PROJECT OVERVIEW Peter Wanderer APUL Project Manager APUL CD-1 DOE Review January 20-21, 20010.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Peter WandererAPUL Project Manager

APUL CD-1 DOE ReviewJanuary 20-21, 20010

January 20-21, 2010 P. Wanderer - Project Overview Slide No. 2

OUTLINE• Scope, WBS, Concept, Deliverables• Project Team, Prior Experience, Organization Charts• Schedule with Critical Path, Long Lead Procurements,

Milestones• Cost, Funding Profiles• Risks, Cost Contingency• Value Management• ESH, QA, Hazard Analysis, Security• Configuration Management, CERN-U.S. Documents• Approval requested from this review: CD-1 + LLP• APUL Supporting Documents• Summary


LHC: Large Hadron Collider

Lake of GenevaLake of GenevaLarge Large HadronHadron Collider ColliderLarge Large HadronHadron Collider Collider

Airp

ort

CMSCMS

ATLASATLAS

LHCbLHCb

ALICEALICE


IR LAYOUTS – PRESENT, UPGRADE


LHC PHASE I IR UPGRADEscope

• Scope: Upgrade LHC Insertion Regions 1 and 5 (ATLAS, CMS)– IR = insertion region = LHC near beam collision point– Upgrade Goal: increase luminosity (collision rate) a factor of 2-3

by replacing IR components with superconducting magnets having larger aperture and a more serviceable interface to the power supplies.

• D1 superconducting dipole magnets (BNL) • Cold Powering (Fermilab) • quadrupole and corrector magnets, service module, etc.

(CERN)


APUL Project WBS

WBS - 1Project Management

WBS - 2D1 magnets

WBS - 3Cold Powering

WBS - 2.1D1 Design/Engineering

WBS - 2.2Tooling, D1 Magnet

WBS - 2.3Prototype, D1 Magnet

WBS - 2.4D1 Magnet Cold Mass Production

WBS - 2.5Testing

WBS - 3.1DFX

WBS - 3.2Current Leads

WBS - 3.3Sc Link

WBS - 3.4DFX, Lead, and Link Test


SUBPROJECT COMPARISON

• Similarities in Cold Power and D1 dipole tasks:– Build, test prototypes of each deliverable, then build four

production units

• Difference: level of design– Cold Power:

• Conceptual designs are based on similar items previously built and tested

• Engineering design underway– D1 dipole:

• Minimal modifications to previously-built magnets (RHIC - DX)

• Engineering design (needed in a few areas) underway


CONCEPT: division of labor based on previous experience of CERN, Fermi, BNL

APUL – yellow; CERN – remainder


CONCEPT: COLD POWERING

THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS - for each, prototype + four1. DFX Distribution Feed box

• More serviceable than present feed box • Connects warm bus and cold bus (superconducting link)

2. Superconducting link• Links 50 to 90 m long, with complex and unique routing• Link includes NbTi bus for all IR magnets, helium cooling,

vacuum, quench-protection instrumentation3. Current leads

• Cooled by helium vapor• Four different currents

– Prototypes used in system test at Fermilab, CERN, and as spares


CONCEPT: D1 DIPOLES

• Replace resistive D1 dipoles with much larger aperture superconducting dipoles

• RHIC DX dipole inner diameter = 180 mm ok (>> 120 mm quad aperture)– Modify cold mass outer radius to fit into LHC cryostat

• Similar to work on BNL dipoles now in LHC

– Two modified DX cold masses in one cryostat = one D1

– Modify DX cold mass only as necessary

– Use RHIC tooling, set up in new location.

• Build 5 (prototype+4 production) D1 combined cold masses– CERN will install D1 combined cold masses into cryostats D1 magnet

– CERN to test the D1 magnets at cryogenic temps

– Install two around ATLAS, two around CMS, use prototype for string test & spare


DELIVERABLES & SCOPE CONTINGENCY

• Deliverables (from the two previous slides)– D1 dipoles: 1 prototype, 4 production combined cold masses (magnets)

– Cold Powering: 1 prototype, 4 production of:• DFX distribution feed boxes• Current Leads• Superconducting Links

• Scope Contingency– Previous scope reduction: CERN took over tasks of installing combined

cold masses into cryostats, cryogenic testing of D1 magnets. This task is similar to work CERN will perform for the quadrupole magnets made at CERN.

