which makes the engineering, procurement and construction somewhat arbitrary and heavily front loaded, imposing some cost and schedule risk. Needed expert labor hours are accounted for but the need for backfilling with new hires will add to the schedule stress and risk



Need for further integration of the project is shown by such examples as the ambiguity about the responsibility for beamlines and diagnostic instrumentation up to and including the targets for MECO.



The need to carry out design and procurement before the full consequences of high intensity operation with new equipment having significant beam impedances (see below) imposes its own cost and schedule risk. For some of the additions the risk may be substantially greater than for others. (see below)



While a significant, top down, project contingency has been assumed for the construction phase (MREFC), no explicit contingency has been identified for the operation phase. This imposes both a schedule and cost risk



Spares that are needed to ensure reliable running for RHIC in concert with RSVP operation have been identified and provided for in the cost estimate. Spares needed to assure reliable operation of RSVP have not been provided for in the MREFC budget but are expected to be taken from RSVP operations if needed.



In addition to the usual cost and schedule risk associated with performance of suppliers, there is an additional risk associated with the rather large contribution in kind for KOPIO



Technical Aspects

The consequences† of sustained operation at proton fluences comparable to or somewhat greater than previous highs, together with the higher peak beam currents to be encountered, have not yet been assessed as well as current tools would allow. This is understood by the proponents and a plan for addressing them is being formulated



† Consequences of the new impedances may be the engendering of various instabilities which could impact extraction efficiency and the stability of extracted beam on target as well as backgrounds. Consequences of optics distortion could impact extraction efficiency and the distribution of loss radiation around the rings.

If a consequence were that the intensity would need to be lowered to control radiation, the result could be easily assessed in a linear fashion. If however, the consequence were a failure of the extinction system, its impact could be much more severe, making it urgent to investigate.


Technical Aspects(cont’)


-the impedances of the new active and passive components that will be added to the Booster and AGS need to be calculated and measured across the full relevant frequency spectrum of the beam under all operation conditions, including both resonant and broad band impedances, e.g.-- the existing rf system (with stabilizing feedback), -- the new 25 and 100 MHz systems, the extraction septa, both electrostatic and magnetic-- the extinction system stripline kickers-- beam instrumentation and other components that present changes of cross-section to the beam




- Beam orbits and envelopes may be distorted in different ways for different bunches in MECO operation owing to the action of the AC dipole and the stripline kickers

- The beam line designs need finalizing. (known by the proponents)




Summary Response to Relevant Charge ItemsMeeting the criteria posed by KOPIO & MECO appears feasible. As indicated above, more support for this can and should be providedMeeting the construction schedule for the AGS/Booster modifications appears feasible. Bring the complex up to full capability will likely be slower than anticipated.No major missing items were found in the WBS for the AGS/Booster upgrade construction

Current Construction Cost [$M ‘05] Current total: 39.4 + 9.6 contingency (we believe this to be adequate)



Our interactions with the committee since the close- out were confined to RSVP operations.

We were asked to develop operations costs and schedules not only for “normal” RHIC operations but also forthree additional scenarios –

1. “unhealthy RHIC” - RHIC runs every other year2. No RHIC, RSVP runs stand-alone for 25 weeks per year3. No RHIC, RSVP runs stand-alone for 42 weeks per year

RSVP Baseline Review – postscript


RSVP Operating Cost Scenarios Based on Energy Cost of $65/MWhr (all costs in FY05 dollars)

year cost (M$) weeks p (e20) weeks p (e20) cost (M$) weeks p (e20) weeks p (e20)

2011 12.4 0 25 0.7 4.0 0 02012 11.6 25 0.9 0 30.4 21 1.1 21 0.62013 12.9 0 25 1.1 4.5 0 02014 11.6 25 1.5 0 30.4 21 1.6 21 1.12015 12.5 0 25 1.1 4.5 0 02016 11.3 25 1.6 0 30.4 17 1.3 25 1.42017 12.5 25 1.1 4.0 0 02018 12.5 25 1.1 30.4 0 42 2.42019 12.5 25 1.1

