Technical Division FY2003 Budget Review

1
Technical Division FY2003 Budget Review

• Bob Kephart
• November 6, 2002

2
Outline

• Mission and Overview of Tech Division
• What we do
• TD Organization and personnel
• FY02 Closeout and Comments
• FY03 Guidance
• FY03 labor plan SWF income from outside
  projects
• FY03 SWF analysis for the Division
• Available MS (shortfall)
• Plan for possible savings
• FY03 Guidance implications for TD budget
• Conclusions

3
Technical Division Mission

• The development, design, fabrication or
  procurement, and testing of accelerator and
  detector components.
• The Technical division provides labor, expertise,
  and facilities for a variety of activities
  related to this mission.

4
What we do

• Provide support for the FNAL accelerator
  complex
• Build accelerator magnets and components
• Repair conventional and SC magnets for the entire
  accelerator complex
• Design/build new magnets and devices as required
  by BD
• Magnets for accelerator improvements
• Magnets for NUMI Mini-Boone beam lines
• Solenoids for Electron Cooling
• Kicker Magnets (new) and other specialty magnets
  devices
• Magnetic measurements
• Operate Magnet Test Facility (MTF) including
  1500W He refrigerator
• Design and build magnetic measurement equipment
• Measure both conventional and SC magnets on test
  stands
• Maintain historical database of magnetic
  measurements

5
What we do Support the accelerator complex

• In FY02 TD took on many new Run II
  responsibilities
• Run II
• RF engineers from TD are helping with Tev RF
  problems
• Measuring Tevatron dipole magnets to understand
  persistent current phenomenon (e.g. Tune drifts,
  150 GeV lifetime losses)
• Recycler work (vacuum upgrade, shutdown,
  management, etc.)
• Instrumentation work (e.g. flying wires),
  software help
• Building Electrostatic Separators
• In the future
• TD provides experienced technicians for shutdowns
• Study and Improve the AP2/debuncher apertures

6
Funding BD work

• Funding from Technical Division Base Budget
• Supports average rate of magnet repairs
• Magnet measurements and MTF Operations
• Support Material Control Dept provides
  specialized procurement services for BD, vendor
  liaison, QC, inventory control for specialized
  materials. MC also manages the magnet spares pool
  for BD.
• Funding via Beams Division
• Funds for new magnets devices are provided by
  BD
• A work list that includes both repairs and new
  devices is maintained by TD. Priorities are
  established via regular meetings with BD.
• The list includes SWF and MS estimates for each
  project schedule
• Traditionally TD has charged against BD codes for
  this work
• We also charged BD for shutdown labor for labor
  for specific tasks.
• Funding policy is changing (Steve). Plan is that
  funds will reside in TD

7
What we do Services and RD

• Labwide Services
• Machine shops, welders (charge-back system)
• Materials Development engineering Labs
  materials expertise, testing facilities, electron
  microscope, etc. (e.g. CDF Si Detector wire
  bonds in magnetic field)
• Material Control (QC, CMMs, etc for entire lab)
• RD (ideally a growing part of the division
  effort)
• SC magnets for future accelerators HFM,
  super-ferric
• Linear Collider NLC RF structures, girders, PM
  quads
• SCRF CKM cavities, A0 3rd harmonic, HBPI
• These activities are also supported by FNAL base
  funding to the TD (except for machine shop)

8
What we do Work for others

• outside projects Work for others
• LHC (IR Quads, management, accelerator science)
• CMS (muon chamber production)
• Pierre Auger ( engineering design/construction,
  project management)
• AHF (Advanced Hydrodynamic Facility at
  LANLdesign large aperture SC quads and
  conventional dipole magnets for 50 GeV proton
  machine)
• LARP ( new LHC Accelerator Research Project
  design 2nd generation LHC quads using Nb3Sn
  technology,commissioning, instrumentation)
• Some projects provide SWF income to TD, but not
  all
• Funding These projects represent a significant
  part of the TDs effort and provide substantial
  SWF income
• In FY02 we got 2,938K in SWF income from these
  outside projects and handled their MS funds

