p25 business 11/1/07 #1 martin cooper, los alamos co-spokesperson for the edm project for...

P25

Business 11/1/07 #1

Martin Cooper, Los AlamosCo-spokesperson for the EDM Project

for presentation to

The nEDM CollaborationMIT-Bates, Middleton, MA

November 1, 2007

Collaboration Business

P25

Business 11/1/07 #2

Outline

A. Meeting GoalsB. Results of the DOE annual reviewC. NSF proposal (Brad Filippone and Doug Beck)D. Budgetary informationE. Funding for optimizing the designF. Collaboration communicationG. MOUH. Engineering and safety reviewsI. The hotel experienceJ. The next collaboration meeting

P25

Business 11/1/07 #3

Meeting Goals

A. Scientific1. Solution to the 3He transport problem2. Evaluation of R&D completed to date

B. Project1. Rate of progress/completion-dates for ongoing

R&D2. CD-2/CD-3a date3. Reacting to funding changes4. Funding for design optimization5. Engineering progress6. Full system test specifications

P25

Business 11/1/07 #4

Results from the Annual Review

A. In general, a very favorable reviewB. The reviewers were surprised at how much

work had been doneC. Five Recommendations – a small number

1. The new R&D activity related to the operating temperature should be investigated and a new plan to address the problem developed and reported to the agencies by the end of the calendar year.

2. Have a cryogenics expert evaluate the layout of the EDM hall at ORNL to ensure that the layout is optimized. Report back at the next annual review.

P25

Business 11/1/07 #5


C. Five Recommendations – a small number3. Provide a new projected date for the CD-2

request, based on progress on R&D activities, and in the context of funding guidance from the agencies.

4. Given the large time span of the project, the CD-2 staffing plan should include a succession plan.

5. Highest priority should be given on behalf of the collaboration and LANL management in finding the necessary scientific, engineering and technical workforce needed to complete the R&D program and demonstrate technical feasibility to ensure a successful path forward for the project.

P25

Business 11/1/07 #6


D. It was a mistake on my part not to have most of the senior investigators and laboratory management present

P25

Business 11/1/07 #7

NSF Proposal

I yield to Brad and Doug

P25

Business 11/1/07 #8

Budgetary Information

Cumulative through September 30 2007 TEC ($M) OPC ($M) TPC ($M) Commitments Accrued: $0.389 $0.143 $0.532 Costs Accrued: $0.130 $0.359 $0.489 Forecasted Expenses $0.030 $0.077 $0.107 Remaining Contingency: $0.221 $0.031 $0.252

P25

Business 11/1/07 #9


New FY’08 DOE Funding Request

Engineering $550k

LLP – Cryogenics $1,840k

Rough contingency $760k

Project Office $200k

Totals $3,350k

New FY’08 DOE Funding Actual

Engineering $550k

LLP – Cryogenics $1,575k

Rough contingency $675k

Project Office $200k

Totals $3,000k

New FY’08 NSF Funding Request for Engineering – $145k+($80k)

New FY’08 NSF Funding Actual for Engineering – Unknown

P25

Business 11/1/07 #10


Table 3. Funding Request to the Agencies ($M). DOE -FY NSF -FY

2006 2006

2007 2007

2008 2008

2009 2008

2010 2009

2011 2010

2012 2011

2013 2012

2014 2013

Total

Request 0.175 1.400 3.575 7.100 2.650 2.300 1.175 0.575 0.025 18.975 NSF 0.200 0.225 2.775 2.150 1.325 0.500 0.575 0.025 7.775 DOE 0.175 1.200 3.350 4.325 0.500 0.975 0.675 11.200

New DOEGuid-ance

0.180 1.200 3.000 1.100 4.000 6.000 3.000 0.575 0.050 19.105

P25


nEDM Project Schedule

CD-0 CD-1

CD2/3a

CD-4

ConceptualEngineering R&D

Time Now

P-Eng R&DF-Eng LLP

Construction

Oper.

