AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting

1
AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting16 Dec 2004

• Agenda
• Review updates (pile)
• Status of cost scrubbing and resource loaded
  schedules (must be complete by 15 Jan, in time
  for the 18-20 LOG review), in addition to what
  has been done, SHOW ROAD MAP TO COMPLETION! -
  (Brown,Pendzick,Phillips and Pearson)
• Beam development plan, Case 1 and 2 update
  (Ahrens)

• Useful Links
• RSVP Project http//rsvp.bnl.gov
• C-AD AGS Project Office http//server.c-ad.bnl.
  gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.htm

2
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review - Update

• Committee Report is on the web at
• http//server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.
  htm
• I havent received guidance from the RSVP Project
  Office concerning this documentread it and stay
  tuned

3
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review - Update

• Some Comments from the report Executive Summary
• The Committee concluded that the proposed scope
  of new work accounting for the increased budget
  requests was reasonable and clearly desirable.
• Only in the area of Beam Development was the
  Committee able to suggest a significant potential
  cost saving, namely reducing the planned time of
  this activity from five to two years, which the
  Upgrade team agreed was worth examining.
• The Committee further recommends that all
  elements of the plan be subjected to future
  reviews to scrub technical content, costs and
  schedules.
• Since overall project cost remains a major issue
  and threat to the project, the AGS Upgrade and
  Experimental Project Teams are challenged to
  collaborate on finding imaginative solutions to
  cost reduction.

4
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review

• Recommendations Booster/AGS Technical Issues
• Perform a detailed survey of cable trays and
  cables, etc. to assess conditions that must be
  repaired for safety reasons. Refine cost
  estimates accordingly.
• Assess risks of repair activities causing safety
  problems with at risk but still serviceable
  cables. Design plan to minimize costs of repairs
  while maintaining safety.
• Consider the impact of limiting upgrades of those
  items specifically designed to make RSVP more
  convenient to operate, as opposed to unable to
  operate. Assess cost benefits in areas of
  controls, improvement of PFN kickers etc.
• Assess impact on RHIC if magnet/ coil replacement
  plan is limited in scope. Compare with present
  status of backup and likely downtime if a magnet
  fails during present operation. Many magnets do
  not have backups. Work out ALARA repair scenarios
  for present vs. more highly activated conditions.
• For the RF and Feedback systems, refine the
  conceptual designs with appropriate experienced
  RF engineering, generate resource-loaded
  schedules and revise cost estimates.
• Develop a contingency plan if the present plan
  fails to produce the required extinction
  performance.

5
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review

• Recommendations Switchyard and Experiment Beams
  Technical Issues
• Freeze production angle, beam aspect ratio as
  soon as possible so detailed design can begin.
• Continue design of Beam Development plan to
  optimize (minimize) cost impact.
• Continue developing requirements for experiment
  interfaces so detailed conceptual design and
  resource-loaded schedules can proceed.

6
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review

• Recommendations Costs
• Organize detailed Cost scrubbing reviews of all
  Booster, AGS and Switchyard major components as
  soon as feasible.
• Consider Table 2.2-1 to suggest possible
  deferment or later staging of portions of
  proposed upgrade plan with possible later
  addition as needed during operations.
• Freeze detector locations, parameters,
  collimating devices as soon as possible to
  minimize engineering costs.
• Consider cost models constraining RSVP to (i)
  only RHIC operation (ii) inside or outside RHIC
  operation to finish total experimental schedule
  as rapidly as possible.
• Consider if KOPIO can be designed to use some or
  all of existing nearby pit.
• Explore if BNL laboratory funds may legitimately
  be used to offset some of the AGS/ Booster
  reliability improvements.
• Consider shortening the beamline commissioning
  (Beam Development) program if necessary at cost
  of lower quality beams during initial 1-2 years.

7
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review

• Recommendations Schedule
• Investigate ways to achieve an accelerated,
  significantly shorter commissioning and
  experimental operating schedule. Consider both
  Life-Cycle and Opportunity Costs.
• Investigate reducing the execution time of the
  AGS Upgrade by
• an accelerated development program, and
• reducing scope wherever possible to minimize time
  to completion of installation and commissioning.
  Consider supporting planned incremental upgrades
  on an as-needed basis during future operational
  downtimes to reduce costs.

8
4-5 Nov 04 AGS Review

• Recommendations Management
• Complete drafts of the Project Execution and
  Project Management Plans including an accurate
  assessment of the key technical risks, realistic
  analyses of cost risks through detailed
  bottom-up modeling, realistic personnel planning
  across the board aided by resource-loaded
  schedules, and a critical evaluation of
  availability of personnel to match the needed
  ramp-up.
• b. Once the draft plans and supporting work are
  complete, the RSVP project managers should
  organize reviews to strongly focus on technical
  justification, cost and schedule scrubbing of
  overall system scope and key subsystem
  components, particularly those requiring RD.
• c. RSVP management needs to challenge the entire
  RSVP Team to explore together imaginative ways
  to eliminate, reduce or defer construction costs.
  Some possibilities are
• Constrain proposed upgrades to items vital to
  meeting the RSVP minimum beam requirements and
  non-interference with RHIC.
• Explore deferment of changes that are designed
  mainly to minimize MTTR for RHIC, such as
  stocking of magnet spares, replacement of
  controls systems, redesign of kicker magnet
  drivers, etc. to later as needed repairs or
  upgrades.
• Explore a future operating fund set-aside for
  repairs on an as-needed basis.
• Significantly reduce or eliminate Beam
  Development proposal designed to prepare beams
  for maximum levels on Day One of experimental
  engineering and data runs.
• Explore global changes to plan to reduce
  life-cycle costs such as more rapid completion of
  MECO while initially delaying KOPIO buying more
  running hours earlier to accelerate completion of
  MECO without beam sharing with KOPIO buying more
  running hours later to accelerate KOPIO
  completion.
• Consider capital costs, operating costs,
  Life-Cycle costs and (lost) Opportunity costs in
  all scenarios.