– There is now no scope contingency


PROJECT OFFICE

• Peter Wanderer, Project Manager – superconducting magnets for SSC, RHIC, US-LHC Project

• Sandor Feher, Deputy Project Manager – superconducting magnets, current leads, magnet testing for Tevatron, at CERN, US-LHC Project

• Marc Kaducak, Project Engineer – Pierre Auger• Ronald Prwivo, Project Controls Specialist – US-LHC

Project• Karen Prosapio, Project Budget Specialist – Fermilab

staff (retired part-time telecommuting)


SUBPROJECT LEADERS

• Cold Power - Sandor Feher

• D1 dipole - Michael Anerella – head of BNL Superconducting Magnet Division Mechanical Engineering Section


CERN TEAM

• Ranko Ostojic head of LHC IR Upgrade Project, principal contact for US-LHC Project– CERN engineer for Cold Powering: Amalia Ballarino– CERN engineer for D1 dipoles: Herve Prin

• All have prior experience in US-LHC Project


PRIOR EXPERIENCE (1)

• Much of the APUL scope is similar to work done previously by the current APUL staff

– “US-LHC” = accelerator-related deliverables from the US now installed in the LHC

– distribution feed boxes

– superconducting dipoles for other insertion regions

• Remainder of scope similar to recent work:

– cost of superconducting link based on CERN link

– cost based on current leads built at Fermilab


PRIOR EXPERIENCE (2)

• Prior experience (US-LHC Project)

– Models for APUL-CERN interface, both technical (e.g., interface specification) and administrative (e.g., QA). This has saved a lot of effort.

– Limited interface to LHC hardware – present scope close to “stand alone”


DOE and APUL


Functional Org ChartBNL

DirectorateS. Vigdor –

ALD for Nuclear and Particle

Physics

BNLSuperconducting

MagnetDivision

P. Wanderer – Divison Head

LabOversight

Group

FNALDirectorate

S. Holmes – ALD for

Accelerators

FNALTechnicalDivision

G. Appolinari – Division Head

APUL Project OfficeP. Wanderer (BNL) – PMS. Feher (FNAL) - DPM

ColdPoweringS. Feher (FNAL)

D1 MagnetsM. Anerella

(BNL)

Prototype, D1 Magnet

J. Schmalzle (BNL)

Tooling, D1 Magnet

M. Anerella (BNL)

D1 Magnet Production

J. Schmalzle (BNL)

Testing J. Muratore

(BNL)

DistributionFeed Box (DFX)

T. Peterson (FNAL)

Current Leads J. Brandt (FNAL)

Superconducting Link

A. Nobrega (FNAL)

DFX, Lead, and Link Test T. Peterson

(FNAL)

.

.

Advisory

Provides Resources

ALD = Associate Level Director

PM = Project Manager

DPM = Deputy Project ManagerFNAL = Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

BNL = Brookhaven National Laboratory

D1 Magnet Design – M.

Anerella (BNL)


LHC IR UPGRADE SCHEDULE

• Above-ground string test – install first of each type of component in January 2013

• Tunnel: ready to install in LHC in 2014 delivery complete fall 2013 little flexibility in CD-4– CERN may choose to install at a later date, but plans to keep the

present date for “ready to install.”

January 20-21, 2010 20

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

APUL Summary ScheduleDesignProcurementsFabricationTesting

Beam Separation Dipole Magnets (2.0)

28-Dec-2009

1st Set of APUL Deliverables Due at CERN 31-Dec-12

All APUL Deliverables Due at CERN 01-Sep-2013

Project Management (1.0) CD-0 CD-1 CD-2/3 CD-4bCritical Path

Cold Powering (3.0)

