1. LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR J. Blowers, C.M. Ginsburg, T. Peterson, R. Stanek, J. Theilacker (FNAL) 21 – 22 January 2015 Homework Responses

2. 2 Homework questions (1-2/6) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 1.Provide cost & schedule info Camille's slide on cost/schedule from the talk was emailed to the committee. 2.Provide previous action items & responses For EPRs, there is one spreadsheet log for all Cryogenic Systems engineering peer reviews, located in the Systems Engineering & Integration site, under Engineering Peer Reviews/Cryo. The direct link is: https://slacspace.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls/lcls- 2/sei/epr/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2Flcls%2Flcls%2D2%2Fsei%2Fepr%2FCr yo&FolderCTID=0x012000DCF71DA391CEE84087DA49AC89B6E986&View={76FBD827-9D48- 49AD-A932- 2586BD2EC654}&InitialTabId=Ribbon%2ERead&VisibilityContext=WSSTabPersistence https://slacspace.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls/lcls- 2/sei/epr/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2Flcls%2Flcls%2D2%2Fsei%2Fepr%2FCr yo&FolderCTID=0x012000DCF71DA391CEE84087DA49AC89B6E986&View={76FBD827-9D48- 49AD-A932- 2586BD2EC654}&InitialTabId=Ribbon%2ERead&VisibilityContext=WSSTabPersistence -Currently posted EPR action tracking spreadsheet was emailed to the committee. For PDR and FDR, SLAC staff maintain a spreadsheet for each review, generally on the review documentation web site. For Fermilab reviews, the reviewer reports are posted on the relevant indico sites (cited in Camille’s talk )

3. 3 Homework questions (3/5) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 3.Present a ranked list of risks associated with prototype CM production and future installation at SLAC.

4. FNAL Prototype Cryomodule High Level Risks 4 LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 FNAL has two ongoing SRF based efforts => LCLS II and PIP II (R&D stage) and these could collide Both efforts draw from same trained SRF staff and use the same SRF facilities Mitigation: LCLS II has Fermilab’s highest priority Effort underway to create facility redundancy where needed and to add SRF staff to minimize shared resource influences Loss of any of the key personnel would hurt -TD adding experienced SRF people => starting to develop additional backup Continuous monitoring and interaction with Lab management

5. FNAL Prototype Cryomodule Risks (Stanek’s view) 5 LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 FNAL will succeed in completing the design and fabrication of pCM Fermilab’s SRF staff are talented and motivated Understand what is important in the design and how to execute procurements Very good collaboration with JLab  Success of CM-1 and CM-2 gives confidence Prototypes cost more & take longer  reflected in estimates for the work (P6) Performance cannot be guaranteed  that is why we build prototypes -To build up confidence in our design and the components -To exercise the procedures and train the staff  need to have both in place Technical Risks for pCM include: unknown-unknowns  Do we have all of the requirements uncovered? lower cavity performance in CM versus HTS  field emission, spurious low quench… infant mortality of new components  even with extended Design Verification tests microphonics behavior in CM  difficult to simulate until pCM assembled/tested/installed

6. 6 Homework questions (4/6) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 4.Show us the PRD availability requirements for the CM/srf linac and describe how the existing design meets those requirements. Availability in cryomodule PRD: LCLSII-4.1-PR-0146-R0 The LCLS-II should be able to deliver X-rays 95% of the scheduled user time. This imposes tight constraints on the performance of the SCRF linac. As noted in the Linac Requirements PRD, the SCRF linac has 6% spare cavities in case of RF system failure or a failure of the cavity components. This should ease some of the availability challenge. There are only a few cavities that are absolutely critical for operation such as the 1st few cavities in the Injector cryomodule CM01. Details of the availability requirements are described in the LCLS-II Availability PRD. LCLS-II availability PRD is here: LCLSII-1.1-PR-0163-R0 SCRF Linac 99.87% (availability goal)89.8% (start-up availability) Super Conductive RF cryomodule, Cavities, cavity tuners, RF input coupler, cryomodule vacuum. SCRF Linac 6.1 hours (95% availability)9.0 hours (89.91% availability) Out of a 4500 hour user run

7. 7 Homework questions (5/6) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 5.Provide a list of documents that are necessary for the FDR and comment on their completeness.

8. 8 LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015

9. 9 Homework questions (6/6) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 6.Provide a brief summary of the component supply chain/QC strategy for the pCM.

10. 10 "Homework" Question and “Big Picture” Answer LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 "Provide a brief summary of the component supply chain/QC strategy for the pCM" “Big Picture” answer: Fermilab is meeting the requirements as defined in the SLAC LCLS-II QA Plan, and is working within the framework of the Fermilab Integrated Quality Assurance program The work for the pCM is being done within the framework of the Technical Division Quality Management Program Mike Skonicki gave us passing marks from his December assessment

11. 11 The More Detailed Answer LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 All component work, both in-house and with suppliers, is being planned and QC steps are incorporated The normal supplier oversight is applied: Purchase from reputable suppliers When appropriate, bids are evaluated and quality (assuring and controlling) is a critical component Between the Lab Procurement staff, the TD Acquisition staff, and the technical staff (SOTRs), we monitor progress of suppliers We request QC/fabrication reports with fabrications, and perform incoming QC on all items

12. 12 The More Detailed Answer LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 For CM parts we are adopting the use of “QC prints” to define, internally, the incoming QC plan The goal is to have the QC prints ready by the time the order is placed We also complete an “Acceptance Criteria Listing” for each procurement, as per the SLAC LCLS-II QA Plan Serialized components are inspected according to a traveler All discrepancies are recorded and tracked to closure

13. 13 Incoming Inspection Example LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015

14. 14 Incoming Inspection Example LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 Helium vessel leak check traveler: https://vector-offsite.fnal.gov/VectorHardCopy/16037.asp Helium vessel CMM inspection traveler: https://vector-offsite.fnal.gov/VectorHardCopy/16034.asp Acceptance Criteria Strategy list: http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/blowers/Projects/LCLS/LCLS_II/FNAL_stuff/ACS/ACS_list.xlsx

15. 15 Examples of supply chain/QC LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 Example 1: niobium procurement (EPR April 4, 2014) – most complex https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=8385 (Ginsburg presentation) The Nb and Nb/Ti requirements are exactly the XFEL specs; QC will compare as-received with specs, both in material properties and mechanical properties For the niobium sheet, we use exactly the XFEL QC model, with DESY performing the QC For the niobium non-sheet and the NbTi parts, we split the QC function FNAL/JLab (respectively). The effort estimation at the labs was made by QC staff.

16. 16 Examples of supply chain/QC LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 Example 2: GHRP and vacuum vessel review (FDR) https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=9151 (Premo talk) Medium complexity