Totals 109.8 4.0 6.2 138.6 4.0 5.5

Healthy RHIC Unhealthy RHICKOPIOMECO MECOKOPIO

The results, part 1


RSVP Operating Cost Scenarios Based on Energy Cost of $65/MWhr (all costs in FY05 dollars)

year cost (M$) weeks p (e20) weeks p (e20) cost (M$) weeks p (e20) weeks p (e20)

2011 47.5 0 25 0.6 56.7 0 0 42 1.22012 47.5 25 1.1 0 56.7 42 2.2 02013 47.5 0 25 1.4 56.7 0 42 2.42014 47.5 25 2.2 0 56.7 23 1.8 19 1.02015 47.5 10 0.7 15 0.8 47.5 0 25 1.42016 47.5 0 25 1.42017 47.5 0 25 1.420182019

332.5 4.0 5.6 274.3 4.0 6.0

No DOE funds for RHIC/AGS (42 wk ops)MECO KOPIO

No DOE funds for RHIC/AGS (25 wk ops)KOPIOMECO

The results, part 2


• WBS 1.2 K0PI0 – AGS related issues– No recommendations relating directly to AGS– 28% contingency too low

RSVP Baseline Review – General


• WBS 1.3 MECO Detectors – AGS Related issues– Extinction magnet (RFMM)

• “The extinction factor is crucial to the success of the experiment. The RF modulated magnet is important to guarantee achievement of the goal. The subcommittee did not feel technically qualified to judge the extinction magnet and refers it to the AGS subcommittee.”

– The WBS needs to be reworked to put some of the tasks into the accelerator project. Examples include the extinction magnet and the proton target, where the AGS staff will apply their expertise to their proper operation. The experimenters can still contribute their ideas on the design.

– ….contingency is just too small for a project with the identified uncertainties.



• WBS 1.5 MECO Magnets – AGS Related issues

– We applaud the features of the plan to promote buy-in and ownership by BNL. Using the cryogenic capability to supply the refrigerator system, using the power supply group to supply that feature and the quench protection is a good start of that effort. We recommend that the vacuum system, magnet measurement and cryostat assembly around the cold mass may be other candidates for buy-in.

– There are several areas where there are closely coupled interfaces. For this reason, it is recommended that EM loads, field analysis, and structural analyses of closely interfaced items such as the production target, radiation shield, anti proton absorber windows be performed by the magnet group.



• WBS 1.5 MECO Magnets – AGS Related issues(cont’)

– No safety issues were identified; however, it is recognized that this project will require a number of safety reviews. Therefore, we recommend that ES&H reviews should be explicitly included in schedules and manpower plans.

– The reviewers commend the plan to adopt as much of the RHIC power supply and control system designs and control software as possible. This will be advantageous for spares, operation, and maintenance.

– The reviewers concur with the manpower and management plans. MIT, BNL-C-AD, and SMG all have extremely well qualified and experienced managers and key personnel assigned to the magnet project. MIT will require a peak of 15 people; currently ~7.5 are available. This shortfall is planned to be covered by new hires.

– Contingencies ranged from 14-38% and appear to be reasonable.



– RSVP Baseline Review written report – with this I assume some of the “findings” will be converted to “recommendations” and we’ll need to formally respond

– With this and the HEPAP RSVP Sub-committee report (due 18 May), Mike Turner (Assistant Director for the NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate) will decide the if he is going to support the project. If he decides to support RSVP, he will then ask the NSF Science Board to concur with his decision (somewhere around mid-August).

– The Science board will probably not give the go-ahead to release the FY05 $'s until the Sept meeting.. RSVP project office must get the right paperwork to the board a month before the relevant meeting.

RSVP – Next Steps


– RSVP Level 2 managers are meeting with Kotcher tomorrow so project office guidance may follow

– Note from Stephanie: “April expense for baselining of RSVP was $94K. The balance available on the bridge loan provided by BSA is only $68K of which only $22K is available for continued labor expense. At your current level of effort, work must stop on or before Tuesday, May 10.”

• i.e. we’re done until we get additional funds.

• I expect we’ll get K0PI0(?$) and MECO (~$140K) funds soon for experiment specific work

RSVP – Next Steps

AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 5 May 2005 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 5 May 2005 Useful Links: RSVP...

Documents

Transcript of AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 5 May 2005 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting 5 May 2005 Useful Links: RSVP...