Conceptual and Preliminary Design

Prototype Parts Procurement

Production SC Cable Procurement

Prototype Fab., Assembly, Testing

Production Parts Procurement

Production Fab., Assembly, Testing

Conceptual and Prototype Design

Prototype Procurement

Prototype Testing

Production Units Procurement

21-Jul-10

01-Sep-10

15-Apr-11

14-Jun-11

10-Oct-11

19-Nov-12

02-Nov-09

12-Aug-10

18-Aug-09

18-Jan-11

14-Apr-11

01-Apr-09

19-Mar-09 02-Sep-10

03-Sep-10 31-Aug-11

01-Sep-11 13-Jan-12

29-Feb-12 01-Feb-13

15-Feb-10 – Order placed for SC Cable

Shipment to CERN 04-Feb-13 02-Apr-13

Ship last Magnet to CERN 25-Jan-1323-Nov-12

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

APUL L1 and L2 Milestones

Beam Separation Dipole Magnets (2.0)

29-Dec-2009

1st Set of APUL Deliverables Due at CERN Dec-2012

All APUL Deliverables Due at CERN Sep-2013

Project Management (1.0)CD-001-Dec-2008

CD-118-Mar-10

Cold Powering (3.0)

SC Cable Order Placed (2.4.1.1)

Coil, CM Final Design Complete (2.1.2.1)

D1 Magnet #3 Leaves BNL (2.4.3.10)

Proto. Magnet Arrives CERN (2.3.3.6)

All D1 Magnets @ CERN (2.4.3.15)

Current Lead Proto. Design Complete (3.2.2.1)

DFX Proto. Design Complete (3.1.2.1)

Proto. Testing Complete (3.4.2)Prototype Cold Powering at CERN

15-Apr-10

Critical Decisions (L1 Milestones)

CERN Delivery Dates

CD2/305-Nov-10

CD-4A16-Dec-13

CD-4B01-Apr-14

Coil, CM Prelim. Design Complete (2.1.1.1)Proto. Magnet Leaves BNL (2.3.3.6)

Production Coils Complete (2.4.2.5.20)

D1 Magnet #5 Leaves BNL (2.4.3.15)

SC Link Proto. Design Complete (3.3.3.1)

Place Order for DFXs (3.1.2.2)First DFX at FNAL (3.1.2.4)

Production DFX Fab Complete (3.1.3.2)Final DFX Units at CERN

L2 MILESTONES

25-Jun-10

20-Jun-11

30-Aug-11

03-Oct-11

09-Jan-12

11-Jul-12

23-Jan-13

06-Jun-13

08-Sep-10

19-Oct-10

02-Nov-10

03-Feb-11

31-Oct-11

13-Mar-12

31-Dec-12

04-Apr-1302-Sep-13

January 20-21, 2010January 20, 2010APUL CD1 Review

APUL Cost SlidesM. Kaducak

22

SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY

• Level 2 milestones include 2 mo. float

• Baseline schedule for delivery of final components to CERN is April 2013– 5 mo. ahead of CERN Upgrade Project schedule.– 8 mo. ahead of CD-4a (CERN initial acceptance, based on

incoming inspection)– 11.5 mo. ahead of CD-4b (CERN final acceptance, following cold

test)



23

FUNDING

• DOE OHEP funding cap:– Presented at November Director’s Follow-Up Review: TPC =

$29.0M with 30% contingency– Recommendation of Nov. review: strengthen Project

Management – accepted – TPC increase $0.4M contingency for $29M TPC reduced to 28%.

– OHEP advice: present 30% contingency, $29.4M budget at DOE CD-1 review



24

APUL Cost Summary

Total

M&S Labor Total Percent Total Cost (AY $k)

1Project Management 349.3$ 2,497.4$ 2,846.7$ 31% $ 878.4 3,725.2$

2Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 2,955.6$ 2,895.7$ 5,851.3$ 28% $ 1,649.2 7,493.2$

3Cold Powering System 2,939.0$ 1,163.9$ 4,102.9$ 31% $ 1,280.2 5,383.2$

Total TEC: 6,244.0$ 6,557.0$ 12,800.9$ 30% $ 3,807.9 16,601.5$

1Project Management 243.6$ 1,579.7$ 1,823.3$ 30% $ 547.0 2,370.3$

2Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 2,504.7$ 2,293.7$ 4,798.4$ 31% $ 1,465.6 6,262.1$

