PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING ILC GDE Executive Committee Edited by - M. Harrison, Brian Foster, Ewan Paterson ILC PAC Meeting

2. ILC Project Implementation Planning CONTENTS of DRAFT DOCUMENT Executive Summary Introduction and General Principles Governance Funding Models Project Management Host Responsibilities Siting Issues In-Kind Contribution Models Industrialisation and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Project Schedule Future Technical Activities Covered elsewhere in PAC review Only a brief review of 50+ page document ILC PAC Meeting

3. Historical Introduction & General Principles • In the early 2000’s there were Asian, European, American and OECD studies in High Energy Physics on possible organisational structures for the project management of a Linear Collider (LC). • Together, these reports laid the foundations for an international organization for the design-development stage of an LC, leading to establishment of the Global Design Effort (GDE) for the International Linear Collider (ILC), the ILCSC and the PAC. • These regional and international reports systematically identified most of the organizational, legal, budgetary and political issues associated with construction and management of an LC project. Many of the issues highlighted in the reports stand as valid questions that still need to be resolved. ILC PAC Meeting

4. Continued Introduction • There is as yet no shared community consensus on the solution model (or models) for addressing these issues during project construction and management and an evolutionary path whereby such an organization can ultimately be put in place. • GDE is engaged in producing a Technical Design Report (TDR) for the ILC Project before the end of 2012 and, synchronously, the detector concept groups are preparing Detailed Baseline Documents (DBDs) under the leadership of the Research Director. The TDR and the DBDs, when completed, will be presented to the communities and interested government agencies. • The PIP focuses on making statements from the standpoint of the primary executor of the research, the GDE, on presenting the preferences from the scientific and technical viewpoints in order to inform the debate as much as possible. ILC PAC Meeting

5. The ILC Roadmap From a White Paper on the Comprehensive Project Design Guidance (CPDG) for the International Linear Collider, prepared by a sub-group of ICFA , ILCSC and GDE. ILC PAC Meeting

6. The ILC Roadmap Planned by GDE into 2013 ILC PAC Meeting

7. The ILC Roadmap Period covered by PIP and ILC construction schedule ILC PAC Meeting

8. The ILC Roadmap WHO ? WHEN? HOW LONG? Not yet in PIP! ILC PAC Meeting

9. Governance Large multinational science projects were studied for their :- Legal Status Management Structure Representation and voting structure in governing body Duration of agreement Attribution of in-kind contributions, value engineering, etc. Running costs & decommissioning Budgetary control & personnel policy They were ALMA; ESS; FAIR; ITER; SKA; XFEL and of course CERN Their “governance” range from :- National or Institutional MOU’s………………………….ESS Limited Liability Corporations…………………………..XFEL GmbH Legal International Entity by International Treaty……ITER Although all of these approaches can be made to work, from these studies we recommend that :- The ILC should be set up as an international treaty organization similar to ITER, taking advantage of zero VAT rating and similar privileges. (However the “devil is in the details”) ILC PAC Meeting

10. FUNDING MODELS • Early reports on governance assumed a “Regional Funding” model with 3 regions and a 50:25:25 funding split. Today, a more realistic assumption is one where there is a “Host” nation and several “Partners” who could be individual nations or groups of nations who agree to fund a minimum share, say ≈ 10%. NOT 100 at 1% • The Host nation or state would still have a “host premium” which would be negotiated and agreed upon in setting up the organisation. Because they have both the local civil construction and a desired involvement and share in the high technology equipment, this share could still be ≈ 50%. This is partially offset by the substantial economic benefits that accrue to the area in which such a leading scientific facility is sited. • This is also consistent with our opinion that a “healthy” ILC organisation has a strong leading partner and host. ILC PAC Meeting

