1. Collaboration Business
Martin Cooper, Los Alamos
Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project
for presentation to
The EDM Collaboration
Los Alamos, NM
January 22, 2006

2. Outline
a) Election of new collaborating institutions
b) Excerpts from the critical decision(CD)-0 document
c) Project organization
d) DOE order 413.3
R&D funding for FY’06
Work breakdown structure
Undertaking work package responsibilities
The next collaboration meeting

3. EDM Executive Committee
Doug Beck – University of Illinois
Brad Filippone – Caltech
Bob Golub – North Carolina State University
Haiyan Gao – Duke University

4. Excerpts from the CD-0 Document
The CD-0 document has not been released
Excerpts come from a document provided by Jehanne Simon-Gillo, DOE Office of Nuclear Physics

5. Election of New Collaborators
Petitioners approved by the EDM Executive Committee
University of Tennessee
Arizona State University
Recruits
MIT
Boston University
Argonne National Laboratory

6. CD Schedule
Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date):
Funding Profile
CD-0 Approve Mission Need
Q1 2006
CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range
Q4 2006
CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline Range
Q4 2007
CD-3 Approve Start of Construction
Q1 2008
CD-4 Approve Start of Operations
Q4 2013

7. Funding Profile
These are actual year dollars.
This is the upper part of the DOE TPC range with no slop allowed.
TPC range includes CDR, R&D, design (PED), fabrication, preops (commissioning).
Dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars.
Schedules imply that you can baseline the project in two years after $1.3M of design and R&D efforts. Starting in FY08, EDM would complete final design and start fabrication.
You may decide that the schedule is too aggressive and that CD2 would happen in FY08 instead.

8. Funding Profile

9. Funding Profile Fiscal Year Coolaboration Funding Profile DOE Funding
FY07
2,400
1,300
FY08
6,800
3,500
5,500
FY09
5,000
4,450
6,850
FY10
2,200
4,650
FY11
800
3,000
FY12
1,050
Estimated total
project costs:
17,200
18,300

10. Allowable Project Costs
NP general guidance on how to cost labor to a project in the context of existing research core bases at universities and laboratories:
- University scientific labor should be identified, but wages zeroed out, unless the scientist is acting as a project manager. University engineers, designers and technicians contributing to the fabrication of the project should be costed. Graduate students hired specifically to perform technician activities on the project should be costed at the appropriate hourly rate.
- Laboratory scientific labor (research physicist or accelerator physicist) should also be identified and zeroed out unless the individual is performing well-defined engineer, design or technical tasks that are typically only assigned to engineers, technicians and designers, or project management. If a scientist is performing a task that is best performed by a scientist instead of an engineer, technician or designer, then they are generally not part of the project costs.

11. Next Steps
Identify CPM and FPD by the end of the month.
Provide feedback on CD schedule, cost profile (but be prepared to live with as is) – January-ish
Define what funds you need for CDR – if you want funds in January, DOE needs your input by December 12th, otherwise you are looking at February.
Submit updated R&D request- increments of $50K up to $300K DOE dollars and additional for NSF. Present big picture. Identify which ones could be covered with NSF funding – end of December would be good.
Get your WBS in order- before CD-1 review

12. Next Steps
Start on drafts of management plan, CDR and acquisition strategy that will all be needed for CD1 review- we need to start iterating on management plan about 6 weeks prior to review and the acquisition strategy 8-10 weeks prior to review.
Do ping David Arakawa (FNPB FPD) for advice on what to generate for CD1.

13. Contract Project Manager (CPM)
The individual responsible to the funding agencies to document the scientific quality, the fiscal responsibility, and the adherence to schedule of the project
The individual responsible to track the project and to urge the collaborating institutions to meet their commitments
The individual responsible to prepare the collaboration for the CD reviews
MDC has petitioned the EDM executive committee for a recommendation to the collaboration to become the CPM

14. Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar
Acquisition Executive
Jehanne Simon-Gillo
Program Manager
Los Alamos Site Office
Eugene Colton
Federal Project Director
NSF Nuclear Physics
Brad Keister
Program Director
DOE/NSF
LANL/EDM
LANL Physics Division
Jack Shlachter
Division Leader
LANL EDM
Martin Cooper
Contract Project Manager
EDM Spokespersons
Martin Cooper, LANL
Steve Lamoreaux, LANL
Institutional Principal Investigators
EDM Executive Committee
Spokespersons
Four PIs
EDM Interface to the NSF
NSF Funded PIs
Integrated Project Team
Subsystem Managers
Work Package Leaders