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

R&D/CDRDesignLL Proc.Const.

$175 $550$850 $950

$2625$250

$6850 $2650 $2300 $1175 $575 $25

F-Eng

CD-3b

TPC: $18,975,000

Cryo Insert Coil 3He

P25


Funding for Optimizing the Design

A. “Optimizing the Design” is a euphemism for continued R&D that does not impact technical feasibility

B. There is no new money to do this work – rather it is an advance on construction funds that should already have been planned as part of the construction costs and it is not to cover overruns in current R&D efforts

P25



C. The extent to which these funds are spent in 2008, they may delay the cryogenics subsystem, e.g. the money for the liquefier goes for optimizing the design and the liquefier slack is reduced from 416 to 120 days

D. For the NSF funded institutions, it would be a loan to be paid back after NSF construction funds begin to arrive or an advance from the NSF

P25



Guides Kentucky ORNL Indiana Tennessee

Cryogenics NCSU MIT

3He Illinois Duke SFU Brown

Coils Caltech ASU

Central LANL Indiana Berkeley Boston Yale

Electronics Boston MIT Maryland Duke

Infrastructure LANL ORNL

P25


Collaboration Communication

A. It is quite good that people are publishing their work

B. It is not very good that there have been very few technical notes

C. There have been very few phone calls to discuss technical changes that affect more than one subsystem

D. There should be a weekly teleconference of the engineering team

E. It may be that our engineering server can also be our document storage facility

P25


MOU

A. I have written a prototype with Caltech as the Guinea pig; Brad has not seen it

B. The following are excerptsC. It conforms with a LANL standard that has been

forced on meD. It is 8 pages long

P25


MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

Between

Los Alamos National Laboratory

And

The California Institute of Technology

Subject: The contributions of the California Institute of Technology to the neutron electric-dipole

moment (nEDM) Project

Introduction

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth certain understandings between the California

Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), operated by …

P25


MOU

A. Background: … The collaboration has received critical decision one (CD-1) from the DOE for major item of equipment (MIE) #71RE to construct the apparatus to execute the experiment. The collaboration has submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for support of the project, thus reducing the financial burden on DOE. LANL is the lead laboratory for the nEDM Project. For the project to move forward, MOU’s between LANL and each of the other member institutions are required.

B. Purpose: This document describes the scope, organization, division of responsibilities, approvals, reporting, reviews, funding, financial accounting, schedule, and safety for the construction of part of the nEDM MIE by the Physics Department at Caltech. All phases of the magnet system and engineering described below will be accomplished in accordance with the DOE nEDM Project Execution Plan (PEP) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) nEDM Proposal and award letter.

P25


MOUA. Management and Review:

1. Goals and Objectives participating parties:

a. LANL seeks to have Caltech manage the construction of the Magnet and Magnetic Shielding

subsystem, to be a conduit to the NSF for the collaboration, and to host the nEDM Chief

Engineer. In detail, those tasks consist of the following list:

i. Fulfillment of the role of subsystem manager for WBS 1.5, Magnets and Magnetic

Shielding, by Brad Filippone

ii. Fulfillment of the role of co-principal investigator (PI) of the NSF construction grant for

nEDM by Brad Filippone

iii. Construction of the four-layer magnetic shield

vi. Construction of the constant and gradient field coils to the specifications in the conceptual

design report

ix. Supervision of the construction of the 3He-coil ferromagnetic shield by Arizona State

University

xiii. Performance of the full system tests until the specifications of the subsystem are met

xiv. Installation and testing of the magnet system in the main cryostat

xv. Host the nEDM Chief Engineer, Jan Boissevain

P25


MOUb. Caltech will execute these responsibilities via the methodology of their own choosing, but will

work closely with the contractor project manager (CPM), Martin Cooper, to see that all work

is coordinated with the rest of the project. …

The staffing to accomplish these tasks will vary during various periods throughout the

project. The details will be determined by the Brad Filippone. The guidelines are

i. Brad Filippone – at least 70% of his research time

ii. Bob McKeown – at least 20% of his research time

iii. A postdoctoral fellow – at least 70% of his time

iv. 2 graduate students – full time

v. Technicians, engineers, other postdoctoral fellows and graduate students as needed