11. FUNDING MODELS cont’d • We concluded that, • “ILC funding model should be based on a substantial host premium together with a “share model”, in which participants contribute an agreed share of the project not naively proportional to GDP or other measures of economic wealth. “ • that “operating costs” should be evaluated at the time of setting up the organization with an agreed upon suitable algorithm. A commonly chosen algorithm is that running costs should be distributed roughly proportional to capital contributions.” of partners. (not experiments) • “Decommissioningshould be the responsibility of the state that provided that WBS item; the Host State should have residual responsibility, including if necessary returning the site to the condition before the project was constructed.” ILC PAC Meeting

12. Project Management • Governing Council, Director General and Project Team Responsible for Site specific Technical Design, Component Specifications, high level Q/A, Installation, Commissioning, Project Schedule, Project Management related to In-Kind Contributions etc. • Member States Collaborators who agree to provide project support, both in-kind hardware and cash. Follow the lead of the Project Team in terms of schedules, component specifications and acceptance and provide manpower and intellectual resources to the Project. They are represented on the Governing Council. • Host State Land acquisition, the majority of the conventional construction, but also in-kind contributions. They are responsible for the local safety standards. regulations and authorizing operation. They are represented on the Governing Council and have a strong coupling to the Project and Project Team. An example is the XFEL GmbH, DESY Project Team and the German Government. ILC PAC Meeting

13. ADDITIONAL HOST RESPONSIBILITIES • It is expected that the ILC population of staff, researchers and families would be of the order of 10,000. The host would have to prepare for suitable social facilities such as housing, schools and medical facilities and a large fraction of these salaries would be spent in the local economy. • There would be a mix of long term (years) and short term (weeks) visitors and the host should assist in expediting the appropriate visa’s and making short term accommodations available. • Prepare for the new laboratory as an International Treaty Organisation with Tax Exempt Status—issues of import duties on Accelerator and Detector Equipment. Employee and visitor issues on salaries, insurance, pensions, visas and resident status. ILC PAC Meeting

14. Siting Issues • The site selection process, it’s definition and assessment is the responsibility of a committee set up by the ILSC. • The GDE is responsible for technical criteria such as site size, necessary power and cooling requirements etc • The PIP includes brief discussions of Machine configuration, Vibration and Stability, Site Infrastructure, Land Acquisition, Environmental Impact, Safety and Health, Risk Factors, Project and Host Responsibilities. • The Technical Design Report will already have designs and cost estimates for different potential sites with quite different characteristics,---- deep under mountains with limited vertical access and underground but with relatively easy access to the surface and facilities on the surface. ILC PAC Meeting

15. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION MODELS • In-Kind contributions have become the norm for large-scale international science projects.The projects studied all have some degree of in-kind contributions Popular with countries or regions who are collaborating on “off-shore” projects. • Despite these advantages there are many difficulties which add complexity to management of the project. Without central control of total funding and resources by the project, the risk to cost and schedule is increased • Adequate common fund in cash controlled by project management can help with many of these problems. • Should be addressed as early as possible in the discussions of Governance and Project Management. ILC PAC Meeting

16. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION MODELS 2 • The total construction cost of the ILC can roughly be divided into three categories: Superconducting RF (SCRF) linac technology (35%) Civil engineering and conventional facilities (48%).  Accelerator systems (17%) • There suitability for in-kind contribution are very different! • SCRF is a special case in that it will appeal to major stakeholders and it is assumed to have multiple suppliers. • Civil construction and conventional facilities are very much the responsibility of the host, however there are opportunities for in-kind contributions (Cryogenic plants, Infrastructure for Power and/or Cooling, etc). These should be encouraged to help spread the large costs between partners. ILC PAC Meeting

17. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION MODELS 3 • Traditional technology in Accelerator Systems lends itself to in-kind contributionsThere are 30,000 magnets and power supplies which could be supplied by many smaller shareholders. • A Member State could propose supplying an integrated system such as a Damping Ring (6%) where interest may extend beyond construction into commissioning and operation. • Manpower from collaborating institutes can also be considered as in-kind contributions and will be necessary for continuing R&D, component testing on and offsite, installation and commissioning. • We should be flexible and maintain competition to minimize total cost. ILC PAC Meeting