9
RSVP Cost and Schedule Review, 9 Dec 2004

• Guidance, agenda and presentations can be found
  at http//rsvp.bnl.gov/Project_Office/Reviews/RSV
  PCSDec2004.htm
• Attendees Goldberg (NSF), Firestone, Willis,
  Kotcher, Kirk,
• Hebert, Marx, Pile, Littenberg, Bryman, Zeller,
  Molzon (telephone)
• An outcome of the meeting
• Cost Roll-up of RSVP
• WBS 1.1 RSVP Project Office 20.5M
• WBS 1.2 K0PI0 106.9M
• WBS 1.3 MECO 94.6M plus (several omissions
  not added in)
• WBS 1.4 AGS 69.2M (with 3 years beam
  development)
• TOTAL 292.1M plus
• i.e. Costs are now an openly recognized problem
  for the NSF..

10
RSVP Detector Capabilities, Simulations and
Backgrounds Review (11-13 Jan 2005 at NYU)
We are not directly involved (Don, Wuzheng,
Kevin, Kin (1 day) and I will attend as observers)

• RSVP Simulation and Background Review Committee
• Ed Blucher, University of Chicago
• Martin Cooper, Los Alamos
• Cy Hoffman, Los Alamos
• Patty McBride, Fermilab
• Jack Ritchie (Chair), University of Texas, Austin
• Mike Shupe, University of Arizona
• Bob Tschirhart, Fermilab
• Koji Yoshimura, Osaka University
• Charge and Agenda
• http//server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/simulations_c
  harge_agenda.pdf
• Detailed agenda is in preparation

11
Resource Loaded Schedule Review(18-20 Jan 2005)

• Tom Kirk is responsible for the review and
  will be conducted a committee appointed by Tom,
  the Laboratory Oversight Group (LOG)
• Guidance from RSVP Project Office
• It will be a cost and schedule review, delving
  as deeply as possible into the justifications for
  each, documentation, etc..charge and agenda
  should be out this weeka close look at the cost
  and schedule, their basis, and the backup
  documentation -- both in place, and in planning.
• Subsystem Managers will be directly involved in
  this review!

12
Guidance our plan(subject to change we have
not yet received guidance from Willis/Kotcher as
result of the 10-12 Oct MECO Magnet, 4-5 Nov AGS,
and 9 Dec Cost and Schedule Reviews changes
since 18 Nov meeting is red)

• Continue cost scrubbing and schedule development
• Highest priority to AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1.4.1
• Cost scrubbing, what can we postpone until
  operations phase? etc
• Schedule in particular a plan to get the
  AGS/BOOSTER in shape for high intensity beam
  development --- by beginning of 3rd year of
  construction?
• Beam development plan that fits within constant
  effort RHIC budget scenario with 2 beams i.e.
  figure on 80 hrs/week and 15 weeks/year
• Case 1 Beam development during entire 5 year
  construction period (looking less and less
  likely)
• Case 2 Beam development beginning 3rd year of
  construction
• The construction plan should be developed
  consistent with no beam development in first two
  years of the project (Case 2 above) unless short
  run(s) outside RHIC operations is (are)
  critically needed
• D-line decommissioned
• C-Line available beginning of 3rd year for tests
• theres a risk (small) that we may have to revert
  back to the original plan (Case 1).
• All costs scrubbed and resource loaded schedules
  available for review for all major projects with
  DRAFT first pass at full integration into a
  master schedule deadline, 15 Jan 05, needed for
  Kirks 18-20 Jan LOG Review.. All experiment/AGS
  interface issues are not expected to be resolved
  by this date
• Use AGS Project Office account number for this
  work!

13
next significant events
14
Message from Steve Kane (today) We have
implemented web-based reporting to provide status
tracking and simplify input. The new Reporting
Center also provides an archive for the monthly
reports. You can get to the reporting center via
the RSVP Project Office web page,
http//rsvp.bnl.gov/Project_Office/RSVPProjectOffi
ce.htm, or you can go directly to the RSVP
Reporting Center at http//www.c-ad.bnl.gov/rsvp/r
svp_index.pl. The RSVP Reporting Center should be
used for the December RSVP Monthly Report. The
pages are intended to be self-explanatory, but
please e-mail if you have questions or
problems. So Al, Kevin, Dave and Charlie
enter your monthly reports directly into the
system by the end of each month (Im out of the
loop! except for editorial changes and Project
Office input)
15
Next Meeting

• 30 Dec 2004
• Agenda
• Status of cost scrubbing and resource loaded
  schedules (must be complete by 15 Jan, in time
  for the 18-20 LOG review), in addition to what
  has been done, SHOW ROAD MAP TO COMPLETION! -
  (Brown,Pendzick,Phillips and Pearson)
• Beam development plan, Case 1 and 2 update
  (Ahrens)