Office of Nuclear Physics Response 12/14/06 #1 Response to the CD-1 Review Report Martin Cooper Los...

Office of Nuclear Physics

Response 12/14/06 #1

Response to the CD-1 Review Report

Martin Cooper

Los Alamos



Outline

• Overview

• Scenarios

• The Recommendations• Actions taken• Remaining steps• Risk Assessment

• Comments and Observations

• Summary



Overview



Benefit

• The EDM Collaboration has benefited significantly from the CD-1 Review

• The technical bases for decisions have been reexamined and validated

• Our management practices are more rigorous



Timeline

• August• Interpretation of the preliminary report by the CPM• Request to Huffman and Cianciolo to reexamine the assembly

plans and CD-4 requirements

• September• Doug Sankey and John Tapia visit with FNPB management on

contingency evaluation

• October• Fast Start II on contingency and risk• Collaboration meeting with review of R&D, full project and

assembly plans, and CD-4 requirements• Subsystem managers reevaluate their scope, contingency and

risk• Discussion of assembly and R&D plans with DOE headquarters



Timeline

• November• New risk assessment and log compiled• Bottoms-up rollup of a new budget• Financial refinement of budgets and schedules• Discussion of budget and schedule options with DOE

headquarters• Increased discussions with the NSF• LANL approval of the project

• December• Reworking of all CD-1 documentation• CD-1 Reprise Review• ESAAB presentation by FPD

• R&D Continues



Scenarios



Critical Path

3He Assembled Shielding Installed Commissioning Complete



Technically Driven versus Budget Authority

• “Technically Driven” Schedules are just a roll up the data from the subsystem managers after horizontal integration

• “Budget Authority” Schedules have artificial delays placed in the schedule to attempt to match the funding profile to DOE guidance. They do not match perfectly


Response 12/14/06 #10

The Recommendations


Response 12/14/06 #11

The Recommendations

• Generate an aggressive risk-based R&D plan for the remainder of the project that specifies priorities and deliverables and deliver to agencies by November 1, 2006.

• The CPM should organize special task forces involving appropriate experts across the collaboration focused on the highest risk subsystems. Examples include the cryogenic valve issue, the HV system, and SQUIDs operating in the HV environment.


Response 12/14/06 #12

The Recommendations

• Valve development should be treated as a high priority for the project, and its progress should be a reported at the project quarterly reports to DOE.

• Prior to CD-2, perform an analysis of the impact that pressurization of the measuring cell will have on other subsystems.


Response 12/14/06 #13

The Recommendations

• Explore the involvement of other institutional collaborators in this (1.6) work breakdown structure (WBS) element to take on some of the responsibilities.

• Prior to CD-1, the project team should revisit the assembly and commissioning plans, including more robust and transparent cost comparisons, in the context of FNPB plans to acquire cryogenics expertise and after the logistics of the alternative plans have been further vetted, both by the project and TUNL administration.

• Prior to CD-1, revisit bottoms-up contingency assessment with a more rigorous use of the risk-based contingency estimating methodology.


Response 12/14/06 #14

The Recommendations

• In light of reported cost increases relative to CD-0, repeat a bottoms-up cost analysis that identifies efforts taken to contain costs, prior to CD-1. Generate a profile of the upper TPC range, broken out into OPC and TEC, with planned CD dates.

• Should the TUNL option be exercised, a plan for implementing safety plans at TUNL should be generated prior to CD-2.

• Prior to CD-1, update the risk assessment plan to incorporate comments made at this review.


Response 12/14/06 #15

Risk Methodology

Marginal Significant Critical

Cost

Impact on project contingency is:

<$200K $200-$500K

>$500K

Schedule

Impact on project schedule is:

All else Level 1 or 2 Milestones

Impacts project completion date

Technical

Impact on project performance is:

CD-4 will be met and performance will exceed Minimal Specifications

CD-4 will be met and performance will be degraded from Minimal Specifications

CD-4 will not be met


Response 12/14/06 #16

Risk Methodology

Overall Risk Rating

Likelihood of

Occurrence

Impact/Consequence

Marginal Significant Critical

Very Likely Medium High High

Likely Low Medium High

Unlikely Low Low Medium

Risk Likelihood

Very Likely >90%

Likely >50% and <90%

Unlikely <50%


Response 12/14/06 #17

4.5

WBS Number

Subsystem Title

Work Pkg. Title

Risk Owner

Description of RiskLikelihood

of Occurrence

Impact: High-

Medium-Low

Overall Risk

1.2.3.1Polarized Neutron

Beamline

Procure Neutron Guide

Rick AllenGuides will be procured from a foreign company. Possible time delays and risks in currency exchange.

Likely High High

1.2.3.2Polarized Neutron

Beamline

Procure Magnets

R. RedwineMagnetic fields have to meet very stringent specs to magnetize polarizing sheets. Completely new design. Fabrication takes longer than expected.

Likely High High

1.4.103He Services

(He3S)Valves

Steven Williamson

Valve relaxation time and reliabilityValves which come into contact with polarized 3He must not significantly depolarize 3He during the fill time. Materials must be carefully chosen and exposure to non-3He friendly surfaces minimized. The choice of mat

Likely High High

1.9.1

Assembly and Commissioning

Coil Package Assembly/Commissioning at the FNPB

D. Haase, B. Fillipone

This task primarily involves debugging a system, which is always difficult to estimate. The consequences of an error are significant because each cooldown, test and warm up cycle is estimated to take 6-8 weeks. The risk is that the cycle time may be even

Likely High High

1.9.2

Assembly and Commissioning

Insert Assembly/Commissioning at the FNPB

D. Haase, T. Ito

This task primarily involves debugging a system, which is always difficult to estimate. The consequences of an error are significant because each cooldown, test and warm up cycle is estimated to take 6-8 weeks. The risk is that the cycle time may be even

Likely High High

23 Medium Level Risks Identified

Responsible Manager: Martin Cooper, EDM CPMDate: 11/20/2006Revision Number:

EDM Project Risk Log (Major Item of Equipment)

Risk Analysis Form


Response 12/14/06 #18

The Recommendations

• Prior to CD-2, develop testing plans that identify the activities and goals for the performance tests of the subsystems at the individual institutions and the assembly site.