3Cold Powering System 913.1$ 2,273.8$ 3,186.9$ 30% $ 943.6 4,130.4$

Total OPC: 3,661.4$ 6,147.2$ 9,808.6$ 30% $ 2,956.2 12,762.9$ TPC: 9,905.3$ 12,704.2$ 22,609.5$ 30% 6,764.1$ 29,364.4$

TEC

OPC

Items

APUL's Cost Estimate AY $K

WBS

Estimated Cost (AY $k with indirects) Contingency



25

Funding, Obligation, Cost Table

Costs in k$ (AY) FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 TOTAL

Funding 2,500 9,000 8,800 8,700 400 0 29,400

Funding (Cumulative) 2,500 11,500 20,300 29,000 29,400 29,400 29,400

Obligation OPC 921 6,470 2,050 367 0 0 9,808

Obligation MIE 0 160 4,875 5,820 1,697 249 12,801

Contingency 275 1,981 2,069 1,849 507 74 6,756

Obligation TOTAL 1,196 8,611 8,994 8,036 2,204 323 29,365

Obligation (Cumul.) 1,196 9,807 18,801 26,837 29,041 29,365 29,365

Cost OPC 921 5,794 2,726 367 0 0 9,808

Cost MIE 0 160 4,860 4,950 2,582 249 12,801

Contingency 275 1,981 2,069 1,849 507 74 6,756

Cost TOTAL 1,196 7,935 9,655 7,166 3,089 323 29,365

Cost (Cumulative) 1,196 9,131 18,786 25,952 29,041 29,365 29,365



26

Funding, Obligations

APUL Cumulative Obligations and Funding

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 TOTAL

Fiscal Year

$k (

AY

)

Cumulative Contingency

Cumulative Obligation MIE

Cumulative Obligation OPC

Funding (Cumulative)



27

D1 LONG-LEAD PROCUREMENTS• The procurements of several materials for the D1

magnets have long lead times. For the production run of four magnets, APUL requests permission to purchase these items following CD-1 approval:– NbTi superconductor, baseline cost $635k

– Yoke laminations, $212k

– Collar laminations, $508k

– Stainless steel half cylinders for helium containment, $200k

• The most time-critical material is the NbTi superconductor, for which we have one qualified, interested vendor, a good price, and a 120 day period to accept the price, ending Feb. 28, 2010.

• Details in talks by M. Anerella



28

APUL FTEsAPUL FTEs by FY Quarter

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY

09Q

1

FY

09Q

3

FY

10Q

1

FY

10Q

3

FY

11Q

1

FY

11Q

3

FY

12Q

1

FY

12Q

3

FY

13Q

1

FY

13Q

3

FY

14Q

1

FY Quarter

FT

Es

(176

8 h

r/yr

= F

TE

)

Project Mgmt/Admin

Technician

Designer

Engineer

Scientist


RISK MANAGEMENT

• Risk management follows standard “integrated” process:

– Identify risk (registry) … analyze (risk matrix) … plan abatement … carry out plan … check result of plan. (APUL docs #2, #49)

• Technical risk control via design reviews, procedures, QA

– Magnets: cold test magnet cold masses before shipment to CERN

– Cold Powering: test 1st system (one of each component) at Fermilab

• Cost risk

– Cold powering: fixed price contracts

– Magnets: maintain cryo test facility, track labor closely

• Schedule risk:

– Magnets: testing at each stage of production, assembly

– Cold Powering: Track progress at vendor, subcontractor as needed.


RISK IMPACT, PROBABILITY CLASSIFICATION ConsequenceRisk Area and Probablity

Low Moderate High

Cost: < $100K $100K<Cost<$250K >$250K

Schedule: Delays Level 2 milestone or Project critical path by < 1 month

Delays Level 2 milestone or Project critical path by <2 months

Delays Level 2 milestone or Project critical path by >2 months

Technical: Negligible, if any, degradation.Performance degradation < 10%

Significant technical/scope degradation. 10% < Performance degradation < 20%

Baseline scope or performance requirements will not be achieved.Performance Degradation > 20%

Event Probability p < 25% 25% < p < 75% P > 75%


TaskTask Risk DescriptionRisk Description Prob.Prob. ImpactImpact OO MLML PPAssessed Assessed Risk MLRisk ML MitigationMitigation

1.0-2Project Management

CERN delays the acceptance date of the deliverables by one year.