9
How is the Technical Division organized ?

• Matrix management
• Labor and physical resources are managed by
  department heads
• Large Projects or activities have dedicated
  management but obtain the bulk of their resources
  from the departments

10
Numbers indicate people (FTE in brackets)
11
TD Personnel
Load Leveling
Load Leveling
No significant change in the size of TD permanent
Staff in last 4 yrs
12
(No Transcript)
13
FY02 Comments

• FY02 was already a tight year for TD.
• I inherited a TD budget that had no management
  reserve and dept MS budgets were at or near FY01
  levels
• Nevertheless in FY02 TD significantly ramped up
  efforts on Run II tasks to help the Beams
  Division with the luminosity crisis
• Also increased TD effort on magnet repairs
  because we were falling behind (added an engineer
  techs)
• TD now has 55 people working on Run II

14
FY02SWF Contingency Used

• However, we spent less on Run IIb ES separators
  because project started late? we redirected
  327 K of Run IIb funds to cover SWF for
  Run IIa
• SCRF RD ramped up during the year ?we redirected
  158K of SCRF RD funds into SWF
• We were able to add new work for others jobs
  that provided additional SWF to TD (AHF 107K and
  LARP 34K) Total 141K
• Effectively used this 626K as SWF contingency to
  make up for SWF shortfalls in FY02

15
FY02 Comments

• In FY02 TD sold 4,400 K worth of labor to
  outside projects other div/sections
• 1,462K of this SWF income came from BD work
• In FY02 this corresponded to 27 of TDs SWF
• To make a sensible TD budget for FY03, it is
  crucial to understand what these numbers will be
  in FY03

16
FY02 Comments

• In FY02 a total of 5,024 159 4,865 K was
  available to fund MS for inside projects
  (HFM, NLC, SCRF, LFM, etc) and for TD department
  operations
• Overall TD FY02 total operating obligations were
  17,151K vs FY02 budget of 17,101K ? we were
  50.5 K over budget as a division (0.3)
• But TD received 62.0 K for the fringe adjustment
• ?net operating carry over into FY03 is 11.5 K
• The equipment carry over was 11.3 K

17
FY02 the handle

• TD also handles additional MS money for
  outside projects and Beams Division purchases
• In FY02 we managed
• 1,432 K of equipment MS for the LHC project
• 2,916 K of US Auger funds ( 52 M project, 2/3
  are non-US funds)
• 2,679 K for Beams Division purchases via
  Material Control Dept
• 3,612 K of MS and SWF flowed through machine
  shops. (This organization operates a charge back
  system such that it is intended to be cost
  neutral for the division.)
• The total MS SWF handled by the Technical
  Division in FY02 was 28, 951 K

18
Establishing the FY03 Budget

• Our approach to establishing our budget starts
  with the TD staff
• Start with TD staff as of Oct 2002
• Identify the required staffing levels to meet
  FY03 goals
• Determine staff assignments consistent with these
  goals
• Identify the salary support required to support
  this staff
• Identify the SWF income from outside projects
• Estimate the SWF burden on the TD base budget
• Using the FY03 budget guidance, estimate the
  available MS for inside projects and
  department operations
• Iterate and adjust as required

19
FY03 Budget Guidance

• Comments
• We would like the 240 K of equipment in SCRF to
  appear as operating
• We assume that we will just pass SWF increases
  along to outside projects so only SWF supported
  by the TD base budget is affected
• A TD base budget that kept pace with SWF
  increases (4 1.5 fringe increase) and
  inflation ( 3) would have been
  12,127
  1.055 (5,024 262) 1.03 18,239 K
• ? FY03 budget guidance provides 1054 K less in
  real spending in the Technical Division base
  budget vs. FY02

20
FY03 Budget Guidance

• However, to understand the impact of the FY03
  budget guidance on TD we first have to estimate
  the divisions income from outside projects in
  FY03 since they are typically such a large
  fraction of our Division SWF
• We have constructed a TD labor plan for FY03
• It includes all personnel in the TD
• Labor estimates came from both project leaders
  and dept heads and we cross checked to insure we
  are not over/under estimating the
• 1st step to a resource loaded schedule for TD