18. Industrialization and Mass Production of the SCRF Linac Components Reported yesterday by M. Ross and Akira Yamamoto and in Section 9 of the draft PIP. ILC PAC Meeting

19. PROJECT SCHEDULE • Construction and Commissioning Schedule we assume that the ILC Project has been approved, Governance and Project Management Established, Site Selected, and Funding from Partners Approved. This appears to be a lot of assumptions and could take several years but without these one cannot discuss a Technically Driven Schedule. • The site determines many of the final Civil and Technical design choices and impact the logistics of installation etc • The overall construction schedule is dominated by the Civil Construction schedules which are site dependent and the schedule for delivery of the longest lead Technical Components (SCRF) which will be optimized for cost and funding availability. • An “Example” ILC Construction Schedule is shown as approximately 8 years to completion from first ground breaking, and includes some early commissioning of injector systems. ILC PAC Meeting

20. SCHEDULE ILC PAC Meeting

21. SCHEDULE Main Linacs (SCRF) and RTML, 13km long on each side. The SCRF systems availability is on the critical path schedule Central Region with IR Hall, Injectors and Damping Rings. Civil construction is on the critical path schedule ILC PAC Meeting

22. SCHEDULE for CENTRAL REGION • Civil construction must begin with and give priority to, the Central Region which has the large volume IR Hall, the Electron and Positron Source Systems, Damping Rings and the Beam Delivery Beam-lines. This region has ≈ 12 km of varied size tunnels with alcoves and several access points, vertical or horizontal. Will need to utilize multiple mining technologies. • Goal is detector completion coincident with accelerator. For the benefit of the overall schedule we need early occupancy of the IR hall for detector assembly. • Early commissioning of the Injectors and Damping Rings before the completion of the Linac’s which contain the long lead SCRF components is important for overall schedule ILC PAC Meeting

23. Central Region Systems • Many different systems with “conventional” technology, magnets, power supplies, RF systems. • Commission E+ source E+source and Damping Rings (using auxiliary source) in year 7 and 8 • Complete installation of e+/- linacs and RTML ready for beam at the end of year 8. ILC PAC Meeting

24. SCHEDULE Number and Location of Entrance Tunnels or Shafts is important for Construction and Commissioning Logistics ILC PAC Meeting

25. Construction of the Linacs • Civil construction is site dependent and could be all TBM or all Drill and Blast (Hard Rock) With differing techniques, geologies and number of teams, the horizontal tunnels are complete in year 4. • The tunnels require finishing, installation of electrical services, all piping and mechanical services, cable trays and cables, and are then ready for installation of Cryostats, Klystrons and Modulators. • Sequence of activities moves from the Central Region out to the beginning of the Linacs and has Installation starting in year 6 and finishing by the end of year 8. • This schedule implies the following :- ILC PAC Meeting

26. Linacs continued • Construction and testing of SCRF components that fits a 2 year installation schedule starting in year 6. A 2 year start up and 6 year construction is tight. • Testing and staging of components Some will be on site, but it is likely that for the SCRF, most of this will be at partners sites, “hub laboratories” not “companies?” On-site facilities will have to be part of early civil construction. • In general the careful planning of staging and delivery schedules with partners, will be very important for all systems, not just the linac. ILC PAC Meeting

27. Future Technical Activities Beyond the TDR • The post 2012 or TDR programme will continue to build on the achievements of the SCRF programs, directed towards : Cost reduction, higher gradients while maintaining high Q, using alternate cavity designs, construction and processing techniques and ‘Value Engineering’ with industrial partners.Motivated towards cost effective and energy efficient ILC design at energies higher than 500 GeV center of mass. • In addition to this technology and engineering R&D, it will be desirable to further develop designs that are optimized for a few specific candidate sites. In the TDR there are technical options still being considered that appear to be more or less optimal for different types of sites, in mountains or on plains. More detailed technical and civil studies are required to understand better the impact of specific site characteristics; these will be invaluable in the development of a final proposal. ILC PAC Meeting