0.10

Cost $150 $300$450

$30Defining the acceptance dates in the implementing arrangement.

Schedule 7.0 8.0 9.0 0.8

Technical 0 0 0 0

1.0-1Project Management

Delay in project due to Continuing Resolution. (Assume C.R. ends 3/31/2011, but funds not available until June 2011 financial plan.) High risk of not meeting CERN schedule, it might require re-baselining.

0.10

Cost $75 $150$225

$15

Plan to extend FY10 project funds to cover activities through February 2011.

Schedule 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.5

Technical 0 0 0 0

Probability = Probability of Event; Cost = Current Cost Impact Estimates (Use $K); Schedule = Schedule Impact (Use time in months); Technical = Technical Impact (Use performance degradation in %);O = Optimistic; ML = Most Likely; P = Pessimistic;

RiskWBS 1 — Project Management


COST CONTINGENCY (1)

Followed dictionary used in recent particle physics experiments:– 10% Vendor Quote in $– 15% Previously Built (several times in house)– 20% Previously Built (factory)– 30% Previously Built (one-time) -- much of Cold Powering– 35% Technical Design (Engineer's estimate)– 40% Conceptual Design (Engineer's estimate)– 50% Conceptual Design (Physicist's estimate)– 100% Early R&D


COST CONTINGENCY (2)

• Bottoms-up contingency (from previous slide) is 30%– Experience of Project Team important in estimating

• “Top Down” contingencies from Risk Registry, using Most Likely probabilities:– Project Management $45k/1.3 mo., D1 dipoles $312k/6 mo.,

Cold Powering $171k/5.3 mo., total $528k/7-12 mo.

• Opinions of colleagues with significant experience in similar projects: experienced staff, similar to items built before 30% is reasonable


CERN-US SCOPE OF WORK

• CERN-U.S. government: Protocol options– New Accelerator Protocol (9 months to approve)– ATLAS/CMS Protocols

• CERN-DOE Labs: Implementing Arrangement– Sets detailed scope for APUL– draft by APUL under review at CERN– similar to US-LHC document – contains WBS – each

page initialed by CERN, US Project Managers– no significant issues expected


CDR, SPECS FOR UPGRADE

• Phase I Upgrade CDR Dec. 2008– http://slhc-irp1.web.cern.ch/SLHC-IRP1/ – Weekly meetings of Technical Design Group, with APUL

attendance via Webex (slides, phone)

• Functional specifications (CERN documents)– D1 dipole completed (posted at CERN; APUL doc # 134)– Cold Powering draft available Nov. 2009; finalized January 2010

• Interface specifications (APUL document)– Fewer than for US-LHC project (“stand alone”)– Under development

• Technical Design Report (APUL doc): for CD-2


CONFIGURATION MGMT

• Mechanical and electrical design drawings showing the specifications for the equipment and subcomponents

– Controlled as part of standard engineering procedure

• Requirements and Specification Documents

– Controlled via interface to CERN, standard Project practice

• Interface Control Documents, Technical Design Reports

– Controlled via interface to CERN

• Management documents such as the Baseline Schedule, PMP, MOU’s, and SOW’s.

– Controlled via interface with DOE, Fermi Office of Pgm Mgmt Oversight


VALUE MGMT/ENGINEERING

• Budget cap minimize cost while maintaining scope and schedule

• D1 dipoles – examples

– Use alternate material for collars

– Use of existing tooling, cryo test facility

– Use previously-developed methods for achieving desired field quality with construction of just one prototype

• Cold Powering - examples

– Competitive bidding / fixed price contracts

– Phased contract: build prototype, test prototype, build remainder

– Conductor donated by CERN


ES&H, QA

• Overall: Follow plan for US-LHC work, updating documents as needed

• Environment: NEPA “categorical exclusion” granted by DOE Brookhaven Office (BHSO) in May.

• Safety and Health: MOU with CERN in draft status– Kaducak et al. discussed with CERN during September visit

– Generic superconducting object testing issues,

– Added issue: weld needed to close D1 dipole helium vessel, which has a non-circular shape. As far as R. Ostojic knows, US-LHC approach is ok.