21
Labor PlanAddress Budget Luminosity Shortfalls

• Goal help with the Run II luminosity crisis but
  maintain the scientific and engineering resources
  in TD
• Goal Meet project commitments
  (LHC,CMS,Auger,AHF)
• Goal Meet NLC commitments and perform
  additional Accelerator RD (HFM,SCRF,LARP) as
  budgets permit
• Our Solution
• Be proactive in taking on as much Run II work as
  we can manage (Assuming we would receive adequate
  funding to support the Division)
• Reduced LC RD and High Field Magnet programs in
  FY03
• Machine Shop personnel are not part of the
  solution since they operate as a cost neutral
  group in the TD
• Establishing staffing levels for the shops is a
  separate exercise
• Adequate funding for MS SWF? adjust shop
  charge-back rate

22
FY03 TD labor plan

• Note Machine Shop Labor people on leave appear
  in the unassigned column (Machine Shop cost
  neutral)
• Next we need to estimate the Divisions SWF
  income

23
FY03 income from outside projects

• Red activities for which we will receive SWF
  funds in FY03 from sources outside the TD base
  budget
• Work for others 27? 30 of FY03 TD SWF budget !

24
FY03 SWF from outside Sources

• 99.7K LARP (LHC Advanced Research
  Program)
• 323.9K AHF (Advanced Hydrodynamic
  Facility)
• 315.8K CMS
• 2526.8K LHC (Quad construction, MTF tests,
  etc.)
• 3266.2K TOTAL
• LARP DOE provisional guidance for FY03 is 750
  K to be split by 3 labs (LBNL,BNL,FNAL). However,
  the program is not yet approved by DOE so only
  300K is allocated now. This is a best guess.
  (up/down ?)
• AHF Work for Los Alamos to design SC quad
  conventional dipole, Project not yet approved but
  RD funds are provided by LANL. Started work in
  FY02. Work continues at FY02/12. Los Alamos would
  like to increase this but cant until they have a
  budget. Note AHF is NOT in the Presidents FY03
  budget at this time but they plan to continue
  RD.

25
SWF for FY03 Beams Div. Projects

• 1595.6K New Magnets Devices
• 245.0K Shutdown (30 techs to BD for 6wk
  shutdown)
• 1840.6K TOTAL
• New Magnets and Devices is the SWF to build
  agreed upon items from the Beams Division/Tech
  Division project list. (see next transparency)
• MS associated with these devices is 437.6 K
• Total required from BD is 2,278.2 K

26
BD FY03 project list

• Richs table here

27
FY03 SWF Analysis

• 17,129K Total SWF in FY03 Labor Plan
• -1,841K SWF to be sold to BD
• -3,266K SWF to be sold to outside
  projects
• 12,022K SWF burden on TD base budget
• Estimated using TD Staff as of Oct 24, 2002
  (assumes 4 SWF increase for FY03, 1.5
  fringe increase to 30)
• Includes salaries for 8.9 FTE contract techs
  (more on this later)

28
Compute available MS in FY03

• 17,185K TD FY03 guidance
• -60K TD FY03 equipment
• 11K FY02 carry over
• 17,136K FY03 operating available
• -12,022K SWF burden on TD base budget
• - 600K SWF contingency (based on
  FY02)
• 4514K MS available for base budget
  projects and TD dept. operations
• Compared to Base Budget MS of 4,866K available
  in FY02

29
MS FY02 vs. FY03

• 4,866K Assume MS for FY03 same as FY02
• -4,514K estimated MS available from previous
  slide
• 352K MS shortfall in FY03
• TD department operations and RD projects
  absorbed inflation in FY02. In some places we
  cannot do this in FY03
• Our previous FY03 RD plan was to significantly
  ramp up efforts on NLC, SCRF, and HFM in FY03.
  (LC effort by factor of two). This is clearly
  not possible with this budget
• Following the Directors guidelines on SCRF we
  need to provide modest MS support for our
  Peoples Fellow (P Bauer) ? 50 K MS
• Need to identify another 402 K of savings
  somewhere in the FY03 TD budget