• In preparation for the CD-1, the management should take all possible steps to decrease cost, mitigate risk, and increase schedule float, including such traditional approaches as, descoping exercises, attracting international collaborators, eliminating sequential, redundant activities, as well as developing a more aggressive risk-based R&D plan. The project office should report to the agencies on the project status prior to February 1, 2007 and CD-1 approval.


Response 12/14/06 #19

Comments and Observations


Response 12/14/06 #20

Observations and Comments

1) Search for a theorist to make a calculation of the EDM of 3He.5) Reevaluate the temperature inversion scheme for suppressing film flow in the purifier.6) Consider the impact of condensed gases on the viability of containing film flow with Cs.8) Demonstrate a successful transport of polarized 3He between volumes.12) Consider the impact of the temporal stability of the magnetic fields on the SQUIDs.19) Consider appointing a Czar of materials.24) Adopt of a standard database to help facilitate sharing information and to make the data accessible for the duration of the project and experiment.25) Consider finding a method to incorporate a blind analysis.28) Consider the implementation of a systematic error log.

Technical Comments


Response 12/14/06 #21


Project Management Comments

9) Consider different escalation models. Although the DOE-OECM guidance may be reasonable for procurements, salary increases have usually exceeded this guidance.14) Find a different criterion to select risks for the risk log that highlights the most important ones.15) Align the probabilities of risk occurrence thresholds with other projects.17) Propagate the hazard analysis to all institutions.19) Discuss with the collaboration the possibility of more senior investigators making the EDM project most of their research time.20) Produce MOUs amongst the relevant institutions before CD-2.26) Get LANL to waive the gross receipts tax on pass through funds.27) Revisit the project complete plans (CD-4 deliverables) once the assembly plan at ORNL has been studied more carefully.29) Rework the documents as necessary in accordance with the suggestions made at the review.


Response 12/14/06 #22

Summary

• The Process• Reevaluation of the Program – No major changes but some

additions where possible in response to the CD-1 review• Risk Methodology – Separate impact evaluation from the main

project

• The Plan• Assumptions – The technical challenges dominate• Schedule Overview – New cryostat is the critical path• Risk Overview – 6 high and 12 medium evaluations out of 60• Contract Project Manager Actions – Working to optimize our

effectiveness

• The Schedule Challenge – The new cryostat is a significant experiment in its own right


Response 12/14/06 #23

Summary

• Overview – August to December has been busy

• Scenarios• 3 scenarios defined• “technically driven” and “budget authority” defined

• The Recommendations – Response• Actions taken• Remaining steps• Risk Assessment

• Comments and Observations – Response

• Summary


Response 12/14/06 #24

Supplementary Material


Response 12/14/06 #25


2) Work out a plan to share the R&D test apparatus where necessary.4) Demonstrate the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of the splitter-polarizer.7) Test new materials for their compatibility with polarized 3He as a matter of course.10) Account for penetrations in the magnetic field model.11) Develop specifications for allowable materials in terms of magnetic properties. (The list should include activation and polarization properties—MDC.)13) Prototype the dressed-spin coils and the superconducting shield; study eddy-current heating.14) Add a SQUID or Rb magnetometer to the testing plan for the magnets.15) Demonstrate acceptable 3He relaxation times at the operating temperature.

Technical Comments


Response 12/14/06 #26


16) Identify an acceptable HV electrode material.17) Design an acceptable V1 valve.18) Demonstrate the viability of the Kerr effect scheme.20) Institute a Q/A process to ensure that the actual materials meet functional specifications at the specified operating temperatures.22) Adopt the EPICS system for all initial sub-systems testing.23) Form a collaboration-wide simulation group.26) Add more expertise in helium physics.27) Resolve the issue of a common software data base or a single CAD tool.

Technical Comments


Response 12/14/06 #27



1) A standardized risk evaluation process must be established so that the collaboration agrees on the level of risks associated with elements and on the relative priorities.2) Increase the detail of the R&D schedule.4) If they arise, opportunities to advance the cryogenics schedule should be articulated to the agencies.8) Look for more opportunities to increase schedule float, including the use of phased funding to optimize BA usage.10) Consider undergoing a formal value engineering (VE) exercise that might yield more opportunities to reduce project costs. One straightforward example is addressing whether there are any items that might not be needed and could be eliminated from the construction project (with capability to add these items back as an upgrade during the operations phase).


Response 12/14/06 #28



11) Reconsider the FY07 and FY08 split between OPC and TEC funds.16) Identify risks with positive outcomes and plan to take advantage of these opportunities.21) Tailor project management approaches that are adequate for a project of this size, and do not encumber the CPM with unnecessary requirements and distract the team from critical R&D.22) Clean up the workforce spread sheets.23) If TUNL is where assembly takes place, make sure TUNL management understands the responsibility it is undertaking.24) Explore more international collaborations as a method for creating new funding.

Office of Nuclear Physics Response 12/14/06 #1 Response to the CD-1 Review Report Martin Cooper Los...

Documents

Transcript of Office of Nuclear Physics Response 12/14/06 #1 Response to the CD-1 Review Report Martin Cooper Los...