• QA: Separate BNL and Fermilab plans, as last time– Fermilab -APUL doc #54; BNL – APUL doc # TBD


HAZARD ANALYSIS

• Hazards are basically the same as those encountered in much of the work in the Fermilab Technical Division and in the BNL Superconducting Magnet Division. APUL work will be carried out by staff familiar with these hazards.

• “The conclusion of the APUL project management is that all major hazards have been identified and can be addressed by the means discussed here and in the references.” – joint Fermilab, BNL Preliminary Hazard Analysis for APUL (APUL doc # 146)


SECURITY

• Security Vulnerability Assessment Report (SVAR)• BNL: Memo, J. Amabile (Manager, BNL Lab Protection

Division) to P. Wanderer, Dec. 23, 2009:– Report On An Assessment of Security Risks at the Brookhaven National

Laboratory and the Accelerator Project Upgrade of LHC-APUL

– “The Accelerator Project Upgrade of LHC-APUL, within the Superconducting Magnet Division, does not result in any changes to the current [BNL lab-wide security] document.”


REQUESTED FROM THIS REVIEW

• Approve CD-1: – selection of alternatives for deliverables– cost range, contingency

• Approve Long-Lead Procurements– Listed earlier in talk; details in M. Anerella talks


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

• Conceptual Design Report, APUL-doc-6• Value Management, APUL-doc-44• FNAL QA Plan, APUL-doc-54• Risk Management Plan, APUL-doc-2• Risk Registry, APUL-doc-49• Preliminary Hazard Analysis, APUL-doc-53• Configuration Management Program, APUL-doc-3• Key Assumption Document, APUL-doc-56• WBS Dictionary, APUL-doc-60• NEPA Categorical Exclusion, APUL-doc-50• Preliminary Project Management Plan, APUL-doc-1• Preliminary Project Execution Plan, APUL-doc-58• Acquisition Strategy, APUL-doc-62


SUMMARY

• APUL leverages US capabilities to made a high-impact contribution (factor of 2-3 increase in luminosity) to LHC.

• Scope well-defined– Close to scope of previous work

– Need to be careful with the details

• Delivery dates firm, float adequate, no scope contingency

• Experienced team in place

• Budget is tight contingency level important

schedule risk, especially from CR


BACKUP


Funding, Obligation, Cost Chart

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

FY09FY10

FY11FY12

FY13FY14

k$

(A

Y)

Cost Contingency

Cost MIE

Cost OPC

Obligation Contingency

Obligation MIE

Obligation OPC

Funding


CRITICAL DECISION PROCESS (1)

• Critical Decision (CD) 0: establish “Mission need”– Signed Oct. 30, 2008 by Ray Orbach

• CD 1:– Internal reviews for Cold Powering (May 6), D1 dipole (May 15), cost

scrub/value engineering (June 19)

– Fermilab CD-1 Director’s Review (July)

– Fermilab CD-1 Director’s Follow-up Review (this one)

– DOE CD-1 review – first week of Dec.• Will request “tailoring” to allow long-lead procurements (LLP), as follows -• D1 production cold masses: superconductor (Jan. 2010), iron, stainless steel

laminations, etc. (Spring 2010) – [delayed schedule – order coil parts, but not cold mass parts]

• Cold Powering: Prototype DFX (Summer 2010)

– DOE CD-1 approval (~ 1 month after CD-1 review)


CRITICAL DECISION PROCESS (2)

• CD-2/3a/3b establish project baseline, order any remaining LLPs, start production– DOE CD2/3a review ~ Summer 2010

– D1 dipole coil production starts Nov. 2010 tailoring for CD3b

– DOE CD 3b full review ~ Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011

• CD-4 (3/31/2014)– CERN shutdowns are most efficiently scheduled to start Jan. 1.

– CERN date for beginning of assembly of string test components, and date for installing remaining components, sets the schedule. Also: LINAC4 completion in 2014.


To do

• Update DOE-APUL org chart (slide 15?)• BNL QA APRL doc #• DOE and Functional Org charts

PROJECT OVERVIEW Peter Wanderer APUL Project Manager APUL CD-1 DOE Review January 20-21, 20010.

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT OVERVIEW Peter Wanderer APUL Project Manager APUL CD-1 DOE Review January 20-21, 20010.