15. Interactions with the NSF
CPM is the principal contact by DOE mandate
With a CPM from a DOE funded national laboratory, the CPM can make no impact on the NSF without the direct involvement of the NSF funded PIs
We must work out a cooperative arrangement between the project and the NSF

16. Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar
Acquisition Executive
Jehanne Simon-Gillo
Program Manager
Los Alamos Site Office
Eugene Colton
Federal Project Director
NSF Nuclear Physics
Brad Keister
Program Director
DOE/NSF
LANL/EDM
LANL Physics Division
Jack Shlachter
Division Leader
LANL EDM
Martin Cooper
Contract Project Manager
EDM Spokespersons
Martin Cooper, LANL
Steve Lamoreaux, LANL
Integrated Project Team
Subsystem Managers
Work Package Leaders
EDM Safety Officer

17. Integrated Project Team
DOE Federal Project Director (Chair)
Eugene Colton
DOE Site Contracting Officer
TBD
DOE Program Manager for EDM
Jehanne Simon-Gillo
DOE Science Program Manager
Gene Henry
NSF Program Manager
Brad Keister
LANL Contract Project Manager
Martin Cooper
LANL Deputy Contract Project Manager
John Tapia
LANL Procurement Operations Manager
LANL Chief Engineer
Jan Boissevain
LANL ESSH Lead
ORNL Operations Manager
C-AD Assistant Chair for Administration

18. DOE Order 413.3
A roughly 50 page document that sets the rules for DOE procurement of capital equipment
For projects between $5-20M, defines how the project must be executed

19. CD Schedule
Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date):
Funding Profile
CD-0 Approve Mission Need
Q1 2006
CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range
Q4 2006
CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline Range
Q4 2007
CD-3 Approve Start of Construction
Q1 2008
CD-4 Approve Start of Operations
Q4 2013

20. Work for CD-1 by June/August 2006
Strengthen the collaboration
Fill out the organizational chart
MOUs with Subsystem Managers’ Organizations in draft form
Complete conceptual engineering
Values Engineering Assessment
Complete most of the R&D
Conceptual Design Report (CDR)
Risk Analysis
Alternatives Analysis
WBS (Resource Loaded) and WBS Dictionary
Hazard and Safety Analysis
Preliminary Project Execution Plan
Acquisition Strategy

21. CD-1 Priorities
Funding Profile
Federal Project Director
Gantt Chart for CD-1

22. Work for CD-2 by August 2007
Complete preliminary engineering?
Complete all of the R&D
Get NSF funding in place
Technical Design Report (TDR)
Risk Analysis
WBS and WBS Dictionary
Project Execution Plan
Acquisition Strategy

23. Project Safety
DOE Order will be revised to expressly require the highest safety standards
EDM will be done at a national laboratory - ORNL
Two stories

24. Teleconferences with DOE
One hour at 11 AM MST on the third Thursday of every month
On occasion, MDC may call on collaboration members to participate
Regular participants:
DOE
Jehanne Simon-Gillo
Wlodek Guryn
Gene Henry
Eugene Colton?
EDM
Martin Cooper
John Tapia
Bill Louis – LANL NP Program Manager

25. Coffee Break
Enjoy!

26. R&D Priorities Highest Priority
3He relaxation time from T = K at the proper concentration, including a SQUID NMR signal
Neutron storage time at ~4 K in a cell coated with deuterated polystyrene
Light collection design with the expectation of ~40 photoelectrons
Reliable valves
Understanding the geometric phase systematic error
4He dielectric strength at low pressures or for a presurized superfluid
Moderate priority
Surface HV breakdown of acrylic and the Kerr effect
3He evaporator
3He injector volume test
Beamline and measurement cell neutronics Monte Carlo
Quite Useful
Magnet development
Atomic magnetometers
Laser induced flourescence

27. The Request - $300k
The following is a prioritized list for a funding request to your office for
the EDM project FY'06:
$87k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development
$87k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally
$25k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies
$50k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies
$25k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development
$25k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect.
We are postponing neutron guide and fluorescence studies as a cost
savings for this year.

