Project X Working Group Meeting

January 15, 20082:00 PMSnake Pit

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 2

Agenda• Planning for ICD Cost Review

– DOE 413.3A Requirement– Office of Science Approval Matrix Requirement

• Temple Conversation with Lehman• Holmes Conversations with Procario

– Director’s ICD Cost Review• Draft Charge [Temple and All]• Draft Committee [Temple and All]

– Quick walkthrough of CD-0 Prerequisites for Project X [Temple]– Resource and Schedule Forecast

• Project X’s CD-0 Prep Status [Kerby, McCluskey]• Discussion on Additional Review Preparations [Holmes and All]• Possible Schedule for the ICD Cost Review• If time permits - Project Timeline [Dean and All]• Next Meeting – Third Thursdays [Dean]• Status of Action Items

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 3

DOE O 413.3Actions

Authorized by Critical

Decision Approvals

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 4

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 5

Lehman Comments on CD-0 IPR - 1

• “That’s a technical review.”• For OHEP would probably reference

HEPAP priorities and excerpt something from a HEPAP report. That’s what was done for NSLS-II. They did NOT HAVE a separate Mission Need IPR.

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 6

Lehman Comments on CD-0 IPR - 2

• Lehman talked with Procario early in the new year– Said had shared these comments with Mike– And noted that they could do a “Technical

Review” if that is what is desired by OHEP• Temple relayed this input to Holmes who

said he’d follow-up with Procario

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 7

Draft Charge

Project X Directors Preliminary Mission Need Review Charge I would like you to arrange and chair a Director’s Preliminary Mission Need Review of the proposed Project X early this year. The Committee to review the cost range estimate that has been prepared based on the initial configuration set forth in the Project X Initial Configuration Document (ICD). The HEPAP / P5 June 2008 Report supports three particular future initiatives that rely on the development of a very high intensity proton source at Fermilab: 4 A neutrino beam for long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments: A new 2

megawatt proton source with proton energies between 50 and 120 GeV would produce intense neutrino beams, directed toward a large detector located in a distant underground laboratory

5 Kaon and muon based precision experiments exploiting 8 GeV protons from Fermilab’s Recycler, running simultaneously with the neutrino program: These could include a world leading muon-to-electron conversion experiment and world leading rare kaon decay experiments.

6 A path toward a muon source for a possible future neutrino factory and, potentially, a muon collider at the Energy Frontier: This path requires that the new 8 GeV proton source have significant upgrade potential.

In light of the need to integrate these opportunities into a coherent program for the future of U.S. HEP the committee “recommends an R&D program in the immediate future to design a multi-megawatt proton source at Fermilab and a neutrino beamline to DUSEL… “ Assuming the ICD describes at the early concept level a facility that will meet the Mission Need (multi-megawatt proton source) set forth by the HEPAP / P5 Subpanel, the committee should address the following questions / topics:

1. Is the cost estimate complete? 2. Has the cost estimate been prepared using a sound estimate methodology? 3. Is the schedule set forth reasonable? 4. Are the labor estimates reasonable? 5. Are the materials and services estimated those needed to deliver the facility? 6. Are the estimates for the M&S reasonable at this early stage of the project? 7. Is the estimated contingency appropriate / adequate? 8. Are there ways the cost could be reduced? 9. (Is the PED funding profile adequately defined to support a request for PED funds

later this year?) The Committee should conduct the review, share their findings / comments / recommendations with the Project X Team and Fermilab management in a closeout meeting, develop a report and submit it to the Fermilab Directorate soon after the review.

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 8

Tentative CommitteeProject X Directors Review Committee Assignments

Executive Summary Temple Introduction Hoffer 1.1 Project Management Aesook Byon/BNL, Jerry Nolen/ANL

1.2 LE Linac

Marion White/ANL, Ken Shepard/ANL retired, SNS Suggestion, Tom Wangler/LANL retired, Ali Nassiri/ANL, Richard York/MSU

1.3 HE Linac – have to cover SRF, RF Systems, etc

Marc Ross/FNAL/GDE,Ken Shephard retired ANL, Mike Kelly ANL, Jean Delayen JLab, Robert Rimmer, JLab, Ali Nassiri, Bob Kustom/ANL retired, SLAC Suggestion, John Mammosser/RONL, Warren Funk/JLab, John Hogan/JLab

1.3.1 Cavities, Croymodules, etc 1.3.2 RF – PS, Distribution, etc 1.4 MI/RR Stuart Henderson ORNL, Thomas Roser/BNL

1.5 PX Instrumentation and Controls

John Cawardine ANL, Willem Blokland ORNL, Cornell suggestion

1.6 Controls

1.7 Cryogenics Dana Arenius JLab, Claus Rode JLab; SNS suggesion;

1.8 Conventional Facilities

Marty Fallier BNL/NSLS II, Karen Hellman ANL, Jeff Sims ANL, David Saens SLAC/LCLS, Jack Stellern, SNS CF,Jim Lawson /retured /SNS; Tony Chargin

1.9 8 GeV Transfer Line & Recycler Injection

Kathy Harkey APS, John Corlett LBNL, Deepak Raparia/BNL, BNL Suggestion

Schedule Summary Bill Freeman, Mark Reichenadter/SLAC Cost Summary Boroski, Jim Grudzinski ANL Appendices

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 9

Quick Walkthrough

• The following is a quick walkthrough of CD-0 Requirements for Project X mostly slanted to near term actions to prepare for Director’s Cost Review of the Initial Configuration Document.