P25


MOU

3. Responsibilities to the collaboration: The Caltech team will be responsible for all engineering for

this work to the CPM and the nEDM Chief Engineer. The engineering will be subject to internal

or external review by the CPM. It is expected that there will be at least preliminary and final

design reviews. These reviews will emphasize integration with the rest of the nEDM Project.

The Caltech team will be responsible for all ancillary hardware and software code to operate the

equipment. The Caltech team will be responsible to make the following documents available to

the nEDM collaboration: all interface and specification documents, all design drawings, all

operating instructions, test results, and all safety documents. The Caltech team will be

responsible for the installation and testing of the equipment in the full nEDM experiment.

It is expected that after the completion of the DOE and NSF construction projects that Caltech will

continue to maintain the equipment they built, to optimize its performance for the neutron electric-

dipole moment search, and to participate in the experiment through publication of the results.

P25


MOU3. Safety: During the construction of their part of the nEDM apparatus at Caltech, the Caltech

team will follow its own safety program as delineated in the publication from the Caltech

Safety Office, Injury and Illness Prevention Program, to be found at

http://www.safety.caltech.edu/manuals/injury_and_illness_prevention_program.pdf. For all

work performed at other universities or laboratories, the team will follow the local safety

programs. In particular, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), their rules will be in

force.

The Caltech team should expect that at all reviews, their designs and construction will be

required to meet ORNL safety requirements. ORNL will provide a safety contact to explain

their requirements to Caltech. Any identified safety issues should be relayed to the CPM

and the nEDM ES&H Officer, Vince Cianciolo of ORNL.

P25


MOUC. Program Funding and Legal Obligations:

No funds are committed and no legal obligations are created by this MOU. Any binding commitment

for any of the funds or activities discussed in this MOU shall be made under a separate funding

agreement or agreements. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs incurred in carrying out

its responsibilities under this MOU, unless other arrangements are made through future agreements.

.

.

.

In the role of subsystem manager, Brad Filippone has estimated the cost of the above tasks and an

appropriate contingency. These costs will be reviewed again prior to DOE CD-2. The budgets are

documented in the PEP and the NSF proposal.

The funding for this work is expected to come primarily from the NSF. Access to the contingency will

be made available by the CPM and the baseline-change control board following an appropriate

argument for the need. Caltech will be required to make best effort to meet the project schedule.

P25


MOUThe parties have each signed this MOU indicating their acknowledgement of these terms.

California Institute of Technology

Concurred by Bradley W. Filippone ____________________________

Title: Professor of Physics Date: ____________

Approved by Thomas A Tombrello ____________________________

Title: Chair, Department of Physics Date: ____________

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Concurred by Martin D. Cooper ____________________________

Title: Contractor Project Manager Date: ____________

Approved by Jack S. Shlachter ____________________________

Title: Physics Division Leader Date: ____________

P25


Engineering and Safety Reviews

A. There will be both preliminary and final engineering reviews of every subsystem

B. All engineering reviews will be held at ORNL to obtain advanced safety approval of the apparatus and its assembly by nEDM personnel

C. The preliminary review of the cryostat could be as early as February (Jan)

D. The balance of the preliminary reviews and the final review of the cryostat could be as early as the beginning of April (Jan) – A single multiple day session with some outside people

E. All reviews must have reports for DOE to see

P25


The Hotel Experience

A. What did you think of using a hotel for the collaboration meeting?

B. Was it worth the cost and effort?C. If we like it, how often should we use a hotel?

P25


The Next Collaboration Meeting

A. WhenB. Where

p25 business 11/1/07 #1 martin cooper, los alamos co-spokesperson for the edm project for...

Documents