28. The Request - $300k
The bigger funding picture for EDM funding includes:
$ k to the universities for R&D, primarily for Caltech and Illinois, from the NSF. An NSF grant could reduce the DOE load above but would come much later in the FY.
$115k for Paul Huffman and Bob Golub at NCSU as a capital equipment request to Gene Henry. There is complete overlap with the request above and this request to Gene. The LANL commitment to NCSU may inhibit LANL finishing its R&D program.
$50-75k for CDR/project management from Don Rej, head of LANL's Office of Science
$200k for 3He diffusion studies and equipment from LANL LDRD
$300k for technicians and engineers from LANL LDRD for R&D (The balance of LDRD funding pays physicists' salaries.)
The Duke and NCSU people wanted me to ask if any granted funds to
them could go directly to TUNL instead of going through LANL.

29. The Grant - $150k less $5k
$00.0k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development
$60.0k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally
$17.0k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies
$34.0k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies
$17.0k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development
$17.0k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect.

30. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Needs to be reviewed to see that it makes sense
Needs to be brought into conformance with DOE standards
Some complaints from Simon-Gillo
Some complaints from the LANL review committee

31. WBS Subsystem Managers
Neutron Beam Line and Shielding
Cryogenics, 3He Systems, Atomic Beam Source and Interface
Magnets and Magnetic Shielding
High Voltage, Measuring Cells, Light System, SQUIDs
Electronics, Computers, Simulations, Data Analysis
Conventional Construction
Integration and Commissioning

32. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost
($k)
Leader
Neutron Beam Line and Shielding
Beam Splitter
467
1476
Splitter Magnets
459
242
Spin Precession Magnets
317
132
Beam Line Shielding 44 15
Experimental Hall Shielding
106
105

33. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
Cryogenics, 3He Systems, Atomic Beam Source and Interface
Upper Cryostat and Radiation Shield
973
994
4He Purifier
450
261
Polarized 3He Storage Region
345
150
Lower Cryostat and Radiation Shield
745
1041
He Tubes & Holding Coils
281
102
He Refrigerator
524
1240
2nd Dilution Refrigerators
820
803
Cryogenic Support Equipment
290
374
Polarized 3He Transport
379 33

34. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
Magnets and Magnetic Shielding
5 Layer Conventional Shield
502
1001
Superconducting Shield
1016
143
Ferromagnetic Shield
589 79
Magnetic Penetrations
884 49
Constant Field Coil
1022
173
Gradient Coil
Pi/2 Coil
868 30
Dressed Spin Coil
202
3He Polarization Holding Coil
379
Field Monitors
913
121

35. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
High Voltage, Measuring Cells, Light System, SQUIDs
Gain Capacitor
462 73
Electrodes and Corona Dome
402 41
Connecting HV Line
280 20
Kerr Rotation HV Monitor
225 43
Measurement Cells
184
153
Valves
768
812
SQUID System
913 77
Light Guides
248 88
Cryogenic Feed Through
259 39
Photomultiplier Tubes 60 22

36. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
Electronics, Computers, Simulations, Data Analysis
Electronics & Cables
126
291
Computers
224 87
Data Acquisition
Data Analysis
Neutron Transport Simulation
Neutron Induced Background Simulation
Signal Simulation

37. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
Conventional Construction
Platforms
180
160
Electrical Plant
305
299
Plumbing
297
340
Mechanical Supports
583
457
Counting House 42 20

38. WBS Work Package Leaders
Subsystem
Work Package
Days
Cost ($k)
Leader
Integration and Commissioning
Mechanical Assembly of Parts
315
338
Vacuum Checking 42 24
Trial Cool Down and Operation
158
169
Commissioning
118 85

39. Undertaking Resonsibilities
At the next collaboration meeting, as many names as possible need to filled into the list of subsystem managers and work package leaders as possible
The blanks will tell us tell us where we need to recruit new institutions
Homework:
Between now and the next collaboration meeting, think through what your institution can commit to doing
Be prepared to state what responsibility you will undertake
Negotiate affiliations to team on larger projects
Do not over commit

40. The Next Collaboration Meeting
Week of March 6-10, 2006
At NCSU