• I’ve highlighted slides that were shown and discussed in the September 25 Project X WGM Meeting.

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 10

CD-0 Prerequisites for Project X• Perform Pre-conceptual Planning activities that focus on the Program’s

strategic goals and objectives, safety planning, and design.• Prepare a Mission Need Statement that documents a mission requirement

that cannot be met through other than material means. Additionally, the Mission Need Statement will document the potential hazards and their safety, security, and risk implications.

– DOE G 413.3-17 Mission Need Statement Guide http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/413/g4133-17.pdf

– Mission Need Statement Review. The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer will review the Mission Need Statement and provide a recommendation to the Program Secretarial Officer

• Perform Mission Validation Independent Project Review (Lehman Review). A Mission Validation Independent Project Review is a limited review prior to CD-0 for Major System projects. It validates the mission need and the cost range. A Value Study may also be conducted, as appropriate, to assist in CD-0.

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 11

Other Pre CD-0 Work• Develop estimate to request Project Engineering and

Design (PED) funds. PED funds are requested at CD-0 using a Project Data Sheet as “design only” funds for preliminary and final design. PED funds are not to be used for construction, long-lead procurement, or major equipment items. PED funding requests are developed from historical data or parametric estimates.

• The objectives for the use of PED funds are to:– Improve the accuracy of the project cost estimate and support

establishment of the Performance Baseline– Improve the DOE’s planning, programming, and budgeting

process for the acquisition of projects– Provide funds for Value Management (VM) activities

• PED funds can be made available at CD-1

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 12

Approach

• Planned Approach - describe what has been considered or what will be analyzed as potential strategies

• Assumptions• Constraints

– Technical Risks– Safety Risks– Cost Risks– Schedule Risks– Legal Risks

Identify these risks as input to OHEP as they write the MNS

Develop Cost Risks for Cost Review

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 13

Resource and Schedule Forecast

• Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Range - (-50 percent to +100 percent, for example) of project cost and schedule based on the upper bound of the rough order of magnitude estimate.

• Estimated Cost - resource planning funding profile with a breakout of project engineering and design funds and an explanation of funding needs to proceed from Critical Decision-0 to Critical Decision-1.

• Rough Order of Magnitude Schedule Estimate - identify the estimated dates (fiscal year only) for meeting subsequent Critical Decisions

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 14

Project X CD-0 Prep Status

• See Presentation by Jim Kerby and Elaine McCluskey

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 15

Possible Schedule for the ICD Cost Review

• Initial Thoughts– Week of Feb 16– Week of Mar 16

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 16

Timelines

• If there’s time, I’d like to get an update of current thinking about these possibilities.

• Nearly 3 months have gone by since the September 25 WGM.

• Do we know enough to say one of these is more real than the other?

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 17

Timeline Scenarios

1. Construction Start FY13; PED FY112. Construction Start FY14; PED FY12

• Assumes: April deadline for CD-0 approval and one budget cycle (18 months) for PED funds availability Construction start = CD-3b approval and one budget cycle (15-18 months) after CD-2

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 18

Case #1TimelineCD-0 Spring 09, PED funds FY11

1/1/2009 12/31/2013

1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13

2/09Director's CD-0 Review

2/09DOE Review/IPR for CD-0

4/10Director's/Design CD-1 Review

6/10DOE Review for CD-1

9/10S-2 Approves CD-1

10/11Director's/Design CD-2/3a Review

12/11DOE CD-2/3a Review

5/12S-2 Approves CD-2/3a

10/12Director's/Design CD-3b Review

2/12EIR for CD-2

5/13S-2 Approves CD-3b

12/12DOE Review/IPR for CD-3b

4/09S-2 Approves CD-0

4/09Request PED Funding

2/13EIR for CD-3

11/13Construction Start

5/12 - 11/13BUDGET CYCLE

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 19

Case #2TimelineCD-0 Fall 09, PED funds FY12

1/1/2009 12/31/2014

1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14

7/09Director's CD-0 Review

8/09DOE Review/IPR for CD-0

4/11Director's/Design CD-1 Review

6/11DOE Review for CD-1

8/11S-2 Approves CD-1

10/12Director's/Design CD-2/3a Review

12/12DOE CD-2/3a Review

5/13S-2 Approves CD-2/3a

10/13Director's/Design CD-3b Review

2/13EIR for CD-2

5/14S-2 Approves CD-3b

12/13DOE Review/IPR for CD-3b

9/09S-2 Approves CD-0

9/09Request PED Funding

2/14EIR for CD-3

5/13 - 11/14Budget Cycle

10/14Start Construction

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 20

Next Meeting

• Recurring WGM to be Monthly• Third Thursday of each month from 2:00

PM - 4:00 PM in the Snake Pit (WH2NE)

OPMO 15-Jan-09 Project X WGM 21

New Action Items Person Responsible

Find out if NSLSII had a CD-0 review P Carolan

Provide link to SCMS Office of Science CD-0 Procedure P Carolan to E McCluskey

Add Bruce Strauss to meeting invitation S Holmes

Clarify whether 5-year resource/schedule window is correct timeframe, or would whole TPC schedule/cost range be presented?

P Carolan

Talk to Bruce Strauss about CD-0 approval timing and PED funding request for FY11

S Holmes

Try to locate CD-0 approval documents from other projects E McCluskey/P Carolan

In-progress Action Items

Determine how quickly NSLS-II has achieved its CD’s D Hoffer/E McCluskey

Action Items