30
Personnel Issues for FY03

• FY03 hires (Wish List)
• Need a materials person to work on Nb3Sn issues
• Recommended by our DOE and internal review of HFM
  program
• We have a candidate, we even have a plan for
  partial salary support for the first year via
  Work for Others (Supergenics)
• MTF is short of people for operations and
  instrumentation
• Material Control Dept has lost several people
  which we havent replaced, so has the Material
  Development Lab
• Auger is starting to produce beautiful data. To
  capitalize on our investment we should really
  have a postdoc or Associate scientist working on
  data analysis
• A postdoc in the division working on accelerator
  RD makes sense
• FY03 TD Labor Plan assumes we hire no summer
  students
• Clearly we dont know how to finance these hires
• Instead our plan is to lose a number of people
  from TD to make the FY03 budget guidance work

31
Contract Technicians

• Currently we have 10 contract employees on the TD
  payroll (labor plan included 8.9 FTEs in FY03)
• Two contract technicians are assigned to CMS muon
  chamber production. This will end in March 03
  Retraining time is estimated to be gt2 months ?
  plan to keep them until end of project in March
  (1 FTE)
• We need to retain 1 contractor on LHC travelers
  (1 FTE) (perhaps this person could be
  replaced by a PPD tech ?)
• Two contract techs are assigned to the ES
  separator project. Project was to finish in
  March. Beams Division says they want to stop this
  project to save money ? assuming we send them
  home in Dec vs. March we will use (0.5 FTE) in
  FY03 on this task

32
Contract Technicians

• To save money we plan to send the other 5
  contractors home Nov 15 and either eliminate
  their function or replace them with other TD
  workers (1.5/12 x 5 0.6 FTE in FY03)
• Net savings will be 8.9-3.1 5.8 FTE
• Contract workers cost us 48 K per year in SWF
• Can generate 278 K of savings
• These people were doing useful things ! The
  cost will be in reduced TD labor for magnet
  repair, shutdown work, 25 of HFM workforce,
  manage TD drawings documentation, etc.

33
Possible Savings

• 278 K SWF savings from sending contract
  techs home
• 115 K Estimated SWF reduction due to
  forced vacations (assumes no union
  participation)
• Connees estimate 165 K x 0.7
  115 K
• 208 K Estimated savings from attrition
  early retirement
• Estimate from LaDaune
  Connee assumes linear attrition of 5
  people in FY03 2 early retirements (3 more
  possible in the
  machine shop) 297 K x 0.7 208 K
• 601 K Possible savings ? If all of
  these things happen I can fund MS at
  the same level as last year and have
  601-402 199K for MS contingency
• We do not save on forced vacation or attrition
  if the person works on an outside project (30 of
  SWF) since we have to replace this effort to earn
  the income from the project

34
MS assignments FY03 vs. 02
Does not include MS for outside or BD magnet
projects
35
Bottom Line

• Conclude that with ALL these savings we just
  manage with this budget
• However, this budget depends crucially on the
  assumptions about SWF income from outside
  projects and Beams Division
• Caveats
• Income from outside projects has much bigger
  downside errors compared to upside errors (TD
  base SWF budget funds downside errors)
• I am not confident that 600 K correctly reflects
  the downside exposure to our planned SWF income
  in FY03
• Attrition assumes we dont replace people from
  outside projects. However, I may be forced to
  replace the lost person in order to meet project
  goals and/or to get the project income

36
Consequences of this budget

• In past years the Technical Division was
  developing a powerful and growing accelerator RD
  effort. (NLC, SCRF, HFM, LFM)
• In FY03 both because of the luminosity and budget
  crisis, we are forced to slow these RD
  activities and revert to a more traditional role
  in support of the accelerator complex
• This is required, yet as a result, we are
  mortgaging the future by not doing the required
  accelerator RD now

37
FY03 Mortgages the future

• Superconducting Magnet RD is significantly
  slowed. This is one of the core technologies
  required to upgrade the LHC or build a VLHC in
  the future
• No growth in HFM program, labor reduced 25
• LARP effort funded only at a tiny level
• Nb3Sn materials effort is reduced to 50 of FY02
• High field magnets based on Nb3Sn may not be
  ready when the field needs them for the LHC
  upgrade or a future VLHC

38
FY03 Mortgages the future

• The planned factor of two growth in NLC and SCRF
  RD in FY03 will not occur
• The present level of effort on NLC and SCRF is
  sub-threshold if we actually want to build a LC
  any time soon
• We are not acquiring the technological skills
  needed to be the host lab for a Linear Collider
• Budgets for generic SCRF is very small ? another
  key technology required for future accelerators
• High Brightness Photo-injector budget is zero in
  FY03
• Some TD projects are winding down
• CMS muon chambers, LHC quads in two years, etc.
• Plan was for this work force to move to LC RD

39
SCRF in FY03

• Plan was to significantly ramp up RD on
  Superconducting RF at Fermilab in FY03
• CKM cavities, A0 3rd harmonic, HBPI, TESLA,
  generic RD
• Technical Division effort on SCRF was to be
  factor of two bigger than FY02 effort ? started
  ramping up people in FY02
• However the FY03 budget guidance and objections
  to TESLA work by Office of Science in DOE mean
  that we must limit our effort to just CKM, A0 3rd
  harmonic cavities, and a small generic program
• We have cut back SWF on SCRF compared to effort
  level in Sept. 02. At Sept levels FY03 SWF alone
  would have been 1297 K which is greater than the
  FY03 SCRF guidance of 1140 K
• With cutbacks SWF is still 913 K in FY03 ?only
  227 K of MS is available. This really needs to
  be bigger if we are to make progress
• I propose to squeeze MS elsewhere in TD and add
  200 K of MS to SCRF but this violates the SCRF
  guideline (1140 ? 1340 K)

40
FY03 Mortgages the future

• Infrastructure
• Technical Division space in the village is old
  and far from TD central complex. A project is
  being proposed, for an IB3 addition and IB5
  fabrication facility, but the time scale is long
  and approval is uncertain
• 70K is needed just for FESS to prepare the
  proposal. TD will have a difficult time funding
  this effort in FY03.
• The Machine shop infrastructure is also old and
  needs to be refurbished (lots of 1940s vintage
  machine tools)
• In FY03 there is only 71 K of equip. funds for
  the entire division.
• We have a big infrastructure of machine tools,
  CMMs, large ovens, winding machines, MTF
  refrigerator, etc. to maintain
• For the long term health of TD a reasonable
  equipment budget needs to be established and
  maintained to support this infrastructure
• e.g. one big CNC machine costs 500K

41
Future Projects

• We need to plan for the next new TD projects
• Construction of 2nd Generation LHC quads
• Construction of CKM veto detector ?
• Work on HBPI (High Brightness Photo-injector)
• Additional scope for AHF ?
• BTEV quads ?
• Most of these would need seed money of which we
  have none
• However, more than any of these, a healthy RD
  program in the Technical Division is important to
  position FNAL to build the next new HEP
  facility,whatever it is, wherever it is

42
Conclusions

• Can TD survive this budget ? Yesbut it will be
  tough
• It allows TD to put a substantial effort into Run
  II and meet its obligations to CMS, LHC, and
  Auger
• but
• Considerable uncertainty about living within this
  budget
• The overall accelerator RD effort (NLC, SCRF,
  HFM, LFM) will be less than in FY02, and much
  less than the FY03 plan one year ago
• TD infrastructure and capabilities will be
  reduced vs FY02
• We need to add staff to meet our RD goals.
  Instead with this plan TD personnel will go down
  by 14 FTE in FY03
• It does not allow us to capitalize on previous
  investments (e.g. data from Auger, a powerful
  RF group in EF, etc.)
• Ive shown a plan for FY03 but not a
  satisfying one